5 ms·

No, he 100% failed the test.

michaelt 2y ago
Well yes, clearly in terms of supporting and defending the Constitution, the military should have shown up to defend the capitol in far more timely manner. But honestly, as a foreigner I was just glad the military didn't come down on the side of Trump. As I understand it the leaders of the military are appointed by the president, people in the military love guns and gun rights, and veterans are pro-Trump by a wide margin [1] even following Jan 6th. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-veterans-remain-a-republican-group-backing-trump-over-harris-by-wide-margin/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-...
- jeffrallen 2y ago
  The leaders of the American military love the constitution, and one relatively small thing on it is gun rights.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    Sure - the gun rights stuff is just me saying it makes sense why the military could skew Republican. The linked survey saying veterans are 61% pro-Trump vs 37% pro-Harris sounds plausible. Loving the constitution is all very well, but Republican voters and senators seem to manage to square that with supporting Trump. Makes no sense to me, but apparently to 50% of the American population it does. So IMHO the military could plausibly have backed a Trump coup, if the coup had been better planned. And I was glad when they didn't!
    - gadders 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - michaelt 2y ago
        There's that love of the constitution squared with supporting Trump that I was mentioning.
      - rob74 2y ago
        Trump intended to stay in power although he lost the election. As long as we agree on that, I don't see how you could not call it a coup. It only failed because there still were some people with a backbone around, among them Mike Pence. There are fewer of them this time.
        gadders 2y ago
        [flagged]
- psunavy03 2y ago
  > As I understand it the leaders of the military are appointed by the president, people in the military love guns and gun rights, and veterans are pro-Trump by a wide margin [1] even following Jan 6th. This is a caricature that is as broad-brushed and offensive as claiming gay men all flounce around in assless chaps, and I say that with 20 years active and reserve service. Even in that poll (which I am curious about their methodology), 40% of veterans supported Harris, and my experience is that the military is a cross-section of society. I'm deeply skeptical that the modern military is as skewed towards one party as this poll would indicate. I highly suspect it is being skewed by either bad methodology or else by including a bunch of older veterans from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War, who would skew Republican. The military I served in was a diverse cross-section of broadly middle-class American society. And the leaders of the military are commissioned officers who are formally appointed by the President, but their oath is to the Constitution. And military leaders have served through bipartisan administrations . . . my own service was under W. Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden, and today's senior leaders also would have served under Clinton and possibly H. W. Bush. There is no MAGA cabal in military senior leadership; the opposite if anything. And just because someone "loves guns and gun rights" doesn't automatically put them in the MAGA column.
  - Forgeties79 2y ago
    >and offensive as claiming gay men all flounce around in assless chaps I agree they are painting with a broad and inaccurate brush but to compare it to the stereotypes queer people have to endure, especially in the current social/cultural moment playing out in the US, is honestly far more offensive IMO. Those two situations are not on the same playing field. People in the armed forces (who aren't LGBT) do not know what it's like at all to be judged like the queer community.
    - psunavy03 2y ago
      The point isn't to belittle or minimize discrimination against LGBT people. The point is to try to get someone who presumably supports LGBT rights to understand how it comes across to still make prejudiced remarks against other groups of people by comparing it to another well-worn and offensive stereotype.

Well yes, clearly in terms of supporting and defending the Constitution, the military should have shown up to defend the capitol in far more timely manner. But honestly, as a foreigner I was just glad the military didn't come down on the side of Trump. As I understand it the leaders of the military are appointed by the president, people in the military love guns and gun rights, and veterans are pro-Trump by a wide margin [1] even following Jan 6th. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-veterans-remain-a-republican-group-backing-trump-over-harris-by-wide-margin/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-...

jeffrallen 2y ago
The leaders of the American military love the constitution, and one relatively small thing on it is gun rights.
- michaelt 2y ago
  Sure - the gun rights stuff is just me saying it makes sense why the military could skew Republican. The linked survey saying veterans are 61% pro-Trump vs 37% pro-Harris sounds plausible. Loving the constitution is all very well, but Republican voters and senators seem to manage to square that with supporting Trump. Makes no sense to me, but apparently to 50% of the American population it does. So IMHO the military could plausibly have backed a Trump coup, if the coup had been better planned. And I was glad when they didn't!
  - gadders 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - michaelt 2y ago
      There's that love of the constitution squared with supporting Trump that I was mentioning.
    - rob74 2y ago
      Trump intended to stay in power although he lost the election. As long as we agree on that, I don't see how you could not call it a coup. It only failed because there still were some people with a backbone around, among them Mike Pence. There are fewer of them this time.
      - gadders 2y ago
        [flagged]
psunavy03 2y ago
> As I understand it the leaders of the military are appointed by the president, people in the military love guns and gun rights, and veterans are pro-Trump by a wide margin [1] even following Jan 6th. This is a caricature that is as broad-brushed and offensive as claiming gay men all flounce around in assless chaps, and I say that with 20 years active and reserve service. Even in that poll (which I am curious about their methodology), 40% of veterans supported Harris, and my experience is that the military is a cross-section of society. I'm deeply skeptical that the modern military is as skewed towards one party as this poll would indicate. I highly suspect it is being skewed by either bad methodology or else by including a bunch of older veterans from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War, who would skew Republican. The military I served in was a diverse cross-section of broadly middle-class American society. And the leaders of the military are commissioned officers who are formally appointed by the President, but their oath is to the Constitution. And military leaders have served through bipartisan administrations . . . my own service was under W. Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden, and today's senior leaders also would have served under Clinton and possibly H. W. Bush. There is no MAGA cabal in military senior leadership; the opposite if anything. And just because someone "loves guns and gun rights" doesn't automatically put them in the MAGA column.
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  >and offensive as claiming gay men all flounce around in assless chaps I agree they are painting with a broad and inaccurate brush but to compare it to the stereotypes queer people have to endure, especially in the current social/cultural moment playing out in the US, is honestly far more offensive IMO. Those two situations are not on the same playing field. People in the armed forces (who aren't LGBT) do not know what it's like at all to be judged like the queer community.
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    The point isn't to belittle or minimize discrimination against LGBT people. The point is to try to get someone who presumably supports LGBT rights to understand how it comes across to still make prejudiced remarks against other groups of people by comparing it to another well-worn and offensive stereotype.