-30 points

I know hes doing it for shitty republican reasons, but are dems really gonna rally around more military spending?

permalink
report
reply
34 points

It’s not about military spending. It’s about having leadership in place if we ever go to war. This ass-hat is destabilizing our military when we really need to be ready.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-46 points

Having leadership in place so we can start more wars.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

sure

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

He’ll just hold all the spots open in case Trump is reelected. That means this time the insurrection will have military backing. Kind of like the Supreme Court seat.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-24 points

Its the department of defense, its in the executive branch, the president can, and trump did many times, make spots open when they want. So this has no bearing on any future presidencies. Its just military spending now for the already most expensive military in the world with a tendency to bomb other countries. What a shame that they cant do that as efficiently right now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

He’s only holding up military leadership. Whatever he’s saving is a tiny drop in the ocean of military spending. What he’s really doing is killing readiness. He’s also making sure that these spots can’t be filled by anyone who would owe allegiance to the Democrat party (despite the fact that none of them should owe allegiance to either party).

This is laying the groundwork for a coup and hurting our ability to prepare for and participate in conflicts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The President is the Commander in Chief - he could override all those decisions on who to promote, theoretically. At least that’s how I understand it.

If they have a smart group that is actually planning this, that group could then vet a bunch of other people that their data suggests would be more amenable to their agenda and present a list of alternate promotions to the Republican president, which he could then order the military to make happen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

This is a terrifying scenario, but unlikely and I don’t think his scheme.

He isn’t holding out for alternate candidates. He just wants the Pentagon to reverse its abortion policy. If he were doing this to get alternative candidates approved, it would require alternate recommendations coming from elsewhere in the military, which isn’t occurring, and the Senate democrats wouldn’t approve them anyway.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Just because it won’t work doesn’t mean he isn’t trying it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

I still find it hilarious that Tuberville has effectively become one of the best anti-military politicians, even if his reasons for doing so are completely unexpected.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

And it has hurt his constituents. I’m sure it played a role in deciding to put the USSF HQ in Colorado vs Alabama where it was tentatively announced it would be.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

This dude is such a turd.

permalink
report
reply
29 points

“I basically encouraged sexual abuse of the students in my care, for 20 hours a day!!!”

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Wait. Gymnasium Jim Jordan did that.

Did coach tubs do it too? I thought he got fired for basically forcing kids to participate in his prayer sessions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Oh yeah. Sorry. That was Gym. They all blur into one another.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Man I get that. Wouldn’t have been surprised if Tubs did it too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

I wonder if Tuberville was involved in an sports related sex abuse scandals like his colleague Jim Jordan was.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Now, now, Tuberville is in the Senate, not the House… totally different group of assholes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2023/09/14/kennedy-senate-gender-queer-maia-kobabe/

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 450K

    Comments