The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Donald Trump, Draft Dodger: Why It Matters
Source:
The Resurgent
URL Source: http://theresurgent.com/donald-trump-draft-dodger-why-it-matters/
Published: May 18, 2016
Author: Anne Evans
Post Date: 2016-05-31 19:18:56 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 20499
Comments: 67
The United States drafted both my grandfathers and my great uncle for World War II. They weren’t eager for war. They weren’t eager to pick up a gun. But when Uncle Sam called, they answered. They did their duty and they fought for their country because that’s who they were, men of integrity. Not quite thirty years later, war once against engulfed the United States and the draft was re-instituted for men of Donald Trump’s age. Trump also wasn’t eager for war or to pick up a gun, so he invented fallacious medical reports about bone spurs and dodged the draft multiple times. The United States now has a volunteer military force and many years have passed since the draft. Our men and women in the armed forces are still courageous and patriotic. My husband volunteered to fight. He has served in the Army coming up on ten years now and has deployed with the current conflict. Yet, as a volunteer army has become normal to America, we have forgotten what draft-dodging says about a man’s character. I didn’t know my grandfathers well. My maternal grandfather died when I was a baby and my paternal grandfather became very ill when I was just a young child, but I remember my great uncle talking about World War II. He’d sometimes reminisce about the year his brother and he were drafted. They were the children of Hungarian immigrants, the first generation to be born American citizens. Their dad had died in the coal mines and my uncle and grandfather struggled to finish their schooling while also working odd jobs to help their widowed mom put food on the table. The law in my uncle’s hometown said only one son from a family could be drafted, my uncle told me. But the rich families, my uncle said, they rigged the lotteries so their sons didn’t get drafted and the poor families had to send multiple sons to war. So my uncle and my grandfather, the only surviving sons of a widowed mother, had to leave for war while rich men’s sons sat comfortably at home multiplying their wealth. Almost thirty years after my grandfather and great uncle served, nothing had changed. Rich men like Trump dodged the draft, leaving poor men like my relatives to take on a double burden. My great uncle often told me, “I gave the best years of my life to the Army.” He was proud to serve, but serving took a large toll on him and his family. My great uncle was wounded in the war, and even when he’d reached ninety years of age, I remember the wound still hurting him sometimes. Is Trump ashamed that he skirted the law and so forced poor men to serve and die in his place? Not at all. Instead, he boasted about how many women he slept with during those years, calling the STD risks he took his ‘personal Vietnam.’ Unlike Trump, my relatives never would have thought of running for office. They worked hard just to put food on the table and to provide for their children. Yet they were good men who would never lie, cheat, or steal and chose to answer their country’s call despite great personal sacrifice. Trump inherited millions from his father and will pass more millions on to his children. That’s quite the inheritance, but I’d much rather have the legacy my relatives passed onto me, the legacy of honor (spelled correctly) and integrity. No matter your political leanings, I hope you can agree that’s the kind of legacy we need in our nation’s capital. We need a president who will follow his conscience no matter the cost, not a draft dodger who let poor men’s sons serve and die so he could pursue some playboy dream.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 54.
#5. To: Willie Green, misterwhite, All (#0)
(Edited)
The words, “fallacious medical reports” in the article is a hyperlink. After clicking on the link, I expected to find a “fallacious medical report.” There was none. The link lead to another article with basically the same allegations. I actually believe the author expected no one to click on the link and intended to plant in the reader’s subconscious mind that one existed. I am looking for factual confirmation that Trump “invented fallacious medical reports” about bone spurs and “dodged the draft multiple times.” If anyone knows where I can find this information, please be so kind and point it out to me. I have searched the Internet for information on Trump looking for a reason(s) Trump never served. Besides more smear articles, all I can determine from my findings is that Donald Trump did receive a minor medical deferment for bone spurs on both heels of his feet. The medical deferment was short-term and he was entered in the military draft lottery where he received an extremely high number, 356 out of 365. When the draft occurred, they never got near his number and therefore he was never called to serve in the military. This information was released by someone close to Trump. It may have been his lawyer, I just can’t remember. This article is just another of the far too many yellow journalism articles I see posted on LF. It has turned out to be nothing but a negative political smear tactic that launches an unfair political attack using lies, half truths and innuendos. Gawd, I hate yellow journalism … with a passion.
You miss the entire point about MANY wanna-be ... post WW2 USA presidential candidates. They are applying for a job as President to lead the military as Commander in Chief, yet lack the bona-fide skils of actual experience in the US military; take a case, as one example that you possess, tater: peelin' potatoes in the mess hall. Get with the program, soldier!
I did not miss your point … I say that you have NO point. The connection between service in the military and election to the highest office in the land has been severed. The aspect relationship was severed during the VIetnam War. Military service has long ceased to be an asset when running for POTUS. Some presidential candidates who served struggled to connect with voters who often hated war, and still do. For example, Gore played down his service in Nam and Kerry’s service definitely proved to be a huge liability. You can of course remember “swift boating.” The long period of time from 1944 to 2008 during which time at least one candidate had served in uniform is actually something of an historical anomaly. Check history, and you will find that a very few President or losing nominees had any military experiences at all. I have serious doubts about your idea that serving in the military invests someone with superior qualities that make them uniquely qualified to be president. We are entering an period where the odds of a candidate having served in the military are significantly lower. You can say that it is a bad thing for a president not to have served in the military, while others will say it is not. I will say that it is neither a good thing nor a bad thing … it is merely a fact of life. Bucky, you are a “political dinosaur.” Quit trying to live in the past. Bucky, you are a libertarian and libertarians hate war. Yet the requirement for a president to have served in the military is STRONG for you. I contend that it is not and that you only single this aspect out to use against Trump because you continually look for anything to try to use against him. Because you have a requirement for a president to be a military man, while you are a libertarian … I contend that you are a hypocrite.
Sarge, that is because you don't understand the dynamics of war. You think that when a President sends off American troops into far away nations, that those same troops are having potatoe peelin' contests for phun; kinda like how your cocaine phanatic, GWBush planned and performed in Iraq. Any President that sends troops off to war should have a clear understanding that the troops may die in active combat. The President requires the experience to understand the nature, indeed the gravity of exploitation of American lives in combat, particularly when the wars that the US entertains have little to do with soverign US security.
Absolutely. But a president does not need to have military experience to understand this … all he needs for this is compassion. There is no military service “qualification” to be president, what counts is judgment. The president has a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has the required experience to understand the nature and the gravity of sending American lives into combat. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serves as the principal military adviser to the president and receives a salary of 20,263.50 a month … let him earn his friggi’n pay.
Your recommendation is another source or input about contemporary American fascism.
You call it what you want to. I call it what it is ... FACTUAL.
You can't distinguish FACT from IMAGINATION.
You can't distinguish FACT from IMAGINATION. I can move back on topic: The government charged 210,000 people with draft violations, ranging from burning their draft cards to refusing to serve to fleeing the country. Trump was never charged with violating the Selective Service law. His student deferments were routine. And unless someone has new information, there is no legal issue with his medical deferment.
Neither was Clinton,and he did far more than just avoid the draft. As for Goober,he even admitted he "volunteered for the draft" (you could volunteer to take the place of someone being drafted and only serve 2 years on active duty instead of the normal 3 year enlistment)because his father was in a tough re-election campaign and having a son serving in VN as enlisted swine would help him. The skids were greased for Goober the whole way,right down to the unit he was to serve in and the job that was created for him. Also,even though he was a Private E-2 or PFC at the time,he was married to Tipsy in DC while wearing the dress blues of a army Captain instead of the green enlisted uniform. He even had a honor guard of serving officers at the wedding. Any normal enlisted man that was caught wearing an officers uniform would have been court-martialed and gone to the army prison,but Goober had his wedding photos in the Washington Post with him wearing an officers uniform and not a word was said. I guess that was because there were no army officers living and working in DC,huh?
I don’t know about army uniforms, so please help me understand. You said the “dress blues of a army Captain.” Did Captains have a special uniform of their own? I thought all company and field grade officers had the same uniforms. Next, I don’t understand the following from the Army Times. Was this optional blue dress uniform referenced in the Army Times also optional for enlisted personnel as well as for officers? I ask this because I wonder if the dress regulations were the same as the Air Force. Beginning in 1955 when I was a Staff Sergeant then Tech Sergeant, I never purchase nor wore uniforms from the Clothing Sales Store. I only purchased and wore the same uniform as officers from the Base Exchange. Including Allen Edmonds shoes and not those heinous “duck-foot-looking” shoes from the Clothing Sales Store. The only difference in my dress from the officers was the insignia and I could not wear the band around the lower part of the sleeve on the Class A Uniform.
I don’t know about army uniforms, so please help me understand. You said the “dress blues of a army Captain.” Did Captains have a special uniform of their own? I thought all company and field grade officers had the same uniforms. No,Captains don't have special uniforms,but the "mess dress blue uniforms" for officers is different than the "mess dress blue uniforms" for enlisted men. This goes back to the FR days in the late 90's. Goober borrowed the uniform from a US Army Captain that was somehow connected to his father's Senate office in DC. Maybe Goober Sr was on the armed forces or some other committee,or maybe the officer was just assigned to the wedding to make sure things went smooth for the most powerful PFC in the army? Either way,Goober was wearing that uniform when he was married and I saw photos of him in it at the wedding. There was a lot of chatter about that among career soldiers right after it happened,mostly criticizing the senior Army officers brass that were there that didn't order him to take it off or have him arrested for wearing it. BTW,I believe the Bus Drivers hat he is wearing that has the braid on it in that one photo is also a officer's bus drivers hat. May be wrong,though. I was only required to have one the first year I was in the army. After that I wore a beret for both work and dress uniforms. Was this optional blue dress uniform referenced in the Army Times also optional for enlisted personnel as well as for officers? Yes,but as I wrote above,the enlisted and the officer "mess dress blue uniforms" looked different. They were optional because technically nobody was required to have them because they weren't issue uniforms,and their purchase wasn't covered by the uniform allowance. Almost no NCO's owned them except maybe for E-9's working in or around the Pentagram. Same could be said about non-field grade officers. If you saw a Lt or Captain wearing dress blues,chances are he was a aide to some General or another,and chances are if he was a Lt or a Captain,the General officer paid for it out of his office expenses. Dress blues were expensive,and the typical soldier would never have cause to appear in one. OOOPS! Officers assigned as military aides to embassies also had dress blues regardless of rank,and I do believe the army paid for their purchase because their assignment required them. I ask this because I wonder if the dress regulations were the same as the Air Force. No. All the AF dress uniforms were blue to start with. Dress Blues,also called "Mess Dress Blues" are like military tuxedos. I know I have seen a E-9 or two wearing the enlisted version,but can't for the life of me remember how they were different from the officers dress mess blues,but I know they were. For one thing,I know for a fact the officers dress mess blues jacket looked (to me,anyhow)like a jacket you would see on a French waiter is some upscale restaurant. They even wore a cummerbund with it. I am certain the USAF also has a "dress mess" uniform for both officers and enlisted swine,but I have no idea what it looks like or what color it is. I'd be surprised if a Google search using the search terms "army dress mess blue uniforms" didn't bring up a bunch of photos.
It did, many ... but I did not find any categorized by year. After researching, seeing the photos I attached and reading your comments ... I am surprised none of the big brass or anyone else did not raise Hell about the uniform. I am still pondering how he could have been so stupid to do this ... Thanks for the info.
#57. To: Gatlin (#54)
Not me. The idiot son of a powerful US Senator who they know is going to become a US Senator himself does what he wants when he wants to do it. And truth to tell,he is such a freaking idiot trying to explain to him what he did wrong would have been the equivalent of trying to teach calculus to a inbred dog. Even if he had the IQ of the typical Kennedy,the same rules don't apply to US Senators son's that apply to thee and me. I am still pondering how he could have been so stupid to do this ... It's Goober. His family was probably happy he didn't set himself on fire,or show up at the wrong wedding and try to marry a woman they didn't buy for him.
BTW,I just remembered what could be some of the confusion over dress uniforms in the 60's and now. Back in the 60's the Dress Mess uniforms for the US Army were blue,while the standard issue dress uniforms were all green. I forgot all about the new standard-issue army dress uniform being blue.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest … so he [Trump] invented fallacious medical reports about bone spurs and dodged the draft multiple times.
The Canary Clan is charged with the responsibility to search impartially for the facts or actualities of a subject or situation. It is eminently qualified to perform this charge by devoting considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda. The Canary Clan has a commitment to respect precedent, fairness and a determination to faithfully present the facts.
Long live freedom of speech, long live the Canary Clan and God Bless America!
#6. To: Gatlin (#5)
The Canary Clan is charged with the responsibility to search impartially for the facts ... blah, blah, blah
#13. To: buckeroo (#6)
(Edited)
You miss the entire point about MANY wanna-be ... post WW2 USA presidential candidates.
WHY LIBERTARIANS OPPOSE WAR
Libertarianism and war are not compatible. One reason why should be obvious: In war, governments commit legalized mass-murder. In modern warfare especially, war is not just waged among voluntary combatants, but kills, maims, and otherwise harms innocent people. Then, of course, wars must be funded through taxes, which are extracted from U.S. citizens by force — a form of legalized theft, as far as libertarians are concerned. And, historically, the U.S. has used conscription — legalized slavery — to force people to fight and die. In addition, an interventionist foreign policy makes civilians targets for retaliation, so governments indirectly cause more violence against their own people when they become involved in other countries’ affairs. Plus, war is always accompanied by many other new restrictions on liberty, many of which are sold as supposedly temporary wartime measures but then never go away.
#15. To: Gatlin (#13)
I have serious doubts about your idea that serving in the military invests someone with superior qualities that make them uniquely qualified to be president.
#18. To: buckeroo (#15)
Any President that sends troops off to war should have a clear understanding that the troops may die in active combat.
The President requires the experience to understand the nature, indeed the gravity of exploitation of American lives in combat, particularly when the wars that the US entertains have little to do with soverign US security.
#19. To: Gatlin (#18)
#21. To: buckeroo (#19)
Your recommendation is another source or input about contemporary American fascism.
#23. To: Gatlin (#21)
I call it what it is ... FACTUAL.
#25. To: buckeroo (#23)
I call it what it is ... FACTUAL.
#38. To: Gatlin (#25)
Trump was never charged with violating the Selective Service law.
#43. To: sneakypete (#38)
Also,even though he was a Private E-2 or PFC at the time,he was married to Tipsy in DC while wearing the dress blues of a army Captain instead of the green enlisted uniform.
Also,even though he was a Private E-2 or PFC at the time,he was married to Tipsy in DC while wearing the dress blues of a army Captain instead of the green enlisted uniform.
I always figured that algore was stupid, but I never believed he was stupid enough to wear a uniform that was not optional for both officers and enlisted personnel at his wedding. And between World Wars, the blue dress uniform re-emerged as optional wear, and remained so after introduction of the Green Class As as the primary service uniform.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/10/01/rip-green- service-uniform-1954-2015/73142376/
#52. To: Gatlin (#43)
I always figured that algore was stupid, but I never believed he was stupid enough to wear a uniform that was not optional for both officers and enlisted personnel at his wedding.
#54. To: sneakypete (#52)
I'd be surprised if a Google search using the search terms "army dress mess blue uniforms" didn't bring up a bunch of photos.
Replies to Comment # 54. After researching, seeing the photos I attached and reading your comments ... I am surprised none of the big brass or anyone else did not raise Hell about the uniform.
#59. To: Gatlin (#54)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 54.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]