Also interesting in that POLITICO piece is how Trump voters - I've seen this many times - do what they can to *avoid having to see Trump say things*.
Think of that. His own political base actively avoids him, so he won't mess up what they prefer to believe. /1
When Trump voters say to me: "But you look down on us," I am not sure how to respond to that when I know that they are *intentionally avoiding their own candidate* so that they can argue with me about stuff that isn't true. Yes, I'm disdainful of that. How can I not be? /2
And that's why, despite how much it enrages Trump's opponents, I want him on TV 24/7, wall-to-wall. I don't want a single Trump supporter to be able to say "oh, I didn't bother watching that, so I didn't hear it." Make it so they can't avoid knowing what they're supporting. /3
Yes, the die-hards love Trump and will go to rallies with their "he can grab me by the p***y" shirts, but there are millions of other people who want to believe that supporting Trump is no big deal, because they've avoided *hearing* him. They shouldn't have that easy out. /4x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When I was a professor at the totally woke Naval War College, I had fellowship 20 yrs ago with the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, which produced this very woke study about going to war in places like, say, Iran. Some of my very woke predictions:
/1
"The United States and the regime in Tehran are avowed enemies, and for good reason. Iran not only is trying to acquire nuclear arms, but is a proven state sponsor of terror."
The same people who had an aneurysm about Lloyd Austin going AWOL for two days are going to defend Hegseth, the most reckless and unqualified SECDEF in history, to the bitter end. /1
You know better than this, @cdrsalamander, and I know that from talking to you. Your comments are in bad faith. But for others who are curious, I'll explain.
NWC's curriculum revision 50 years ago was to prevent another civil-military failure on the level of Vietnam. /1
VADM Turner was explicit about this, and it's been a guiding principle ever since to make sure that NWC graduates are intelligent strategic contributors in the room, instead of pure operators who have no idea how to advise or confer with civilians. /2
Sal is focused on about 30 minutes of a 90 minute seminar out of some 20 meetings. But as I told my students: You need to recognize what drives the arguments of the civilians in the room. If you don't, you'll be the guy sent out for coffee while the grownups talk. /3
The Israelis are calling this a "preemptive" strike. Whether you agree or disagree with this attack, these are not - from what we know tonight - "preemptive" strikes. The Israelis are using that word for a reason. Read on. /1
In tradition and international law, a "preemptive" attack is a spoiling attack, meant to strike an enemy who is *imminently* going to strike you. This is what Israel did in 1967, getting the jump on Arab armies that were about to attack. That's usually permissable. /2
What's going on right now are *preventive* strikes, which are usually NOT permissable in law or tradition. This is striking an enemy far in advance, because you believe time and situation is favorable to you. That, for example, is Japan striking the US in 1941. /3