Posted on Jul 6, 2018
LTC Kopser, Democratic nominee for Texas’ 21st Congressional District, here for a live Q&A on 7/12/2018. Questions?
48.6K
333
237
*RP Staff will be monitoring this Discussion. Please be advised that attacking or insulting comments will be deleted.*
Joseph is here to discuss the following topics:
Why he decided to run for office
What work he’s done to support veterans as an entrepreneur and community leader
Why veterans make good lawmakers
How he’ll work across the aisle if elected
Politics needs a culture of servant leadership and integrity
Joseph is the Democratic nominee for Texas’ 21st Congressional District. In a district that includes 10 counties from San Antonio to Austin and parts of the Texas Hill Country, Joseph spends his days on the campaign trail meeting voters and local leaders. TX-21’s current Congressman, Lamar Smith, is infamous for denying scientific fact and refusing to engage with his constituents. As he seeks to replace this 30-year incumbent, Joseph is building a new coalition of voters who believe the values, priorities, and expectations of Texas’ 21st congressional district will serve as a model of service and representation for Texas and the United States. His priorities include health care for all, moving towards a 100% renewable energy economy, and passing a real 21st century Jobs Act.
Joseph Kopser graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1993 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering. After graduating Ranger School, Joseph requested to go to Texas and was assigned to Fort Bliss in El Paso. In 2002, he earned his Masters in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, with a focus on Campaigns, Elections, and Special Advocacy. Joseph taught as an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at West Point from 2002-2005. In the summer of 2004, Joseph deployed to Baghdad to assist with the Iraqi elections. From June 2005-February 2007 he was Cavalry Squadron XO and S3 Operations Officer of 1-9 Cav with the 1st Cavalry Division, and deployed to Iraq for the second time. From April 2007-May 2008 he was Battalion XO of 2-7 CAV with the 1st Cavalry Division. From 2008-2009, he was Strategic Planner for the Future Force Integration Directorate, where he worked with Major General James Terry to communicate the Army's priorities of modernization to Congress and Industry. From 2009-2011, he served at the Pentagon as Special Assistant for the Army Chief of Staff, General George W. Casey. His final Army assignment was as Department Chair and Professor of Leadership and Strategy with the Texas Army ROTC at the University of Texas at Austin. He retired in 2013 at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
Joseph is here to discuss the following topics:
Why he decided to run for office
What work he’s done to support veterans as an entrepreneur and community leader
Why veterans make good lawmakers
How he’ll work across the aisle if elected
Politics needs a culture of servant leadership and integrity
Joseph is the Democratic nominee for Texas’ 21st Congressional District. In a district that includes 10 counties from San Antonio to Austin and parts of the Texas Hill Country, Joseph spends his days on the campaign trail meeting voters and local leaders. TX-21’s current Congressman, Lamar Smith, is infamous for denying scientific fact and refusing to engage with his constituents. As he seeks to replace this 30-year incumbent, Joseph is building a new coalition of voters who believe the values, priorities, and expectations of Texas’ 21st congressional district will serve as a model of service and representation for Texas and the United States. His priorities include health care for all, moving towards a 100% renewable energy economy, and passing a real 21st century Jobs Act.
Joseph Kopser graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1993 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering. After graduating Ranger School, Joseph requested to go to Texas and was assigned to Fort Bliss in El Paso. In 2002, he earned his Masters in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, with a focus on Campaigns, Elections, and Special Advocacy. Joseph taught as an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at West Point from 2002-2005. In the summer of 2004, Joseph deployed to Baghdad to assist with the Iraqi elections. From June 2005-February 2007 he was Cavalry Squadron XO and S3 Operations Officer of 1-9 Cav with the 1st Cavalry Division, and deployed to Iraq for the second time. From April 2007-May 2008 he was Battalion XO of 2-7 CAV with the 1st Cavalry Division. From 2008-2009, he was Strategic Planner for the Future Force Integration Directorate, where he worked with Major General James Terry to communicate the Army's priorities of modernization to Congress and Industry. From 2009-2011, he served at the Pentagon as Special Assistant for the Army Chief of Staff, General George W. Casey. His final Army assignment was as Department Chair and Professor of Leadership and Strategy with the Texas Army ROTC at the University of Texas at Austin. He retired in 2013 at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
Austin
Washington
San Antonio
Fredericksburg
JBSA - Joint Base San Antonio
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 39
Healthcare for all? How? Who pays for it?
Those are your priorities? What are your positions/goals for immigration, taxes, foreign policy, and the use of our military? Are you going to jump on the Trump bashing bandwagon or actually find ways to work not just "across the isle," but with this President? I ask this not as a Trump fan, but as someone who has become very apathetic to the back and forth antics in rhetoric.
Those are your priorities? What are your positions/goals for immigration, taxes, foreign policy, and the use of our military? Are you going to jump on the Trump bashing bandwagon or actually find ways to work not just "across the isle," but with this President? I ask this not as a Trump fan, but as someone who has become very apathetic to the back and forth antics in rhetoric.
LCDR (Join to see)
I'm not falling into any 'trap'. I'm just stating that -- in a free society-- people should be free to purchase what they want rather than have some government entity mandate to them what they need to purchase. One of the concepts I have always found off-putting about the Democratic Party (even before their apparent embrace of straight socialism) was this idea that they 'know best' what the minions--I mean We the People-- should do and how we should live and think. I prefer to have the freedom to make my own choices.
And you completely misread the flood insurance analogy. It had nothing to do with health care, but rather was used to illustrate the fallacy of requiring someone to purchase something they will definitely never need in order to 'bulk price' that something for someone else. That is how socialism works... Not capitalism.
And what you call 'slippery slope debating fallacy' I call the law of unintended consequences. Did the people who voted for the ACA 'intend' for small businesses to fire all but 49 employees in order to get under the mandate? Did those who voted for the ACA 'intend' for people's hours to be cut below the threshold when they intentionally lowered the definition of 'full time' to less than 40 hours per week? Businesses did those things-- not out of greed or some sycophantic desire to screw their employees, but to keep the lights on. Those calling for $15. Min wage probably don't 'intend' for people to lose their jobs to automation or businesses closing because they can no longer afford the government mandated minimum. These are OBVIOUS second-order effects to policy, as will be dictating of our health choices and rationing of care when it is completely handed over to government control. I concede that we likely will not digress to a 'master race' scenario, but it is not at all a far stretch to imagine we will get to a point of compulsory abortion of 'defective' babies or death panels for those above a certain age.
And you completely misread the flood insurance analogy. It had nothing to do with health care, but rather was used to illustrate the fallacy of requiring someone to purchase something they will definitely never need in order to 'bulk price' that something for someone else. That is how socialism works... Not capitalism.
And what you call 'slippery slope debating fallacy' I call the law of unintended consequences. Did the people who voted for the ACA 'intend' for small businesses to fire all but 49 employees in order to get under the mandate? Did those who voted for the ACA 'intend' for people's hours to be cut below the threshold when they intentionally lowered the definition of 'full time' to less than 40 hours per week? Businesses did those things-- not out of greed or some sycophantic desire to screw their employees, but to keep the lights on. Those calling for $15. Min wage probably don't 'intend' for people to lose their jobs to automation or businesses closing because they can no longer afford the government mandated minimum. These are OBVIOUS second-order effects to policy, as will be dictating of our health choices and rationing of care when it is completely handed over to government control. I concede that we likely will not digress to a 'master race' scenario, but it is not at all a far stretch to imagine we will get to a point of compulsory abortion of 'defective' babies or death panels for those above a certain age.
COL William Oseles
SSG (ret) William Martin - The Flag on the right appears to be that of the Chief of Staff of the Army flag. If he is using that picture in his campaign he is on shaky ground, here it just declares his background to people that understand that.
I notice he did not include it in his background section on serving in the Pentagon description.
I notice he did not include it in his background section on serving in the Pentagon description.
LTC Kevin B.
Regardless of what you say, it is a position that puts you into a trap. Every business wants to provide customized goods and services so that they never, ever have to compete on price. Your freedom to purchase what you want means health insurance companies get to develop highly individualized policies, and by doing that, they can charge unnecessarily high premiums. That's why we have the most expensive healthcare in the world, but we don't have anywhere near the best health outcomes.
I didn't misread your analogy. I was making the point that if the individual states had intervened with their own policies, the federal government would never have needed to intervene with a blanket policy. Thus, the wealth transfer analogy you made falls flat.
Name some businesses who fired people to get below the 50-person threshold. Name some businesses who cut employee hours to get below the 30-hour threshold. If you can name a company or two, then try to validate how a small handful of examples can be generalized across all of the economy. When doing so, also explain why unemployment actually dropped over the entire time frame that the ACA was in place. Anecdotal stories are always cute, but data trumps story-telling every time.
Lastly, there's no empirical evidence supporting the notion that increasing the minimum wage will decrease employment. That argument makes theoretical sense, but the historical evidence does not support your inference. Again, data trumps story-telling.
I didn't misread your analogy. I was making the point that if the individual states had intervened with their own policies, the federal government would never have needed to intervene with a blanket policy. Thus, the wealth transfer analogy you made falls flat.
Name some businesses who fired people to get below the 50-person threshold. Name some businesses who cut employee hours to get below the 30-hour threshold. If you can name a company or two, then try to validate how a small handful of examples can be generalized across all of the economy. When doing so, also explain why unemployment actually dropped over the entire time frame that the ACA was in place. Anecdotal stories are always cute, but data trumps story-telling every time.
Lastly, there's no empirical evidence supporting the notion that increasing the minimum wage will decrease employment. That argument makes theoretical sense, but the historical evidence does not support your inference. Again, data trumps story-telling.
PO1 Todd B.
The 'Hatch' act only applies IF he uses the uniform to promote himself specifically for election in advertising, at real life public discussions and venues in person etc.. You can use a photo of yourself as he did above to make the point you are former military but you cannot wear the uniform to promote yourself specifically for an election in person.
Integrity is one of the most important traits of leadership. After taking an oath to defend the US Constitution, how do you balance current Democrat party politics/platforms with the enumerated powers of Article I Section VIII while maintaining integrity?
PO3 Donald Murphy
I personally do not feel that we have any true democrats or republicans anymore. I believe the last true democrat was Kennedy and the last true republican was Eisenhower. Now...you're welcome to disagree with me if you like. But in my opinion, neither side is worthy of my vote on many issues.
Cpl (Join to see)
I can agree with that, but Reagan was a JFK Democrat and even stated that he "didn't leave the democrat party, the democrat party left him." JFK couldn't get the democrat party nod today and we'd see the mcconnel's and mclame's fighting against Reagan.
Neither party are representative any longer. There are a few individuals within the party, but they are vilified by the leadership and attacked just for identifying with a party by the media. They usually don't last. Party plays games of one-up-man-ship to bribe citizens for a vote. It's time to reread the founding documents and make a commitment to stop voting down party lines and begin voting for those who value not only their oath, but the citizens of this country.
I'm not opposed to congressional gridlock, because when they can't agree nor collaborate within their bubble, we maintain our freedoms and natural rights. George Carlin once said "it's a big club and we ain't in it." He was right and it's time to remedy that with an Article V Convention of States with term limits being the number one item on the agenda.
Neither party are representative any longer. There are a few individuals within the party, but they are vilified by the leadership and attacked just for identifying with a party by the media. They usually don't last. Party plays games of one-up-man-ship to bribe citizens for a vote. It's time to reread the founding documents and make a commitment to stop voting down party lines and begin voting for those who value not only their oath, but the citizens of this country.
I'm not opposed to congressional gridlock, because when they can't agree nor collaborate within their bubble, we maintain our freedoms and natural rights. George Carlin once said "it's a big club and we ain't in it." He was right and it's time to remedy that with an Article V Convention of States with term limits being the number one item on the agenda.
LTC Joseph Kopser
I will support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Cpl (Join to see)
Now that's a politicians response. It's too bad I don't live in TX-21, I'd be voting for Lamar.
LTC Kevin B.
The VA is consistently used as a political tool. Much of the criticism comes from politicians whose party is out of power whenever something adverse occurs. They use the veterans as a political tool for partisan gain, and things get blown out of proportion. Republicans griped about the VA when Obama was President. Democrats griped about the VA when GWB was President. And so on. You have to break apart the "justified criticism" into legitimate criticism and political rhetoric. From a cost and quality perspective, the VA has a long history of success in providing high quality care at relatively low costs to society. You can use the "apples to oranges" argument all you want to avoid the broader point, but the fact remains that government-run healthcare can be effective. Lastly, this particular candidate does not indicate anywhere on his website that he even wants "government-run healthcare". It was another RP member earlier in this thread who commingled that concept into the discussion.
LTC Joseph Kopser
SP5 Keane... I am a data driven decision maker. Please share your data that you use to make your statement.
Cpl (Join to see)
Military healthcare is nothing compared to our entire population, cost-wise. The government cannot, nor should they ever manage the healthcare of our entire nation. Saying the government manages the military healthcare when the dynamic of the military is typically young healthy individuals compared to the our entire population is intellectually dishonest. There are more baby-boomers than active duty military alone. It is apples and oranges when you compare factual demographics.
LTC Kevin B.
I've never said that the government should "manage the entire healthcare of our nation". Those are your words, not mine. Feel free to speak for yourself, but I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself. My point was that government-run healthcare CAN be efficient, low-cost, and high-quality, with the MHS as being a good example. So, "government-ran" is not necessarily the problem, in and of itself. And, my pointing out the MHS as an example is not being "intellectually dishonest". Thank you for directly implying that I'm being deceitful though (while you're also hiding behind a block).
Healthcare for all. Pretty sure everyone has access to ERs. My question is, how do you propose to provide healthcare for all?
Have you used the VA? This is what single-payer would be.
Do you advocate the enslavement of medical practitioners? Healthcare is a service, and no one has a right to another person's services. Pretty sure we had a war over people claiming to have a right to another person's services in the late 1800s (among other things).
Be more specific - what scientific fact is your opponent denying? Are there any scientific facts that you deny?
What is a 'real 21st Century Jobs Act'?
Have you used the VA? This is what single-payer would be.
Do you advocate the enslavement of medical practitioners? Healthcare is a service, and no one has a right to another person's services. Pretty sure we had a war over people claiming to have a right to another person's services in the late 1800s (among other things).
Be more specific - what scientific fact is your opponent denying? Are there any scientific facts that you deny?
What is a 'real 21st Century Jobs Act'?
PO3 Donald Murphy
SSgt (Join to see) - It is never "free." "Free medical" is a myth perpetuated by those who do not want us (America) to have decent/working healthcare. I have an English wife and just as she has a Green Card for America, I have the English equivalent and I can honestly tell you that the only difference between America and Britain is that in America you pay your own policy premium. In England they take it out of your pay before you get it. This is the only difference. The medical care comes out of your taxes. If you are not working, you cannot be taxed. This is why "outsourcing" and "layoffs" take an act of God in Europe.
SSgt (Join to see)
PO3 Donald Murphy - truth. And this is, essentially, what people who really push for this system, don't understand. Your money is coming out, one way, or another. :)
COL William Oseles
Remember when they were selling the Affordable Care Act?
President Obama was touting VA as the 'Gold Standard' to which the ACA aspired.
Then the Veterans dying scandal hit and we heard no more
President Obama was touting VA as the 'Gold Standard' to which the ACA aspired.
Then the Veterans dying scandal hit and we heard no more
1) Thanks for your service.
2) Democrat? No thanks.
Socialism fails every time it's attempted. You should have paid more attention in history class (and if that was a history class at a major University, I'd recommend doing your own external history research so some Bill Ayers-ite hippie freak's interpretation of history doesn't cloud your understanding of the past.)
Socialism needs to be snuffed out once and for all and your party, sir, is morphing daily into a neo-socialist cancerous mass.
I hope that you get some bearings and make correct decisions if, somehow, you're elected into public office in Texas. Texas is my home and regardless of the influx of useful idiots into the Austin area from California, we're still allergic to far leftist nonsense. We need either more middle-road politics, or to maintain the status quo.
2) Democrat? No thanks.
Socialism fails every time it's attempted. You should have paid more attention in history class (and if that was a history class at a major University, I'd recommend doing your own external history research so some Bill Ayers-ite hippie freak's interpretation of history doesn't cloud your understanding of the past.)
Socialism needs to be snuffed out once and for all and your party, sir, is morphing daily into a neo-socialist cancerous mass.
I hope that you get some bearings and make correct decisions if, somehow, you're elected into public office in Texas. Texas is my home and regardless of the influx of useful idiots into the Austin area from California, we're still allergic to far leftist nonsense. We need either more middle-road politics, or to maintain the status quo.
PO3 Donald Murphy
So if one party is morphing, why is the other party not? Do note that neither candidate (Clinton and Trump) had 100% of their own party's support. In Europe where you have coalitions, this would not be a major problem. But in a two party system like America, anti-Trump republicans are a roadblock and obstacle. So while the left may be morphing into something you as a conservative find unacceptable, it is also obvious that the right has some factions who feel that the right is morphing into something that they find unacceptable.
LTC Joseph Kopser
I think labels are wearing thin and I would encourage all to focus on people and policy. That is why I am in this session of AMA, so you can ask me questions. The old rhetoric of Cable News is just that.
SFC (Join to see)
LTC Joseph Kopser - I, sir, labeled you neither one way or the other. I referred specifically to your chosen party and it's overarching state of affairs in today's climate. I am a student of history and to refer to PO3 Murphy's comment just above, both parties have morphed. I'm not here to fight "for" Republicans. I'm here to simply point out that a disturbing trend has presented itself across the board where Socialism is becoming more "en vogue" of late. If you, as a Democratic nominee, aren't going to push for such agendas, then by all means - pursue your chosen path in life and best of luck to you. But I caution you that if you, however, do choose to follow a path that leads toward the implementation of socialist agendas (in whatever form or guise they're in), then you are going to have a hard time finding votes in Texas.
PO3 Donald Murphy
SFC (Join to see) - Some great points. My personal observation of both parties is that neither have full participation. The Sanders crowd and the Clinton crowd have not kissed and made up. This will be a roadblock to the dems. The reps likewise are having issues with the Trump-haters within the GOP. This also will be a roadblock. So both of our problems will be that LTC Kopser could turn our worse or better than we thought. Right now both parties are ripe for some housecleaning.
I can’t vote for you because you are not in my state. That doesn’t mean I would if I could. I disagree with most of your stances.
SSG Trevor S.
LTC Joseph Kopser - I appreciate yours as well. Just because we don't agree in the ballot booth doesn't mean we are not brothers.
What? Nothing on immagration? Or why supporting Iran build a nuclear arsenal is a good idea?
COL (Join to see)
LTC Joseph Kopser Trump made some good points today on the state of NATO countries. You either trust Russia and make billion Dollar deals or you don’t trust Russia and hope they don’t take your country from you like they did in Crimea. So you other take the threat serious or you do away with NATO. The Iranian nuke deal is really bad. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. You only have to look at how we got to where we were with North Korea two years ago to know it was bad. And if you really support Israel you would never agree to a deal where Iran has an opportunity to get a bomb. They already said it was one of their first priorities- to bomb Israel out of existence. How can anyone think it’s a bad idea for a country who has been continuously attacked defend itself. I’m not sure what they are teaching at Harvard but it is clearly out of touch. Giving concessions to belligerent countries without requiring anything in return is irresponsible.
PO3 Donald Murphy
A lot of Americans problem - is one of responsibility. NATO is but ONE of many organizations America belongs to. SEATO, CENTO, etc. So the problem is that America wishes for NATO to support our endeavors in Libya, Iraq, etc and gets angry when *EUROPE* (ie; NATO) does not wish to get involved. Which it shouldn't. After all, Iraq and A'stan are in Asia. So European funding should not be demanded for our worldwide scouting adventures.
Nextly, capability doesn't grow on trees. No one has been hiding anything. If your carrier needs to be towed in to battle, there's something grievously wrong with your tech. Russia's mil-tech has been atrophy'ing for some time now with an emphasis on making goods for sale only. So while wars are great for the economy, etc, etc, I think we're gonna have to give Russia a pass and look for someone else to be our "red threat." Sorry kids - their tech just ain't cutting it. Yes they still have nukes but then to be fair, so does North Korea, right? So Russia as a threat, needs to be filed in the same drawer as North Korea. Also her oil pumping deal with the EU is not a secret. The EU (Germany) pumps Russian natural gas throughout Europe. Europe (duh) knows this. Europe's buying it. Our fantasy of Russia massing tank divisions on the Polish border and suddenly crossing the German plains are past tense. Furthermore, this gas deal is not new. Its been going on for some time. Ie; many years.
And not to be isolationistic but let's ask ourselves an enlightening/illuminating question: who really needs our help? Are we demanding Europe to ask for our help or is Europe actually doing it? I think you'll find that it's *us* doing the asking. Well folks - quite simply - if I have to beg you for help then you really don't want my help do you? So in that case, money-bitcher-states-of-america (waaaah, we never have enough money) pull out of NATO. Why are we paying Italy to stay there when they don't want us? Why are we paying Germany to stay there, etc? Pull out of Europe and put the money to something else, like, I don't know - fixing Flint's water? Fixing our healthcare?
Nextly, capability doesn't grow on trees. No one has been hiding anything. If your carrier needs to be towed in to battle, there's something grievously wrong with your tech. Russia's mil-tech has been atrophy'ing for some time now with an emphasis on making goods for sale only. So while wars are great for the economy, etc, etc, I think we're gonna have to give Russia a pass and look for someone else to be our "red threat." Sorry kids - their tech just ain't cutting it. Yes they still have nukes but then to be fair, so does North Korea, right? So Russia as a threat, needs to be filed in the same drawer as North Korea. Also her oil pumping deal with the EU is not a secret. The EU (Germany) pumps Russian natural gas throughout Europe. Europe (duh) knows this. Europe's buying it. Our fantasy of Russia massing tank divisions on the Polish border and suddenly crossing the German plains are past tense. Furthermore, this gas deal is not new. Its been going on for some time. Ie; many years.
And not to be isolationistic but let's ask ourselves an enlightening/illuminating question: who really needs our help? Are we demanding Europe to ask for our help or is Europe actually doing it? I think you'll find that it's *us* doing the asking. Well folks - quite simply - if I have to beg you for help then you really don't want my help do you? So in that case, money-bitcher-states-of-america (waaaah, we never have enough money) pull out of NATO. Why are we paying Italy to stay there when they don't want us? Why are we paying Germany to stay there, etc? Pull out of Europe and put the money to something else, like, I don't know - fixing Flint's water? Fixing our healthcare?
COL (Join to see)
PO3 Donald Murphy that’s a lot of talk too bad it’s not founded on reality. I guess the Ukraine would greatly disagree with you. As would Estonia, Georgia, and Lithuania to name a few. All countries that have been targets of the Russian emergence. NATO would shit their pants if we left. Like everyone else they want uncle sugar to pay their bills. If the security of NATO left they would be sitting ducks and the EU would collapse under its own indulgence. Your right in that Europe does not want the US involved but they want to cover up under the blanket of security we provide.
PO3 Donald Murphy
COL (Join to see) - Well it has to be founded on reality as
1. We're paying too much
2. Europe doesn't care
You can't get any more real than that. The question has never been "are they paying enough?" The question is "what do we do about it?" Blanket of security? Well again - take the blanket away. Also where do you draw the line? As I've said in many posts on many topics, you can't critisize nation X for human rights abuses and then turn right around and ignore nation Y who does human rights abuses. This is why Europe and others laugh at us and deride us. They honestly don't take us seriously. Why should they? Estonia? Yeah. So what? What's going on in China? See what I'm saying? Also, as I pointed out - are we sure our help is wanted? What does the UN say about Lithuania?
NATO collapsing without the USA? You may wish to ask where the East German Army, Air Force and Navy "went" when the wall fell down. Wasn't West Germany supposed to "absorb part of it" and "decommission the rest of it?" Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhttttttt...... I've got some property in East Brooklyn you might be interested. Its a bridge for the record... I can assure you that Russia is not the Soviet Union of 1989.
Prior to all of this "thank you for your service" stuff, I remember growing up in Europe and being told constantly - "thank you for being here. We feel safe with you here." And I think what America's going through at the moment is a little bit of morose. We want those old days back.
1. We're paying too much
2. Europe doesn't care
You can't get any more real than that. The question has never been "are they paying enough?" The question is "what do we do about it?" Blanket of security? Well again - take the blanket away. Also where do you draw the line? As I've said in many posts on many topics, you can't critisize nation X for human rights abuses and then turn right around and ignore nation Y who does human rights abuses. This is why Europe and others laugh at us and deride us. They honestly don't take us seriously. Why should they? Estonia? Yeah. So what? What's going on in China? See what I'm saying? Also, as I pointed out - are we sure our help is wanted? What does the UN say about Lithuania?
NATO collapsing without the USA? You may wish to ask where the East German Army, Air Force and Navy "went" when the wall fell down. Wasn't West Germany supposed to "absorb part of it" and "decommission the rest of it?" Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhttttttt...... I've got some property in East Brooklyn you might be interested. Its a bridge for the record... I can assure you that Russia is not the Soviet Union of 1989.
Prior to all of this "thank you for your service" stuff, I remember growing up in Europe and being told constantly - "thank you for being here. We feel safe with you here." And I think what America's going through at the moment is a little bit of morose. We want those old days back.
I should be open minded, I should listen, do research, ask questions and then form my own opinion but the truth is that I am not interested in another Democratic leader. The Democratic party will implode in 2020. It seems to be a vile and disgusting party nowadays. It is not the same part my parents knew, and they are not supporting the garbage that is being produced today.
LTC Joseph Kopser
Well, I give you credit for not stereotyping or jumping to conclusions or judging people before you actually them.
SFC Rex Stevens
LTC Joseph Kopser - If you believe in the Democrats platform, I can not support you. If you somehow believe that you might center the Democrats, good luck in that challenge, After 6 months in office you would be goose stepping with the rest of your party and their socialist agenda.
SSgt Clare May
SFC Rex Stevens - Only one party calling themselves themselves and referring to themselves as the Democratic Socialist's ... and...as far fetched as that sounds in our Republic... electing them into office. The DNC. Therefor SFC Rex Stevens I concur with your statement 1,001%. It appears that the DNC is actually chasing Alice down that rabbit hole...
Why are questions and comments being removed and censored from this thread? Especially questions pertaining to socialism and how many of his campaign policies are based on a socialist ideology??
PO3 Donald Murphy
We all have a bit of socialist in us. Were we to be true capitalists, people would die for lack of ______. Thats why socialist countries like France do not have soup kitchens, but we do. So despite our bluster, we have some socialist DNA.
SFC (Join to see)
Socialism in France is responsible for a "floundering economy and high unemployment". further proof it doesn't work.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
health-care-for-all
Also, how much of the military system do you actually use? The administration for the military system is horrible! We have great doctors (trained outside the military by the way), but getting to them is a huge challenge.
Sorry, can't support you on this position. I look forward to the responses to my other questions. Thanks!