... for the military, of course. Pandering to his useful idiots, he advertises embracing financial ruin so he can maintain power ...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...usa-student-action-summit-west-palm-beach-fl/
Our military was so, so down and so out. I mean, I could tell you stories, and I won’t tell you because it’s embarrassing to tell you, but we’ve rebuilt it.
Two and a half trillion dollars. Somebody said, “Well, that’s bad for the budget.” Let me tell you about budgets: I’m a big budget person, but when it comes to the military, there is no budget. There is no budget. (Applause.) There’s no budget when it comes to the military.
And, so, the party of the uneducated, manned by faithful Trumpzis, will cheer on the concept of unlimited government, just as long as it's spent on the very thing that worried our Founding Fathers to their core ... an overwhelmingly strong standing army ...
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671
In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” That Madison, one of the most vocal proponents of a strong centralized government—an author of the Federalist papers and the architect of the Constitution—could evince such strongly negative feelings against a standing army highlights the substantial differences in thinking about national security in America between the 18th century and the 21st.
While polls today generally indicate that Americans think of the military in glowing terms (rightly associating terms like “sacrifice,” “honor,” “valor,” and “bravery” with military service), Americans of the 18th century took a much dimmer view of the institution of a professional army. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Samuel Adams wrote in 1776, such a professional army was, “always dangerous to the Liberties of the People.” Soldiers were likely to consider themselves separate from the populace, to become more attached to their officers than their government, and to be conditioned to obey commands unthinkingly. The power of a standing army, Adams counseled, “should be watched with a jealous Eye.”
But, the Trumpzis only care about what the Founding Fathers thought when it suits their current desires, amirite? You guys claim you love America, but you certainly don't love the America that the Founding Fathers envisioned.
A thirst for power and an unlimited pocketbook ... what could possibly go wrong, Trumpzis?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...usa-student-action-summit-west-palm-beach-fl/
Our military was so, so down and so out. I mean, I could tell you stories, and I won’t tell you because it’s embarrassing to tell you, but we’ve rebuilt it.
Two and a half trillion dollars. Somebody said, “Well, that’s bad for the budget.” Let me tell you about budgets: I’m a big budget person, but when it comes to the military, there is no budget. There is no budget. (Applause.) There’s no budget when it comes to the military.
And, so, the party of the uneducated, manned by faithful Trumpzis, will cheer on the concept of unlimited government, just as long as it's spent on the very thing that worried our Founding Fathers to their core ... an overwhelmingly strong standing army ...
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671
In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” That Madison, one of the most vocal proponents of a strong centralized government—an author of the Federalist papers and the architect of the Constitution—could evince such strongly negative feelings against a standing army highlights the substantial differences in thinking about national security in America between the 18th century and the 21st.
While polls today generally indicate that Americans think of the military in glowing terms (rightly associating terms like “sacrifice,” “honor,” “valor,” and “bravery” with military service), Americans of the 18th century took a much dimmer view of the institution of a professional army. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Samuel Adams wrote in 1776, such a professional army was, “always dangerous to the Liberties of the People.” Soldiers were likely to consider themselves separate from the populace, to become more attached to their officers than their government, and to be conditioned to obey commands unthinkingly. The power of a standing army, Adams counseled, “should be watched with a jealous Eye.”
But, the Trumpzis only care about what the Founding Fathers thought when it suits their current desires, amirite? You guys claim you love America, but you certainly don't love the America that the Founding Fathers envisioned.
A thirst for power and an unlimited pocketbook ... what could possibly go wrong, Trumpzis?
