http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...-adviser-214804

 

Trump has done two things so far to nearly universal acclaim, the Gorsuch nomination and now McMaster.

A close third would probably be Mad Dog Mattis.

 

With all the conflicts brewing in the world (at least half self-inflicted), how likely are the Dems to try to convince a military leader to run on their ticket?

 

Is this something that the left (Sanders/Wellstone) wing of the Democratic Party would even be willing to tolerate?

 

With the lack of foreign policy credentials and military backgrounds from most modern Dems, would you at least be willing to support a ticket with a military leader as the VP candidate?

 

Are you concerned the Trump administration is becoming too militaristic and those experienced generals/military leaders will goad him into engagements that a more seasoned president would have been able to avoid? Or do you follow the theory that Bannon/Miller/Trump are just itching for a way to "prove" themselves and make history by waging a war somewhere?

 

 

If you look at all these issues like border security, immigration, policing/law & order, Iran, Syria, Russia, North Korea, China...it certainly lends itself to a credible argument from both sides of the political aisle (fear the military advisors are too strong a presence if you're a Republican, fear from the left that we have to trust the military to serve as a buffer to prevent Trump/Bannon from doing something truly cataclysmic for the world).

 

Another reason is simply the fact that citizenry around the world tends to feel more comfortable with stronger authority (not necessarily authoritarian) leaders in historical eras of uncertainty/peril.

Edited February 22, 20179 yr by caulfield12

I could see them doing that. It would be stupid and they will lose again.

 

Same thing goes with trying to run someone like Mark Cuban.

Are S1W's from Public Enemy considered military leaders?

"Universal acclaim" is probably a bit much for the Gorsuch nomination.