During the conversation between the chief of staff, and the general, the general asserts that Kirkland shouldn't be President because he isn't qualified, and is unelected, then suggests that he himself should be President, even though he hasn't been elected either.
shareHe suggests that he should be President? Must have missed that.
shareHe suggests that he should be President?
Must have missed that.
well he was also suggesting they get someone else to replace kirkland who will listen to them, in otherwords the general wants a puppet he can pull the strings on.
pretty much like any world leader is merely a face and puppet to the people behind them pushing their own agenda's
He suggests that he should be President? Must have missed that.Last week, when the General was talking with the Deputy Chief of Staff, you must have missed it. The conversation went like this...
Didn't miss that after all.I think ya kinda did. If you want to say otherwise - that's fine. I just disagree.
No I remember that but I don't think he literally wants to be President, or maybe he does. But I think someone who follows his agenda and he can manipulate would be better for him as another poster alluded. Surely he must realize that the Office will entail a lot of responsibility and diplomacy and not just invading any country he feels like invading or bombing. I hope there's more to this character than just a warmongering General.
shareNo I remember that
Well genius. That was last week. You seemed to be referring to last night's ep where it wasn't said. That's what I was referring too. Anyway you may well be right but check my statement as to why the General shouldn't think he'd be good for the job.
shareWell genius. That was last week.
You seemed to be referring to last night's ep where it wasn't said.
Anyway you may well be right but check my statement as to why the General shouldn't think he'd be good for the job.
His main point was that Kirkland is not qualified under the circumstances with them being at war.
That's not really hypocrisy, it's just his viewpoint.
He's casually suggesting a military coup where he takes over while the government is unstable.
That's a dangerous, treasonous suggestion from a legal standpoint. But he could get away with it if enough members of government supported the decision.
I don't think that's being hypocritical. Stupid yes, but he wasn't basing his claims on anything to do with being elected and a military coup negates an election anyway (if successful)