Trump fans, Don is speaking to you, please listen.

Sure I am. You're just not wanting to hear the truth.

 

It’s nice to have a president looking out for me after eight years of Obama where every decision hurt me.

 

What prevents you from labeling any source that provides a message you disagree with as biased? Nothing.

If you are incapable of refuting what the Atlantic piece says, be honest enough not to blame it on your perceived orientation of the author.

 

But surely you will admit a prez's job is to look out for all citizens, not just the minority that supports him.

 

Supporting trump is not as patriotic as right wingers seem to think. If fact, in the future you will be hard pressed to find anyone who ever voted for trump.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/geor...ses-election-trump-i-dont-recognize-the-name/

 

What, specifically, do you take exception with about the article? Or perhaps you haven't even read it.

 

Someone I've never heard of making ridiculous predictions about the future... is relevent how?

 

Never heard of George Will? I'm surprised.

I wonder how many Trumper's have reached their tipping point?

In an op-ed published in The Atlantic on Tuesday, Mullen wrote that he was “sickened” to see federal police “forcibly and violently clear a path” through Lafayette Square to “accommodate” Trump’s church visit.

Mullen then wrote that although he’s been “reticent” to weigh in on issues regarding Trump’s leadership in the past, the country has hit an “inflection point” where events in recent weeks make “it impossible to remain silent.”

It is long past time that Trump voters show some humility, admit their mistake, and work for a better America.

 

How about "That right [1A] has been under assault since the day Trump took office." Bull crap from the Atlantic, they don't care about Constitution. The same author wrote "The Second Amendment Does Not Transcend All Others". Just leftist drivel, "There’s no other such right [2A] anywhere in the Constitution."

 

Happily.

https://www.newsweek.com/us-park-po...on-dc-protesters-before-trumps-church-1508239

According to Tuesday's statement, the USPP was assisting the United States Secret Service with the installation of temporary fencing inside the park. Protesters, however, "became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers' weapons."

While pepper balls and smoke canisters were used against the protesters, "no tear gas was used by USSP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park."

So again. Noones rights were violated.

 

Protesting is not a constitutional right.

 

It is common knowledge that The Atlantic is a liberal publication; just as National Review is a conservative publication.

I would certainly never deny the latter.

Why would you deny the former?

 

You are correct; I have not.

To do so would be to give tacit approval to your use of a hugely tendentious source.

In the future, you might wish to use a more neutral source.

 

Is it possible that Trump hasn't displayed enough incompetence, dishonesty and anti-patriotims yet to make it clear that he's not equipped to be President?

I'm sorry. I honestly don't understand.... What more can he do to show you that he is not in this for the nation, or for you, or for anything but his own personal benefit? How about if he doesn't complete the wall he promised? How about if he doesn't even start building it? How about if he stands in the middle of 5th avenue and shoots somebody? Well... he already shot tear gas at lawful protesters executing their constitutional right in the middle of Washington, so I guess the answer to that question is obvious.

 

I would hope so. Because there are very few Americans who don't detest him. Only the most faithful within the hard core of his base don't detest him. Even his own family detests him. So if Biden doesn't get the support of those who detest Trump, he'd probably get about... 20 votes... nationwide.

Look for yourself. Even this little girl detests him.

 

I don't care what his intent is. Honestly, I figure he wants to make America Great so the history books will tie Trump to greatness. I hope like hell he succeeds, because we all benefit from it. Trumps version of 'great' appears to be national sovereignty, self-propelled prosperity, strong economics and mutually beneficial trade. Sounds good to me.

If he doesn't build the wall, it won't be from lack of trying. It'll be from political obstruction by 'the resistance.'

I don't agree with Trump having removed protesters for a photo op. But its worth noting that it was a legal act: Obama signed HR347 (with overwhelming bipartisan support) that made anywhere the Secret Service goes or intends to go effectively under Federal Jurisdiction as long as they're there, it becomes 'Federally Protected.' So as soon as Trump wanted to go there, the protesters were no longer legally allowed to be there, according to the law.

Its a bad law, and Trump should reverse it, not use it. But it is law.

 

Of course he believes having something good come out of this would be a good thing. But it's pretty obvious it's not his main objective given that he has done everything anybody could ever do to appear in history books as the worst President in history. Even if he were to somehow do any of those things, he will forever be remembered as the guy who separated children from their family. As the guy who gassed protesters so he could have a photo-op holding a Bible. He has signed no laws. By governing through executive orders he will have assured that anything he does will be automatically void after he leaves the Presidency. So history books are most definitely a lost cause. If the objective is to obtain some immediate talking point for his base... that he can accomplish. But how does that help anybody but himself?

Talking about it in speeches is not "trying". Trying is like Obama did with obamacare: convincing people. Not only legislators, but people who didn't vote for him. Obama even went to the Republican caucus, when the GOP was in the minority, to openly answer any questions about his healthcare plan. And this might not have been enough to give him any traction with GOP legislators. But it allowed many people to listen. He worked hard under closed doors to get his plan through committees and to obtain the vote of the "Blue Dogs". Have you seen Trump do any of that? Trump's lack of results is most definitely "lack of trying". He has not convinced a single soul that was not already convinced before. As a matter of fact, he probably lost plenty of support. He just lacks the capacity to perform the role of President.

Whenever there is a conflict between a law signed by Congress and the Constitution, I would have hoped we all agree that the Constitution should prevail. I don't know if it was illegal or not. That's irrelevant. And it should be irrelevant to you. It is most definitely abuse of power. But the party that once claimed they were "the defenders of the Constitution" is no more.

Trump supporters are opening a huge Pandora's Box by justifying abuse of power. Because he has created a precedent for all the things that are now abuse. I think they trust future Democratic Presidents more than I do. And consider this: I know Democratic Presidents will use the precedent in the future to accomplish good things (which will not be abuse of power, because there is precedent). But I don't trust them not to use it to benefit themselves in detriment of the people, like apparently Trump supporters do.

 

"What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes and their families. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active-duty members of the armed forces in one's companies, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one's property. It is not patriotic to compare one's search for sexual partners in New York with the military service in Vietnam that one has dodged. It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one's own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one's own companies. It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Muammar Gaddafi; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call upon Russia to intervene in an American presidential election. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies." Timothy Snyder

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33917107-on-tyranny

 

When is he going to start? Cuz so far everything he touches turns to shyte.

 

If ever there was a book for the times this is it.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/565060/surviving-autocracy-by-masha-gessen/

 

The First Amendment grants the absolute right to protest.

 

I thought the first amendment was about free speech.

 

It is; it also includes the right of citizens to peacefully assemble.

 

Sadly, his most ardent supporters support him precisely because he is divisive and hateful. He reflects the negativity that they themselves have accumulated over years, even decades of anti-liberal, anti-Democratic, anti-media, anti-science, anti-truth conditioning. Trump is one of them and long has been. He was even a birther.

 

Mattis hates Trump because he seriously thought Trump was going to be a warhawk Persident who would let the military off the chain to rack up the big wins in the Middle East.

Obama was more than Happy to get the military neck-deep involved in the sandland quagmire, but then he'd hamstring every operation with his micromanaging and his Muslim-apologist leftist delusions.

Mattis thought Trump was going stay all up in the ME's business, and he thought he'd give him free reign to do everything that Obama never let him do. Mattis thought we'd still be fighting the same fights, but he'd be in control and calling the shots, and we'd finally be WINNING.

But, as we all found out, Trump's not a warhawk, he's a businessman. He took a good look at the hopeless disasters in Afghanistan, Syria, etc... and he said "Forget that. Crappy deals, too much wasted, no possibility of profit. We're cutting our losses and walking away."

Mattis had dreamed of big victories, and helping out our "allies", and Mission Accomplished, but Trump saw reality- there is no hope of winning, and our "allies" in the ME are just as stinky skunks as our enemies.

Trump was absolutely correct in his decision to cut and run from the ME, but Mattis will never bring himself to admit it, and he'll never forgive Trump for denying him his BIG WIN and his ticker-tape victory parade.