Who will be next to speak out about Trump?

[Kasandra]

Jim Mattis:

In Union There Is Strength

I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled.
The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of
the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are
rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that
all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a
small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of
thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to
our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to
support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops
taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to
violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to
provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with
military leadership standing alongside.

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that
our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we
should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare
occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we
witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—
between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground
that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and
the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are
a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders
who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with
a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more
forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a
hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to
militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common
purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before
the law.

Instructions given by the military departments to our troops
before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi
slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American
answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to
surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.
Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not
try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try.
Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of
three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the
consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite
without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society.
This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it
to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our
promise; and to our children.

We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a
renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic
has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the
ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in
hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their
lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their
country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive
authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and
hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our
Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better
angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.

Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to
the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country
admired and respected at home and abroad.

James Mattis

[TheDeamon]

Sadly, the Democrats aren't a viable alternative. I'll take Trump over a Democrat controlled Federal Government.

Trump is disturbing, but the Dems are even worse in a lot more ways.

Sure the Dems aren't as overtly disturbing. But it isn't how they talk that's the problem. It's what they do when they're not talking.

Trump's biggest problem is he wants to seem like he's in the middle of everything.

[cherrypoptart]

Mattis makes some good points but what happens when the police abandon their posts and the governors don't do anything either and just let chaos and anarchy rule while the cities burn? I wouldn't want to see our military attacking civilians but when the alternative is what we've seen with police stations themselves getting burned out and nothing being done about it then somebody has got to do something. If the local cops won't stop it, the mayors won't stop it, and the governors won't stop it then there is only one person left.

[Kasandra]

Trump's biggest problem is he wants to seem like he's in the middle of everything.

It says a lot about each of us in how we respond to Mattis's and others comments.  That's his biggest problem?

[Kasandra]

Mattis makes some good points but what happens when the police abandon their posts and the governors don't do anything either and just let chaos and anarchy rule while the cities burn? I wouldn't want to see our military attacking civilians but when the alternative is what we've seen with police stations themselves getting burned out and nothing being done about it then somebody has got to do something. If the local cops won't stop it, the mayors won't stop it, and the governors won't stop it then there is only one person left.

It may sound good in theory, but the problem with that argument is that no retired or active military officer has spoken up to support Trump's suggestion of sending in the military.  Besides Mattis, senior officers who have already objected include Sec. Def. Mark Esper, Adm. Mike Mullen, Gen. Martin Dempsey, Gen. Michael Hayden, Gen. Tony Thomas, Gen. Wesley Clark, Gen. David Goldfein, Air Force chief master sergeant Kaleth Wright and Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria.   More can be expected to speak out.

[DonaldD]

To play devil's advocate: would any active military person speak up for such a policy, even if they agreed with it?  It could be spun to look like that military person approves of or even encourages using the military against civilians, as opposed to being "reluctant but forced".

[TheDeamon]

To play devil's advocate: would any active military person speak up for such a policy, even if they agreed with it?  It could be spun to look like that military person approves of or even encourages using the military against civilians, as opposed to being "reluctant but forced".

Pretty much, the military leadership speaking up in support of Trump's idea is a move towards the military being perceived as political, and that's the last thing anyone should want to see.

The other reality in the mix, and this would be relevant for the Active Duty side vs the retired/prior service side is the intelligence information they have access to. If they have intel that does back up Trump's claim that they're dealing with a coordinated attempt to destabilize the nation, then they are contending with an insurrection, even if the public isn't fully cognizant of that fact.

And fighting an insurrection is a specific thing they are permitted to do, and probably should continue to be, especially if foreign parties are verifiably involved.

[TheDeamon]

Trump's biggest problem is he wants to seem like he's in the middle of everything.

It says a lot about each of us in how we respond to Mattis's and others comments.  That's his biggest problem?

I wasn't responding to Mattis. I was responding to the problem with Trump. He wasn't to seem more important than he is, he wants to keep his name in lights, and he's extremely "tone deaf" on a number of issues. Nuance is utterly lost on the man, and that is the single biggest thing in play when Mattis complains about how Trump is "dividing" America.

While I agree with him that he is doing that. I disagree with him on it being deliberate on Trump's part. That Trump is also dealing with a hostile press which will find any and every means possible to twist anything he does into the most nefarious thing conceivable doesn't help when paired with his lack of nuance and lack of a self-filter.

[yossarian22c]

Trump's biggest problem is he wants to seem like he's in the middle of everything.

It says a lot about each of us in how we respond to Mattis's and others comments.  That's his biggest problem?

Don't bother Kasandra. We all know "Trump is a good man," everyone who has ever met him says so. Those that didn't say so didn't really know the one true great philosopher king of modern america. 

[rightleft22]

Trump's biggest problem is he wants to seem like he's in the middle of everything.

It says a lot about each of us in how we respond to Mattis's and others comments.  That's his biggest problem?

I wasn't responding to Mattis. I was responding to the problem with Trump. He wasn't to seem more important than he is, he wants to keep his name in lights, and he's extremely "tone deaf" on a number of issues. Nuance is utterly lost on the man, and that is the single biggest thing in play when Mattis complains about how Trump is "dividing" America.

While I agree with him that he is doing that. I disagree with him on it being deliberate on Trump's part. That Trump is also dealing with a hostile press which will find any and every means possible to twist anything he does into the most nefarious thing conceivable doesn't help when paired with his lack of nuance and lack of a self-filter.

" He wasn't to seem more important than he is, he wants to keep his name in lights" Begs the question 'Why does he want to 'keep his name in lights' and dominate the narrative. I think its understandable that some think the reason his narcissism and wanting to appear more important or the most important.
There of course could be other explanations.

Its the true the press tends to view most of everything Trump says as 'nefarious' however his communication style makes that to easy. A Leader might take that into account and adjust. That in four years Trump continues to 'double down' begs the question if Trump find value - payoff - in being 'missunderstood'. His lack of nuance though poor leadership works for him

[NobleHunter]

Mattis makes some good points but what happens when the police abandon their posts and the governors don't do anything either and just let chaos and anarchy rule while the cities burn? I wouldn't want to see our military attacking civilians but when the alternative is what we've seen with police stations themselves getting burned out and nothing being done about it then somebody has got to do something. If the local cops won't stop it, the mayors won't stop it, and the governors won't stop it then there is only one person left.

If the cops abandoned their posts, the rioting would quickly subside. The cops are causing much of the violence, not restraining it.

[TheDeamon]

If the cops abandoned their posts, the rioting would quickly subside. The cops are causing much of the violence, not restraining it.

 

Cops abandoning their posts would enable further looting and rioting to go with it, as nobody would be around with the ability to effectively stop it....

Well, unless you wanted the Boogs to go "Rooftop Korea"(shooting at "looters" from the rooftop of the building being defended) on people at point that instead?

[wmLambert]

...If the cops abandoned their posts, the rioting would quickly subside. The cops are causing much of the violence, not restraining it.

After the Blue State governors let all the criminals out of prison right before this handy "incident" gave an excuse for rioting, why would putting even more handcuffs on police help? When those rioters arrested are let back out on the street, why do you expect the riots to "quickly subside?" The riots have nothing to do with George Floyd. It has to do with opportunity, and is surely organized.

Are you insinuating that those orchestrating the rioting and looting will stop because they have met their goals? Interesting.

[NobleHunter]

I'm saying without the police those orchestrating the violence won't have their tools.

[Kasandra]

...If the cops abandoned their posts, the rioting would quickly subside. The cops are causing much of the violence, not restraining it.

After the Blue State governors let all the criminals out of prison right before this handy "incident" gave an excuse for rioting, why would putting even more handcuffs on police help? When those rioters arrested are let back out on the street, why do you expect the riots to "quickly subside?" The riots have nothing to do with George Floyd. It has to do with opportunity, and is surely organized.

Are you insinuating that those orchestrating the rioting and looting will stop because they have met their goals? Interesting.

Bear in mind that red states released older and sicker inmates, but blue states decided to only release murderers who were serving life sentences without possibility of parole.  On the way out the gate each was given a handout explaining how and where to apply for membership in antifa.  Guns and bricks have been set aside for them in special "safe" houses.  I'm glad you're on this, as I never would have known all this otherwise.

[TheDeamon]

I'm saying without the police those orchestrating the violence won't have their tools.

Which ones? The looters don't care if the police don't.

AntiFa(and others) trying to recreate visuals from the 1960's of the police engaging in riot control is another matter, but police did eventually get smarter on that. Establishing larger buffers between themselves and the protestors so that they were able to simply ignore the people throwing bricks/stones/other things in their direction.

[wmLambert]

...On the way out the gate each was given a handout explaining how and where to apply for membership in antifa.  Guns and bricks have been set aside for them in special "safe" houses.  I'm glad you're on this, as I never would have known all this otherwise.

Actually, you're not far off. You need to understand what "cannon fodder" means. When the Democrats let criminals on the streets, they were available for rioting and looting, weren't they? The activists - who have admitted getting paid by Soros, are like the Iranian generals who sent the children loaded with explosives into the Iraqi lines. The generals didn't care if the children were blown up. It was the psychological burden they placed on the Iraqi's to shoot them before they got too close that they wanted. Cannon fodder. The Iranians screamed, "baby killers?" Just think about whose side you are on.

[Kasandra]

...On the way out the gate each was given a handout explaining how and where to apply for membership in antifa.  Guns and bricks have been set aside for them in special "safe" houses.  I'm glad you're on this, as I never would have known all this otherwise.

Actually, you're not far off. You need to understand what "cannon fodder" means. When the Democrats let criminals on the streets, they were available for rioting and looting, weren't they? The activists - who have admitted getting paid by Soros, are like the Iranian generals who sent the children loaded with explosives into the Iraqi lines. The generals didn't care if the children were blown up. It was the psychological burden they placed on the Iraqi's to shoot them before they got too close that they wanted. Cannon fodder. The Iranians screamed, "baby killers?" Just think about whose side you are on.

I can't make anything too absurd that you won't buy into it, as long as in your mind it captures the hate you foster for "the left".  I'm going to take a break from you for a bit.

[wmLambert]

...I can't make anything too absurd that you won't buy into it, as long as in your mind it captures the hate you foster for "the left".  I'm going to take a break from you for a bit.

No, you just can't admit being so wrong. You need a nemesis, I guess.

I do not hate the Left, if you read my essay on Political Dysfunction. you would know I appreciate that most Leftists honestly believe disinformation that drives their ideology. I went chapter and verse defining how and what they were presented, and how it was incorrect. Not evil - just incorrect.

However, holding onto lies when you know them to not be true may be evil. Every person has the responsibility to seek truth and fight disinformation. When you disinform, even though you think you are correct, you must accept the bounce back that may occur. I hope you can grow that much.

[LetterRip]

Asymptomatic has five different meanings, which is why there is confusion.

There is 'paucisymptomatic' - people report not having symptoms even though they in fact have mild symptoms - 'it is just allergies', etc.  This is when people respond to questionaires and report not having symptoms.

There is 'presymptomatic' - this is having come in contact with someone and caught the virus, yet not having a viral load sufficient to cause noticable symptoms.

There is atypical presentation - not having the definitive symptom of a fever spike.

There are false positives - the person is 'asymptomatic' because they were never actually infected.

There is truely asymptomatic - a person who never develops clinical symptoms.

Most 'asymptomatic' individuals usually a false positive, paucisymptomatic, or presymptomatic, and most of the rest are atypical presentation, there is almost no truely asymptomatic.

Survey's will get 'asymptomatic' responses for paucisymptomatic and false positives.
Testing in hospitals will get presymptomatic, false positives, and atypical presentations.

[ScottF]

Asymptomatic has five different meanings, which is why there is confusion.

There is 'paucisymptomatic' - people report not having symptoms even though they in fact have mild symptoms - 'it is just allergies', etc.  This is when people respond to questionaires and report not having symptoms.

There is 'presymptomatic' - this is having come in contact with someone and caught the virus, yet not having a viral load sufficient to cause noticable symptoms.

There is atypical presentation - not having the definitive symptom of a fever spike.

There are false positives - the person is 'asymptomatic' because they were never actually infected.

There is truely asymptomatic - a person who never develops clinical symptoms.

Most 'asymptomatic' individuals usually a false positive, paucisymptomatic, or presymptomatic, and most of the rest are atypical presentation, there is almost no truely asymptomatic.

Survey's will get 'asymptomatic' responses for paucisymptomatic and false positives.
Testing in hospitals will get presymptomatic, false positives, and atypical presentations.

Which meaning(s) do you think the WHO meant when they said that transmission from asymptomatic people was "very rare.”?

[Kasandra]

Trump speaks on behalf of failed confederate generals who fought (and lost) to defend slavery.  He won't change the names of the bases:

"These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom. The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars," Trump tweeted. "Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations."

Trump did not address the issue of Confederate generals, but rather focused on the legacy of the facilities themselves, listing three bases in the South named for generals in the Confederate army.

"Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with. Respect our Military!" he said.

He's defending the honor and memory of such notable American military leaders as:

* Lieut. General A.P. Hill - Killed during Third Battle of Petersburg

* General Robert E. Lee - Surrendered at Appomattox

* Major General George Pickett - Graduated last in his class at West Point, led Pickett's charge (bloody loss), fled to Canada to avoid prosecution for killing deserters

* General Braxton Bragg - Lost many battles, decommissioned by Jefferson Davis

* Lieut. General John Brown Gordon - Attorney, general (no military training, no major victories), politician, opposed Reconstruction

* Brigadier General Henry Benning - Fought to preserve slavery, no major war accomplishments

* Colonel Edmund Rucker - Participated in several battles, no major accomplishments

* General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard - Defended Charleston, fell out with Jefferson Davis

* Lieut. General Leonidas Polk - No combat training, no major accomplishments, poor relationships with superiors

* General John Bell Hood - As general brave, aggressive, reckless, several major defeats

[Fenring]

Which meaning(s) do you think the WHO meant when they said that transmission from asymptomatic people was "very rare.”?

Apparently when I brought that up it was worthy of ridicule. Maybe you'll do better...

[TheDeamon]

* Lieut. General A.P. Hill - Killed during Third Battle of Petersburg

* General Robert E. Lee - Surrendered at Appomattox

* Major General George Pickett - Graduated last in his class at West Point, led Pickett's charge (bloody loss), fled to Canada to avoid prosecution for killing deserters

* General Braxton Bragg - Lost many battles, decommissioned by Jefferson Davis

* Lieut. General John Brown Gordon - Attorney, general (no military training, no major victories), politician, opposed Reconstruction

* Brigadier General Henry Benning - Fought to preserve slavery, no major war accomplishments

* Colonel Edmund Rucker - Participated in several battles, no major accomplishments

* General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard - Defended Charleston, fell out with Jefferson Davis

* Lieut. General Leonidas Polk - No combat training, no major accomplishments, poor relationships with superiors

* General John Bell Hood - As general brave, aggressive, reckless, several major defeats

Robert E. Lee is a more complicated story, and some of those generals played significant roles in the war of 1849, as Union Soldiers. Lee even gets to be noted as having run West Point for a few years during the 1850's and making several improvements to it while there.

As to the others, I'm a little more mixed on the matter. At the time it was "good politics" to "honor the local guys" and ignore the matter of which side they fought for during the Civil War. Enough time has past that the politics of "healing old wounds" with regards to "the side that lost" is no longer very relevant, and it is now about healing the wounds of Jim Crow laws and the other legacies of those men.

More generally though it isn't about just those guys, its about the general idea of judging past historical figures by present day standards, and more importantly the inherent issue to be had when people manage to "white wash history" and in the process of doing so, inadvertently creating conditions which could foster the same thing happening again. "Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them" and erasing portions of the history that are inconvenient to modern sensibilities simply opens the door to those "inconvenient things" coming back to visit future generations because someone saw fit to erase that context from history.

[Kasandra]

More generally though it isn't about just those guys, its about the general idea of judging past historical figures by present day standards, and more importantly the inherent issue to be had when people manage to "white wash history" and in the process of doing so, inadvertently creating conditions which could foster the same thing happening again. "Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them" and erasing portions of the history that are inconvenient to modern sensibilities simply opens the door to those "inconvenient things" coming back to visit future generations because someone saw fit to erase that context from history.

Good points.  Trump made the mistake of equating the namesakes of the bases who dedicated their military service to preserving slavery with the honor of those based in them who served the entire country in times of national conflict.  Most of these generals didn't do much for their cause during the war and didn't give much back to the country after the War ended.  Their history is part of ours, and so is the shame.  Trump doesn't know what that feeling is.

The move to brown-wash history didn't start two weeks ago, but has accelerated.  More statues will fall down or be taken away and put behind closed doors.  Even NASCAR is banning confederate symbols from their tracks (we'll see how that goes). Nothing is driving the current protests and disruptions more than Trump himself, who is appealing to the worst instincts of his shrinking fan base and becoming the symbol of the outrage and may become its target. 

Many years ago I saw a cartoon of an award being presented to a very ugly woman at a beauty contest.  The presenter handed her a small trophy and said something like, "We recognize exceptional contestants no matter the direction their achievement takes."  I think it was aimed at Nixon.  Trump wants one.

[Kasandra]

Now this from Gen. Mark A. Milley.

The Pentagon’s top general apologized on Thursday for his appearing alongside President Trump near the White House after authorities forcibly removing peaceful protesters from the area, saying that it “was a mistake that I have learned from."

Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the remarks in a prerecorded graduation speech to students at the National Defense University.

Milley advised the students that it is important to keep “a keen sense of situational awareness” and acknowledged his failure to do so on June 1, as he walked from Lafayette Square in combat fatigues alongside the president, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and other senior advisers.

“As many of you saw the results of the photograph of me in Lafayette Square last week, that sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society,” Milley said. “I should not have been there. My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created the perception of the military involved in domestic politics.”

[Kasandra]

The trickle is becoming a stream now.  Robert Gates yesterday:

Gates, who was secretary of defense from 2006 to 2011 under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, spoke with NPR about his new book, Exercise of Power: American Failures, Successes, and a New Path Forward in the Post-Cold War World.

In the conversation, he weighed in on Trump's response to the protest movement against racial injustice. He said it's time to change the names of Confederate bases. "There comes a moment when things become possible and people ought to seize a moment when it presents itself, and this is such a moment."

Gates reflected on former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' statement of criticism of Trump's leadership, published on June 4, saying he agrees with Mattis: "It's hard to disagree that this president is a divider."

He continued: "I think that we are in a weaker position in the world today than we were three years ago."

Looking to November, Gates said "I think that what the country needs is somebody who will try to bring us together." He added that despite disagreements on foreign policy, presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden is "a man of great integrity" and a "decent human being."

[TheDeamon]

The trickle is becoming a stream now.  Robert Gates yesterday:

The thing that bothers me more on this is the revision of history in regards to Obama.

Trump's the first President to seek to divide the people?

Obama intentionally split the population on a number of issues, and did it very deliberately using focus group tested phrasings and so on and so forth. Remember those "wedge issues" Obama's supporters were constantly talking about? What does a wedge do? Oh right, it divides.

The thing was, Obama was very slick about how he did it, and "he used the right words" in addition to being a black man, so he gets a free pass.

Meanwhile, Trump is very divisive, but most of his divisiveness seems to come from his being utterly tone-deaf, rather than any deliberate intention to so in large part. In some ways it makes Trump more dangerous as he doesn't think about what proverbial ant-hill he is about to kick over, while Obama's team analyzed the living daylights out that proverbial anthill before taking their own swing at it.

[Kasandra]

Anything any President does occurs in the context of partisan politics.  Lyndon Johnson was bitterly opposed on the Clean Air Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Immigration policy reform, social welfare programs and other things.  He once said that if he walked on water across the Potomac Republicans would dismiss the act and say he just didn't know how to swim.  As with Johnson, Obama's attempts to "divide the people" were overwhelmingly in support of larger objectives to benefit segments of society without diminishing others, rather than to divide and conquer, as Trump continually does.

Trump is more than "tone deaf".  He is impervious to reason and even moral behavior.  He gives lip service on rare occasions to things like racism but turns around instantly and claims that seeing the National Guard tear gas protesters was "a beautiful thing" and admires how a line of police pushed through crowds of lawful protesters like "a knife cutting butter." 

You have a persistent habit of announcing that you have deep concerns about Trump, but then turn around and tacitly support almost everything he does, this time while diminishing Obama in the process.

[DonaldD]

YouTube: One man's take on what it means to support Trump, even despite your reservations

[wmLambert]

...Trump is more than "tone deaf".  He is impervious to reason and even moral behavior.

When Mattis said, "We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him..." He was doing what he just argued against. Trump is the Unifier - not the destroyer. That is a perfect example of Democrat projection. They could not stand Hillary losing, so immediately set up Operation Crossfire Hurricane and Razer to discredit him. That was not an attempt at unity. Almost every time he speaks it is a unifying speech - but not represented as such by the complicit media. He has to resort to alternate social media posting to bypass the MSM lack of professionalism.

[DonaldD]

Trump is the Unifier - not the destroyer. That is a perfect example of Democrat projection.

Here's a assignment for the class; if that is a "perfect example" of Democrat projection (drink!!) then who is the Great Unifier actually unifying with - Republicans?  Is he unifying the 55% of the people who disapprove of him?

[TheDeamon]

You have a persistent habit of announcing that you have deep concerns about Trump, but then turn around and tacitly support almost everything he does, this time while diminishing Obama in the process.

We've had this discussion in the past.

Trump is the chintzy used car salesman trying to sell a lemon. While he does head up the executive branch, there are other checks and balances in place to keep him from being able to get too far "out of hand" as he's not sophisticated at all in what he tries to do.

The Democrats on the other hand, they're slime balls too, but they're the ultra-slick non-stick teflon type who are going to do far worse to you than getting you to sign the bottom line on buying a used car they know to be a lemon.

I'll take my chances with the used car salesman.

[Fenring]

Trump is the Unifier - not the destroyer. That is a perfect example of Democrat projection.

Here's a assignment for the class; if that is a "perfect example" of Democrat projection (drink!!) then who is the Great Unifier actually unifying with - Republicans?  Is he unifying the 55% of the people who disapprove of him?

To be fair I think both posts are good examples of the partisan trench warfare that prevents any agreement on anything. As I've mentioned, the beauty of mudslinging is when both sides are correct; that way they can both feel like the other side is lying about their own guilt. Trump may well be a divider, but let's face it, the Democratic party clearly did set out to completely sabotage Trump's presidency from the moment Hillary lost. It was a scorched Earth initiative and took "not my President" to a new level. Trump may even be just as bad as they say, and yet they also sought to divide the country and undermine the due process. It's hard for either side to admit they're wrong when they know they're right. Turns out you can be right (about accusing the other side) and wrong (about your own integrity) at the same time. Funny how no one can agree on anything under the circumstances...

[wmLambert]

Trump is the Unifier - not the destroyer. That is a perfect example of Democrat projection.

Here's a assignment for the class; if that is a "perfect example" of Democrat projection (drink!!) then who is the Great Unifier actually unifying with - Republicans?  Is he unifying the 55% of the people who disapprove of him?

To be fair I think both posts are good examples of the partisan trench warfare that prevents any agreement on anything. As I've mentioned, the beauty of mudslinging is when both sides are correct; that way they can both feel like the other side is lying about their own guilt. Trump may well be a divider, but let's face it, the Democratic party clearly did set out to completely sabotage Trump's presidency from the moment Hillary lost. It was a scorched Earth initiative and took "not my President" to a new level. Trump may even be just as bad as they say, and yet they also sought to divide the country and undermine the due process. It's hard for either side to admit they're wrong when they know they're right. Turns out you can be right (about accusing the other side) and wrong (about your own integrity) at the same time. Funny how no one can agree on anything under the circumstances...

Sounds logical, but you are guilty of accepting disinformation and projection. It was never Trump who wanted to stop minorities from immigrating. He only wanted illegal aliens stopped. (From the same areas that Obama targeted.) Yet the democrats and Never-Trumpers accused him for wanting what he never said, and too many hapless idiot-morons believe it.

The call was made at Obama's level to attack the new administration, and the untrue charges of Trump being a Putin pawn was never true, but is still alleged. Likewise, all the unproved accusations against him were never true, and it is frustrating to see lies promoted as truth by a complicit media, that even when such charges are disproved, no retraction is made. The Democrat voting base believes it all.

It was Obama who put kids in cages, but the Democrats projected that onto Trump. It was Obama who worsened the Black/White discord, and Trump who lowered Black unemployment, made huge rarely covered policies to help insalubrious communities, and did a whole lot more than Obama ever did.

The projection is one way, but the definition of it means the Democrats will say it is the other side doing it.

You do a disservice by accepting the disinformation and then saying "both sides do It." Sorry, but you can't believe that.

[Aris Katsaris]

It was Obama who put kids in cages, but the Democrats projected that onto Trump. It was Obama who worsened the Black/White discord, and Trump who lowered Black unemployment, made huge rarely covered policies to help insalubrious communities, and did a whole lot more than Obama ever did.

So if we examine an unambiguously white-racist or even neonazi forum, are you saying they'll have a negative opinion for Trump and a positive opinion for Obama and Biden?

[Kasandra]

And our nominee for the faint praise award goes to Robert Gates:

“Unlike his three predecessors, and I write about this in the book, at least he hasn’t started any new wars, and he has robustly funded the military. I supported his outreach to North Korea,” Gates told Chuck Todd.

“It hasn’t come to anything, but I thought that was a bold move and everything else had failed in the previous 25 years.”

[TheDeamon]

So if we examine an unambiguously white-racist or even neonazi forum, are you saying they'll have a negative opinion for Trump and a positive opinion for Obama and Biden?

Well, they did endorse Obama in 2008.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a4719/racists-support-obama-061308/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-supremacists-see-hope-in-obama-win/

[TheDrake]

In an informal Esquire survey, three out of four white supremacists prefer Obama, while McCain is the clear favorite among black nationalists. (Sure, our methodology suffered from an extraordinarily low sample size--limited to four white supremacists and one black nationalist--but just because it wouldn't fly with Gallup doesn't mean there ain't a kernel of truth in there.)

Powerful stuff. There's also a difference between endorsement and preference.

"The corporations are running things now, so it's not going to make much difference who's in there, but McCain would be much worse. He's a warmonger. He's a scary, scary person--more dangerous than Bush. Obama, according to his book, Dreams Of My Father, is a racist and I have no problem with black racists. I've got the quote right here: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's white race.' The problem with Obama is he's being dishonest about his racial views. I'd respect him if he'd just come out and say, 'Yeah, I'm a black racist.' I don't hate black people. I just think it's in the best interest of the races to be separated as much as possible. See, I'm a leftist. I'm not a rightist. I hate the transnational corporations far more than any black person."

Obama may be a racist in a positive sense for his people--that will awaken a lot of the whites, knock some sense into them. They'll see that non-white Americans are allowed to be proud of who they are, to be racially conscious, to talk about their people or their community without being attacked as being racist.

Then, we have a black man, who loves his own kind, belongs to a Black-Nationalist religion, is married to a black women--when usually negroes who have 'made it' immediately land a white spouse as a kind of prize--that's the kind of negro that I can respect. Any time that a prominent person embraces their racial heritage in a positive manner, it's good for all racially minded folks.

So here, they like him because they see him as a way to get other white people to get angrier? It's not really endorsing him. Same goes for the CBS article.

They're not exactly rooting for Barack Obama, but prominent white supremacists anticipate a boost to their cause if he becomes the first black president. His election, they say, would trigger a backlash - whites rising up, a revolution of sorts - that they think is long overdue.

[TheDeamon]

In an informal Esquire survey, three out of four white supremacists prefer Obama, while McCain is the clear favorite among black nationalists. (Sure, our methodology suffered from an extraordinarily low sample size--limited to four white supremacists and one black nationalist--but just because it wouldn't fly with Gallup doesn't mean there ain't a kernel of truth in there.)

Powerful stuff. There's also a difference between endorsement and preference.

Oh hey, then you can understand the position a lot of Conservatives and moderates are in with regards to Trump? (vs Biden)

[DonaldD]

In an informal Esquire survey, three out of four white supremacists prefer Obama, while McCain is the clear favorite among black nationalists. (Sure, our methodology suffered from an extraordinarily low sample size--limited to four white supremacists and one black nationalist--but just because it wouldn't fly with Gallup doesn't mean there ain't a kernel of truth in there.)

Powerful stuff. There's also a difference between endorsement and preference.

Oh hey, then you can understand the position a lot of Conservatives and moderates are in with regards to Trump? (vs Biden)

You mean... conservatives voting for Trump in order to trigger a backlash against... Republicans?  White folk? To trigger a black uprising?  i don't think the equivalency you are looking for is there...

[TheDrake]

In an informal Esquire survey, three out of four white supremacists prefer Obama, while McCain is the clear favorite among black nationalists. (Sure, our methodology suffered from an extraordinarily low sample size--limited to four white supremacists and one black nationalist--but just because it wouldn't fly with Gallup doesn't mean there ain't a kernel of truth in there.)

Powerful stuff. There's also a difference between endorsement and preference.

Oh hey, then you can understand the position a lot of Conservatives and moderates are in with regards to Trump? (vs Biden)

That's a little unclear to me. I know all about the lesser of evils argument for both of those guys. But Trump gets a full throated affirmation from that same group.

Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, which is far and away the most popular white supremacist site on the net, said his web traffic surges every time Donald Trump speaks, that radio listeners and callers have spiked, and that he's helping white supremacists build a movement that will last far beyond this campaign cycle.

[TheDeamon]

Powerful stuff. There's also a difference between endorsement and preference.

Oh hey, then you can understand the position a lot of Conservatives and moderates are in with regards to Trump? (vs Biden)

You mean... conservatives voting for Trump in order to trigger a backlash against... Republicans?  White folk? To trigger a black uprising?  i don't think the equivalency you are looking for is there...

That's certainly one way to spin things.

I was commenting more in regards that when given a choice between Biden or Trump, they(conservatives) have a preference for Trump, but that isn't the same thing as an endorsement of Trump.

If he's able to distinguish between people being able to have a preference for an outcome vs an endorsement of it he should be able to figure that much out without it needing to be spelled out. But it seems both of you did, so communication failure on all sides?

[Kasandra]

Recently formed groups of current and former Republicans who have renounced the sitting President of their Party.

The latest super PAC of Republicans for Joe Biden, The Right Side PAC, includes short-lived former Trump communications director Anthony Scaramucci and launched Wednesday. Scaramucci told Newsweek he plans to go into swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, in predominantly white areas that voted for Trump, to spread his message of why it's against their interest to continue to support him. The group will use digital, phone, and mail to reach voters and rely on major donors.
...
The creation of that PAC follows the new 45 Alumni for Biden PAC of former Bush administration officials that began this month. Former President George W. Bush will not support Trump, and his spokesman Freddy Ford told Newsweek he is also not involved in the PAC. But the group, which will fundraise for Biden, quickly gathered close to 200 supporters.
...
The fundraising efforts come on top of high-profile GOP defections, like former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who said June 7 that Trump "lies" and he will vote for Biden. Cindy McCain, the widow of former Senator John McCain, plans to support Biden but may not be public about it because of her son's political career, The New York Times reported.

Then there are the groups like The Lincoln Project, started by veterans of past Republican campaigns, which spent $1.4 million against Trump through March and raised another $1 million after the president attacked the group in May for their ad on his coronavirus response. Bill Kristol's Republican Voters Against Trump is also stocked by GOP operatives and is releasing searing ads against him, like one featuring Senator Lindsey Graham. The ad received widespread media coverage and attention on social media after showing Graham slamming Trump during the 2016 campaign and then lavishing praise on Biden.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure some of them are fine people.

[TheDeamon]

Never Trump rides again. I can sympathize, I don't intend to vote for Trump either. But I'm never going to endorse Biden.

[Kasandra]

Never Trump rides again. I can sympathize, I don't intend to vote for Trump either. But I'm never going to endorse Biden.

Half a loaf is better than none .

[TheDrake]

Never Trump rides again. I can sympathize, I don't intend to vote for Trump either. But I'm never going to endorse Biden.

Half a loaf is better than none .

Just call me gluten free.

[Kasandra]

On election day, you don't want to be caught sitting on your glutens.  The saying goes that this election is the most important one of your lifetime, and as is always the case, it's true.

[DonaldD]

Not a huge surprise, and it likely changes nothing as regards actions on the ground, but Federal judge denies Trump administration's attempt to block release of Bolton's book

[TheDrake]

On election day, you don't want to be caught sitting on your glutens.  The saying goes that this election is the most important one of your lifetime, and as is always the case, it's true.

Democrats had the chance to put forward a progressive candidate with integrity, they blew it. Maybe four more years of Trump will be what they need to get it together.