Politics Thread

[Juice]

This is what you said, in writing, a few posts ago



But what you are doing isn't just disagreeing with him, it's assigning motives to his actions that are less than honorable. He is saying he is speaking out right now because he feels an obligation to do so in light of recent events, whereas you seem to be trying to twist it into him speaking out because of some sort of childish anger against Trump.

If you read the statement it doesn't really address his reason for leaving much at all - it's about recent events. That makes it even stranger to tie it back to some bitterness around his departure from the White House 18 months ago. The man is a 4 Star General, not a petulant child.

I'm not sure what your motivation for that would/could be, other than perhaps an infatuation with Trump causes a knee-jerk reaction to slander anyone who speaks out against him regardless of who that person is or what they have done.

Yes, I am saying that Mattis and Trump had a legitimate disagreement over foreign policy and military affairs. Mattis quit because Trump made a choice against him. I believe Mattis is coming out now because he still holds a grudge against Trump over disagreements from months ago.

And I don't have an infatuation with Trump. I find the "Orange man bad" talk to be incessant and often stupid. Liberals loved to talk crap about Mattis but when he suddenly comes out of nowhere to talk shit about Trump, it's now "what an honorable man!"

It's ok dude. I'm not too worked up about this. Kasich will say something about Trump or Dewine will or some other "good" Republican like Mitt Romney and you'll point to it and say that we are all wrong for supporting Trump. We support Trump because he does things different than the old guard of the Republican party. He actually has made some small steps in bringing troops back from an endless war (that the large majority of us were all wrong about). If you think we are all so stupid because we blindly support Trump, why do you come on here and try to convince the unconvincing to change their minds?

[GoMuskies]

My online book has Trump as the underdog in November for the first time today. Biden is -130 and Trump +100.

[boozehound]

Yes, I am saying that Mattis and Trump had a legitimate disagreement over foreign policy and military affairs. Mattis quit because Trump made a choice against him. I believe Mattis is coming out now because he still holds a grudge against Trump over disagreements from months ago.

And I don't have an infatuation with Trump. I find the "Orange man bad" talk to be incessant and often stupid. Liberals loved to talk crap about Mattis but when he suddenly comes out of nowhere to talk shit about Trump, it's now "what an honorable man!"

It's ok dude. I'm not too worked up about this. Kasich will say something about Trump or Dewine will or some other "good" Republican like Mitt Romney and you'll point to it and say that we are all wrong for supporting Trump. We support Trump because he does things different than the old guard of the Republican party. He actually has made some small steps in bringing troops back from an endless war (that the large majority of us were all wrong about). If you think we are all so stupid because we blindly support Trump, why do you come on here and try to convince the unconvincing to change their minds?

I don't think you are stupid, which is why I'm so interested in the opinions of people on this board. I assume this is a generally educated group of non-idiots (with some exceptions, probably). I'm honestly trying to understand: Where is the line? Is there a line? Is there anything that Trump could do that you make you reconsider your support? What would an example of that be?

Jim Mattis thought that what Donald Trump is doing is dangerous enough the he basically called him a threat to the constitution. Publicly, and in writing. Think about what that means. This is a decorated general with a history of distinguished service and no history of shooting his mouth off without thinking. He felt compelled to speak out on behalf of the country he spent literally his entire adult life serving.

Similarly, (Republican-appointed) former Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen voiced similar concerns, in particular around the politicization of the Military (which, BTW, is some banana republic shit).

Still people support him seemingly without question. Is it all because he 'does things differently'? What does that really mean? He has been more talk than action around troop removal. Even the Syria withdrawal was walked-back somewhat. Is a minor reduction in overseas troop presence worth this?

Is there a line? Is there a limit to what you are willing to give up for Trump?

[Juice]

I don't think you are stupid, which is why I'm so interested in the opinions of people on this board. I assume this is a generally educated group of non-idiots (with some exceptions, probably). I'm honestly trying to understand: Where is the line? Is there a line? Is there anything that Trump could do that you make you reconsider your support? What would an example of that be?

Jim Mattis thought that what Donald Trump is doing is dangerous enough the he basically called him a threat to the constitution. Publicly, and in writing. Think about what that means. This is a decorated general with a history of distinguished service and no history of shooting his mouth off without thinking. He felt compelled to speak out on behalf of the country he spent literally his entire adult life serving.

Similarly, (Republican-appointed) former Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen voiced similar concerns, in particular around the politicization of the Military (which, BTW, is some banana republic shit).

Still people support him seemingly without question. Is it all because he 'does things differently'? What does that really mean? He has been more talk than action around troop removal. Even the Syria withdrawal was walked-back somewhat. Is a minor reduction in overseas troop presence worth this?

Is there a line? Is there a limit to what you are willing to give up for Trump?

When the choices are Trump or Clinton/Biden, there is no limit. Those two are full of just as much shit and probably more than Trump. Biden was in the senate for decades and VP for 8 years. We have the receipts of all the bullshit he has done as a politician that he's now trying to walk back. And on top of it, he's moving more to the left, which is an ideology than I am opposed to. So to summarize, until the Dems stop moving even further to the left or putting up absolute dog shit candidates who have proven to be ineffective, I'll keep supporting Trump because he fights for his supporters even if he does it in less than presidential ways. He's the first Republican politician in a long time that doesn't cower in front of the media and daily hit jobs they think up. Bush just took it and apologized. Romney just let them spread lies about him both politically and personally.

[D-West & PO-Z]

So Trump really could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters." ?

[bobbiemcgee]

Trump gets "daily hit jobs" bcuz he stands there and lies his ass off and then doubles down on the lie when challenged. He even goes as far as lying about something he just f#ing said the day or hours before, (video tape evidence), so who wouldn't ask him about it? He lies about everything all the time. Fact.

[Muskie in dayton]

When the choices are Trump or Clinton/Biden, there is no limit. Those two are full of just as much shit and probably more than Trump. Biden was in the senate for decades and VP for 8 years. We have the receipts of all the bullshit he has done as a politician that he's now trying to walk back. And on top of it, he's moving more to the left, which is an ideology than I am opposed to. So to summarize, until the Dems stop moving even further to the left or putting up absolute dog shit candidates who have proven to be ineffective, I'll keep supporting Trump because he fights for his supporters even if he does it in less than presidential ways. He's the first Republican politician in a long time that doesn't cower in front of the media and daily hit jobs they think up. Bush just took it and apologized. Romney just let them spread lies about him both politically and personally.

There are other choices. Only voting D or R is the reason why we have those two crooked buffoons.

[Juice]

There are other choices. Only voting D or R is the reason why we have those two crooked buffoons.

And I voted for Gary Johnson in the last presidential election.

[Muskie in dayton]

And I voted for Gary Johnson in the last presidential election.

Good, I did as well. There’s even the option of a write-in. I voted for a Skip Prosser - Jeff Battle ticket in 2000 :-).

For those who won’t do that, just remember when you pick the lesser of 2 evils, you’re still voting for an evil.

[boozehound]

When the choices are Trump or Clinton/Biden, there is no limit. Those two are full of just as much shit and probably more than Trump. Biden was in the senate for decades and VP for 8 years. We have the receipts of all the bullshit he has done as a politician that he's now trying to walk back. And on top of it, he's moving more to the left, which is an ideology than I am opposed to. So to summarize, until the Dems stop moving even further to the left or putting up absolute dog shit candidates who have proven to be ineffective, I'll keep supporting Trump because he fights for his supporters even if he does it in less than presidential ways. He's the first Republican politician in a long time that doesn't cower in front of the media and daily hit jobs they think up. Bush just took it and apologized. Romney just let them spread lies about him both politically and personally.

And I voted for Gary Johnson in the last presidential election.

You can vote for Trump as the lesser to two evils and not support all of his actions. I think it's a pretty slippery slope when you start equating voting for a candidate with unequivocal support. It seems to be a recent thing in our political system.

Why is it so important that the President get involved in a divisive war of words with the media? It seems like a bizarre Latin Machismo thing almost. Do we want our President to be so thin skinned that he has to get into a flame war with anyone who criticizes him?

I actually think that Bush handled a lot of unfair criticism very well. He never gave in to fostering division and always took the high road and spoke to the American people as one. He never broke the country into 'his people' and 'other people'. History has (rightfully) been kind to him for that.

To be bi-partisan I also thought Obama handled some unfair allegations pretty well. An example would be the birther controversy which was ridiculous from day 1.

I just assumed not reacting to every minor slight was part of being the President.