Mattis on Trump



  • https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/

    “I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled,” Mattis writes. “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.” He goes on, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.””

    “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,” Mattis writes. “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.””



  • I watched Obama set race relations back twenty years.

    I remember the riots in Watts. Both of them.

    I remember the Democrat Convention in 1968.

    Go blow smoke up somebody else's anal orifice.



  • @Jolly said in Mattis on Trump:

    I watched Obama set race relations back twenty years.

    I remember the riots in Watts. Both of them.

    I remember the Democrat Convention in 1968.

    Go blow smoke up somebody else's anal orifice.

    I believe I asked this before, but not sure if you answered. Numercially, where would you say that race relations are now at this point in time?

    President Bush = 0
    President Obama = -20
    President Trump = ?? (better or worse the President Obama?)



  • Race relations have and always will have problems to one degree or another. They are where they are today because powerful forces profit from that.



  • @taiwan_girl said in Mattis on Trump:

    @Jolly said in Mattis on Trump:

    I watched Obama set race relations back twenty years.

    I remember the riots in Watts. Both of them.

    I remember the Democrat Convention in 1968.

    Go blow smoke up somebody else's anal orifice.

    I believe I asked this before, but not sure if you answered. Numercially, where would you say that race relations are now at this point in time?

    President Bush = 0
    President Obama = -20
    President Trump = ?? (better or worse the President Obama?)

    I think with the improved economy, they had gotten better. I do believe the last week has hurt race relations.



  • @taiwan_girl said in Mattis on Trump:

    @Jolly said in Mattis on Trump:

    I watched Obama set race relations back twenty years.

    I remember the riots in Watts. Both of them.

    I remember the Democrat Convention in 1968.

    Go blow smoke up somebody else's anal orifice.

    I believe I asked this before, but not sure if you answered. Numercially, where would you say that race relations are now at this point in time?

    President Bush = 0
    President Obama = -20
    President Trump = ?? (better or worse the President Obama?)

    Sadly, race relations can not be measured.

    That is why the topic is so popular with politicians and TV news.

    They can claim anything they want. You can't argue the point, either way.

    All men are equal under the law. I think we are clearly committed to that and have been for decades.

    Does everyone love everyone? No. That is plain old free will. As long as the law is obeyed, that is no problem.



  • I think Mattis’ second paragraph is factually correct, at least I can’t think of any exceptions.



  • @jon-nyc said in Mattis on Trump:

    I think Mattis’ second paragraph is factually correct, at least I can’t think of any exceptions.

    I think his second paragraph couldn't be more wrong.



  • It's "factually correct" that Trump doesn't try to unite the country? What does that even mean? Surely he's said words that indicate that is his intention. So I assume you mean that by his actions he has never had the intent to unify?



  • I wouldn’t say literally never, in fact I can think of one time he tried reading a unifying speech, though he undid it all with ad-libbing at the end.

    But his instinct is not to try to unify - it’s to let you know what side he’s on and why the other side are Un-American or whatever.



  • I disagree. Certain elements of our society shouldn't be united with to start with. The current Democrat party, progressivism, those things need to be eradicated before we even talk about unity.



  • @jon-nyc said in Mattis on Trump:

    I wouldn’t say literally never, in fact I can think of one time he tried reading a unifying speech, though he undid it all with ad-libbing at the end.

    But his instinct is not to try to unify - it’s to let you know what side he’s on and why the other side are Un-American or whatever.

    I think maybe you just don't like him very much.



  • Yeah, it’s probably all in my head. And Mattis’s.



  • Trump loves a fight. Some people are like that. It's not really his instinct to unite.



  • No, he has his political strategies, and unification with progressives isn't among them. That much is true.



  • Larry sounds more like you agree and just think it’s the right thing to do.



  • Matt is wanted to keep troops fighting in Syria. Trump didn't. Matt is didn't like it that Trump isn't a weak kneed pussyman like Obama was. Nice guy, deserves a lot of respect for his service. Now he needs to shut up and sit down.



  • @jon-nyc said in Mattis on Trump:

    I wouldn’t say literally never, in fact I can think of one time he tried reading a unifying speech, though he undid it all with ad-libbing at the end.

    But his instinct is not to try to unify - it’s to let you know what side he’s on and why the other side are Un-American or whatever.

    I would say this is true.



  • *He goes on to contrast the American ethos of unity with Nazi ideology. “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.” *

    That's the third paragraph. Of course, Trump is a Nazi. He just missed his chance to arrest all the protesters in Washington and have them machine-gunned.

    He couldn't have forced them into the gas chambers, as the Corps of Engineers hasn't gotten them completed, yet. They've been too busy putting up and taking down hospitals.



  • @jon-nyc said in Mattis on Trump:

    Yeah, it’s probably all in my head. And Mattis’s.

    Where else could it be? In your shoe?


Log in to reply