“Limited cognitive ability and dubious moral character”

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21597
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
29 August 2019 17:11
 

That’s how James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense, 4-Star General, 40-year Marine veteran, describes our illustrious President.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2760
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
29 August 2019 22:58
 

Too little too late

 
 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  4911
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
30 August 2019 00:20
 

Why is he holding back?

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17630
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
30 August 2019 01:13
 

It’s like he read my mind.

 
 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1316
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
30 August 2019 09:59
 
 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1862
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
30 August 2019 15:37
 
EN - 29 August 2019 05:11 PM

That’s how James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense, 4-Star General, 40-year Marine veteran, describes our illustrious President.

Yep. And here’s the TYT video of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvkZg0XmFaI

Ron

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9617
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
01 September 2019 07:20
 

“Limited cognitive ability and dubious moral character”. Trump was elected because of these traits, not in spite of them, and are the true heart of the Republican Party now.

 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3156
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
01 September 2019 12:27
 
EN - 29 August 2019 05:11 PM

That’s how James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense, 4-Star General, 40-year Marine veteran, describes our illustrious President.

Only when Trump is attacked, does the number of stars on a general impress the clowns on the left. Even if the principle disagreement between the General and the President about whether to remain or leave the wars in the Middle East. Generally one would think the left would be for leaving the wars.

The General is part of the establishment. Trump is not. That is why he was elected.

Incidentally, this is the same General (Mattis) who served on the Theranos’s board while it was perpetrating FRAUD. Mattis also vouched for the character of of Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes, who was a sociopathic fraudster.

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/16/17124288/mattis-theranos-board-trump

Go ahead and use Mattis as your boy to serve your needs whilst ignoring reality   much like in the fashion of James Comey asking for apology despite the damning IG report about him. It is pathological!  It can not be reasoned with.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1862
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
01 September 2019 15:11
 
Celal - 01 September 2019 12:27 PM
EN - 29 August 2019 05:11 PM

That’s how James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense, 4-Star General, 40-year Marine veteran, describes our illustrious President.

Only when Trump is attacked, does the number of stars on a general impress the clowns on the left. Even if the principle disagreement between the General and the President about whether to remain or leave the wars in the Middle East. Generally one would think the left would be for leaving the wars.

The General is part of the establishment. Trump is not. That is why he was elected.

Incidentally, this is the same General (Mattis) who served on the Theranos’s board while it was perpetrating FRAUD. Mattis also vouched for the character of of Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes, who was a sociopathic fraudster.

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/16/17124288/mattis-theranos-board-trump

Go ahead and use Mattis as your boy to serve your needs whilst ignoring reality   much like in the fashion of James Comey asking for apology despite the damning IG report about him. It is pathological!  It can not be reasoned with.

Only when Trump is attacked does the right suddenly throw their beloved military leaders under the bus. At any rate, you seem to be missing the point. Someone who your own article describes as being “respected by the right and being well-informed and level-headed”, and who is in a position to know, has described Trump in very unflattering terms. THAT’S the point. Not Theranos, not Comey, not anything else. 

“General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, who is being considered for Secretary of Defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General’s General!”
Donald J. Trump

and…

“I’m an extremely stable genius. OK?”
Donald J. Trump


Ron

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21597
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2019 18:31
 
MrRon - 01 September 2019 03:11 PM
Celal - 01 September 2019 12:27 PM
EN - 29 August 2019 05:11 PM

That’s how James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense, 4-Star General, 40-year Marine veteran, describes our illustrious President.

Only when Trump is attacked, does the number of stars on a general impress the clowns on the left. Even if the principle disagreement between the General and the President about whether to remain or leave the wars in the Middle East. Generally one would think the left would be for leaving the wars.

The General is part of the establishment. Trump is not. That is why he was elected.

Incidentally, this is the same General (Mattis) who served on the Theranos’s board while it was perpetrating FRAUD. Mattis also vouched for the character of of Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes, who was a sociopathic fraudster.

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/16/17124288/mattis-theranos-board-trump

Go ahead and use Mattis as your boy to serve your needs whilst ignoring reality   much like in the fashion of James Comey asking for apology despite the damning IG report about him. It is pathological!  It can not be reasoned with.

Only when Trump is attacked does the right suddenly throw their beloved military leaders under the bus. At any rate, you seem to be missing the point. Someone who your own article describes as being “respected by the right and being well-informed and level-headed”, and who is in a position to know, has described Trump in very unflattering terms. THAT’S the point. Not Theranos, not Comey, not anything else. 

“General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, who is being considered for Secretary of Defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General’s General!”
Donald J. Trump

and…

“I’m an extremely stable genius. OK?”
Donald J. Trump


Ron

Excellent response.  Celal has drunk the koolaide and is intoxicated.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6762
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
02 September 2019 09:37
 
Celal - 01 September 2019 12:27 PM

Only when Trump is attacked, does the number of stars on a general impress the clowns on the left.

MrRon - 01 September 2019 03:11 PM

Only when Trump is attacked does the right suddenly throw their beloved military leaders under the bus.

You’re both right! Which goes to show how easy it is to spot hypocrisy in other people.

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3156
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
02 September 2019 10:33
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 September 2019 09:37 AM
Celal - 01 September 2019 12:27 PM

Only when Trump is attacked, does the number of stars on a general impress the clowns on the left.

MrRon - 01 September 2019 03:11 PM

Only when Trump is attacked does the right suddenly throw their beloved military leaders under the bus.

You’re both right! Which goes to show how easy it is to spot hypocrisy in other people.

I agree with your conclusion but not the way you got there. When I point out the hypocrisy, or favor or support something, anything,  I’m always about the ideas or policies as the primary focus. Not the individual. Because people cant always be right! Notice how the left always attack the person (orange hair, fat, long ties, etc), not necessarily the ideas.

My statement about the General has to do with the idea that US should not be the policeman of the World or waste/spend endless lives, monies in the Middle East. This is what Trump ran on. The General was not on board. It is silly to hold any person(including Trump or the General)  sacred over policy.  Likewise, presumably anti-war, anti-interventionist left should be on board with leaving the middle east wars.

Ron’s point was about a person and how the right can withdraw their support of someone whom once they supported. This is pointless if we are only declaring support/loyalty to the policy/idea not the person. That is very definition of the principled position. 

 

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6762
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
02 September 2019 11:30
 
Celal - 02 September 2019 10:33 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 September 2019 09:37 AM
Celal - 01 September 2019 12:27 PM

Only when Trump is attacked, does the number of stars on a general impress the clowns on the left.

MrRon - 01 September 2019 03:11 PM

Only when Trump is attacked does the right suddenly throw their beloved military leaders under the bus.

You’re both right! Which goes to show how easy it is to spot hypocrisy in other people.

I agree with your conclusion but not the way you got there. When I point out the hypocrisy, or favor or support something, anything,  I’m always about the ideas or policies as the primary focus. Not the individual. Because people cant always be right! Notice how the left always attack the person (orange hair, fat, long ties, etc), not necessarily the ideas.

My statement about the General has to do with the idea that US should not be the policeman of the World or waste/spend endless lives, monies in the Middle East. This is what Trump ran on. The General was not on board. It is silly to hold any person(including Trump or the General)  sacred over policy.  Likewise, presumably anti-war, anti-interventionist left should be on board with leaving the middle east wars.

Ron’s point was about a person and how the right can withdraw their support of someone whom once they supported. This is pointless if we are only declaring support/loyalty to the policy/idea not the person. That is very definition of the principled position. 

 

Neither side is above criticism in my opinion. Trump attacks “the person” all the time, doesn’t he? And what about your criticism of Mattis over his involvement with Theranos? Isn’t that a case of focusing on the individual instead of his ideas? What does Theranos have to do with foreign policy?

Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly agree with your take on foreign policy. And I think it goes without saying that generals “in general” should be taken with a large dose of salt whenever they pontificate on foreign policy.

But I also think Ron makes a fair point when he alludes to the Republicans historically tending to be supportive of Generals when they do exactly that: pontificate on foreign policy. Remember the early Obama years, when Obama still wanted to reduce our military presence in Afghanistan? “It’s not just us Republicans who think that’s a bad idea, the Generals say it’s a bad idea!” Is that really so much different from what the Democrats are doing with Mattis now? “It’s not just us Democrats who think Trump is blah blah blah, the General says it!”

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1862
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
02 September 2019 14:37
 
Celal - 02 September 2019 10:33 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 September 2019 09:37 AM
Celal - 01 September 2019 12:27 PM

Only when Trump is attacked, does the number of stars on a general impress the clowns on the left.

MrRon - 01 September 2019 03:11 PM

Only when Trump is attacked does the right suddenly throw their beloved military leaders under the bus.

You’re both right! Which goes to show how easy it is to spot hypocrisy in other people.

Notice how the left always attack the person (orange hair, fat, long ties, etc), not necessarily the ideas.

Laughable. If anything, it’s the exact opposite.

Wasn’t Trump’s main criticism of Obama (as well as many on the right) that he was not a true American?? Remember the birth certificate fiasco that blew up in Trump’s (and the right’s) face? How is that NOT an attack on the person?? And nobody eschewed policy and more relentlessly attacked anybody the way Fox News, Limbaugh, Breitbart, Drudge, and many on the right attacked Obama. Remember these?:

1. Using mustard on his hamburger. Apparently it’s un-American. At least that’s what Sean Hannity and Fox News wants you to believe. 
2. Wearing a tan suit. It’s just so un-businesslike. And un-presidential. At least that’s what Fox News wants you to believe.
3. His “golf” problem. Greg Gutfeld voiced his frustrations; “When someone has a problem, and it’s someone you care about, you should confront him. You’ve got to sit him down and say, ‘This is serious.’ President Obama, you have a problem — not with drugs or women or booze — it’s worse. You have a problem with golf, and it’s getting weird.”

The hypocrisy here goes without saying.

4. His middle name. MUCH has been insinuated by the pundits on the right over Obama’s middle name.
5. The terrorist “fist jab”. When Barrack and Michelle fist-bumped during a campaign rally it was suggested that it may be some sort of “terrorist fist jab” by E.D. Hill of Fox News.
6. Using a binder clip. When Obama introduced the American Jobs Act in 2011, Steve Doocy wasn’t happy about the president’s choice of office supplies. Obama was holding together the documents with a binder clip, and Doocy used his platform on Fox & Friends to call him out. After all, what kind of President would stoop to using a chintzy binder clip??
7. His birthplace (mentioned above).

And by the way, isn’t Trump famous for mockingly nicknaming people? Any of these ring a bell?:

“Pocahontas”
“Little Marco”
“Sleepy Joe” (Biden)
“Little Michael Bloomberg”
“Alfred E. Neuman”
“Lyin’ Ted”
“Al Frankenstein”
“Crooked Hillary”
“Fat Jerry” (Nadler)
“Crazy Bernie”
“Pencil neck” (Adam Schiff)
“Low IQ Maxine Waters”
“Dumb as a rock Mika”
“Psycho Joe” (Scarborough)
“Little George” (Stephanopolous)
“Sleepy Eyes” (Chuck Todd)
“Horseface” (Stormy Daniels)
“Dumbo” (Tex Alles)
“Miss Piggy” (Alicia Machado)

So please don’t lecture us about name-calling/attacking the person. 


Ron’s point was about a person and how the right can withdraw their support of someone whom once they supported. This is pointless if we are only declaring support/loyalty to the policy/idea not the person. That is very definition of the principled position.

No, that’s not my main point. My point, as is the point of the OP, is once again…

Someone who your own article describes as being “respected by the right and being well-informed and level-headed”, and who is in a position to know, has described Trump in very unflattering terms. THAT’S the point.

And by the way, speaking of being principled, how do you reconcile your support of someone who has a penchant for flip-flopping so much? Which of Trump’s positions (past or present) are/were you opposed to? And speaking of being REALLY principled, why does Trump (and the right) no longer lament about the record 94 million people currently out of the workforce? That was the one statistic that Trump (and Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh, and other right-wing pundits) cited repeatedly as the indication of Obama’s “failed” economic policies. But that statistic has gotten worse under Trump - not better!

Ron

[ Edited: 03 September 2019 03:40 by MrRon]