James Mattis condemns Trump as a threat to the Constitution

[Francee89]

Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis condemned President Trump for making a "mockery of our Constitution" in a statement to The Atlantic on Wednesday, saying he was "appalled" at the president's response to mass protests in the wake of George Floyd's killing.

https://www.axios.com/james-mattis-trum ... ad210.html

Excerpt of Mattis statement:

“ 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.”

[Francee89]

If Mattis was so bad, why did Trump hire him and then keep him around for two years in such an important job? Does he think that’s a flattering look for him?

And because no Trump twitter tantrum would be complete without a lie, he absolutely didn’t give Mattis his nickname.

[Mommamia]

Who cares who gave Mattis the nickname of mad dog. It's completely irrelevant.

Seems Mattis couldn't get along with any President.....

Trump issued his own blistering condemnation on Twitter late Wednesday, pointing out that then-President Obama removed Mattis as head of U.S. Central Command in 2013.

"Probably the only thing Barack Obama and I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world’s most overrated General," Trump wrote. "I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos', which I didn’t like, & changed it to 'Mad Dog.' His primary strength was not military, but rather personal public relations. I gave him a new life, things to do, and battles to win, but he seldom 'brought home the bacon'. I didn’t like his 'leadership' style or much else about him, and many others agree. Glad he is gone!"

[Lemons]

Trump can’t let any criticism go. He spends hours responding to what he sees on TV and reads.

And how long before his third acting Secretary of Defense in three years, Mark Esper is fired after he told reporters he had no idea he was being dragged to a church for a photo op and that he opposes use of military on protesters.

[Francee89]

Who cares who gave Mattis the nickname of mad dog. It's completely irrelevant.

Seems Mattis couldn't get along with any President.....

Trump issued his own blistering condemnation on Twitter late Wednesday, pointing out that then-President Obama removed Mattis as head of U.S. Central Command in 2013.

"Probably the only thing Barack Obama and I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world’s most overrated General," Trump wrote. "I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos', which I didn’t like, & changed it to 'Mad Dog.' His primary strength was not military, but rather personal public relations. I gave him a new life, things to do, and battles to win, but he seldom 'brought home the bacon'. I didn’t like his 'leadership' style or much else about him, and many others agree. Glad he is gone!"

If it’s irrelevant, why did Trump bring it up? The fact that he’s proven himself, yet again, to be either delusional or a liar happy to promote fake news seems quite relevant.

If he was so incompetent and bad at his job, why did Trump keep him around for two years? Doesn’t seem to speak very highly of his ability to hire the best people, as he promised.

[Mommamia]

Who cares who gave Mattis the nickname of mad dog. It's completely irrelevant.

Seems Mattis couldn't get along with any President.....

Trump issued his own blistering condemnation on Twitter late Wednesday, pointing out that then-President Obama removed Mattis as head of U.S. Central Command in 2013.

"Probably the only thing Barack Obama and I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world’s most overrated General," Trump wrote. "I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos', which I didn’t like, & changed it to 'Mad Dog.' His primary strength was not military, but rather personal public relations. I gave him a new life, things to do, and battles to win, but he seldom 'brought home the bacon'. I didn’t like his 'leadership' style or much else about him, and many others agree. Glad he is gone!"

If it’s irrelevant, why did Trump bring it up? The fact that he’s proven himself, yet again, to be either delusional or a liar happy to promote fake news seems quite relevant.

If he was so incompetent and bad at his job, why did Trump keep him around for two years? Doesn’t seem to speak very highly of his ability to hire the best people, as he promised.

HTH would I know why he brought it up. I guess I'll have to ask him the next time he calls me.

Right there is your problem, you place too much importance on unimportant minutia. Lose a lot of sleep over that crap, do you?

[Francee89]

Who cares who gave Mattis the nickname of mad dog. It's completely irrelevant.

Seems Mattis couldn't get along with any President.....

Trump issued his own blistering condemnation on Twitter late Wednesday, pointing out that then-President Obama removed Mattis as head of U.S. Central Command in 2013.

"Probably the only thing Barack Obama and I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world’s most overrated General," Trump wrote. "I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos', which I didn’t like, & changed it to 'Mad Dog.' His primary strength was not military, but rather personal public relations. I gave him a new life, things to do, and battles to win, but he seldom 'brought home the bacon'. I didn’t like his 'leadership' style or much else about him, and many others agree. Glad he is gone!"

If it’s irrelevant, why did Trump bring it up? The fact that he’s proven himself, yet again, to be either delusional or a liar happy to promote fake news seems quite relevant.

If he was so incompetent and bad at his job, why did Trump keep him around for two years? Doesn’t seem to speak very highly of his ability to hire the best people, as he promised.

HTH would I know why he brought it up. I guess I'll have to ask him the next time he calls me.

Right there is your problem, you place too much importance on unimportant minutia. Lose a lot of sleep over that crap, do you?

I’d say the fact that you don’t care about the President’s nonexistent relationship with the truth is your problem. Have your head that far in the sand, do you?

It’s relevant because the President brought it up. As is the sad fact that his best comeback is that he...hired and left someone in a position he’s now arguing they were incompetent in and poorly suited for.

[Mommamia]

If it’s irrelevant, why did Trump bring it up? The fact that he’s proven himself, yet again, to be either delusional or a liar happy to promote fake news seems quite relevant.

If he was so incompetent and bad at his job, why did Trump keep him around for two years? Doesn’t seem to speak very highly of his ability to hire the best people, as he promised.

HTH would I know why he brought it up. I guess I'll have to ask him the next time he calls me.

Right there is your problem, you place too much importance on unimportant minutia. Lose a lot of sleep over that crap, do you?

I’d say the fact that you don’t care about the President’s nonexistent relationship with the truth is your problem. Have your head that far in the sand, do you?

It’s relevant because the President brought it up. As is the sad fact that his best comeback is that he...hired and left someone in a position he’s now arguing they were incompetent in and poorly suited for.

You really don't have a clue on hiring or appointing people in the business world or the gov't. A good boss will give people a chance to prove themselves, how well they play with others, figure out if they are both on the same track, not fire their ass after just a short time. Considering Trump was never a politician, it is understandable to sane people that he might make mistakes when making appointments. I'm sure he was getting advice from those who knew their way around DC politics. But in the end, he corrects those kinds of mistakes.

Whether Trump nicknamed him or someone else did, isn't important in the grand scheme of things.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten all of the lies Obama told while he was president. The ever failed NYT tried to cover up Obama's lies and make Trump look like the worse one....

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... and-frauds

"Has the Times forgotten about Edward Snowden? Obama responded to Snowden’s stunning revelations of the National Security Agency’s vacuuming up millions of Americans’ personal data by going on the Jay Leno Show and proclaiming: “There is no spying on Americans.” But NSA’s definition of “terrorist suspect” was so ludicrously broad that it includes anyone “searching the web for suspicious stuff” (maybe including presidential lies). Obama’s verbal defenses of NSA spying collapsed like a row of houses of cards.

In early 2009, Obama visited Mexico and, in a spiel calling for the renewal of the assault weapon ban, asserted that “more than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States.” This vastly overstated the actual problem, since that statistic measured only firearms that Mexican authorities sent to the U.S. for tracing.

His administration then acted as if 90 percent was a goal, not a lie, launching a secret Fast and Furious gunwalking operation masterminded by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agency, deluging Mexican drug gangs with high-powered weapons. At least 150 Mexicans were killed by guns illegally sent south of the border with Obama administration approval.

Obama’s animosity to the Second Amendment spurred some of his most farcical whoppers. In July 2016, Obama asserted: “We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.” Glocks are the Lexus of handguns, and a person could buy hundreds of volumes of used books via Amazon for the price of a Glock.

A year earlier, Obama bewailed “neighborhoods where it’s easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable.” Obama never offered a single example of a locale where carrots are rarer than .38 Specials. But his false claim helped frighten clueless suburbanites to support Obama’s anti-gun agenda. "

And the biggest most costly lies Obama told:

"The Times column lists only one Obama falsehood on the Affordable Care Act: “If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.” Obama’s dozens of variations and recitals of this lie were disregarded. The Times also ignored the fact that the ObamaCare legislation was carefully crafted to con Congress and the public. As its intellectual godfather, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, explained:

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to get this thing to pass.”

"The Times’ comparison of Trump and other presidents implies that all lies are equally damnable. The Times ignored all the Obama false promises used to justify his troop surge in Afghanistan (which resulted in more than a thousand dead American troops with nothing to show for the sacrifice) and bombing Libya (which now has slave markets). But killing vast numbers of human beings should require more due diligence than assertions on federal spending for peanut subsidies.

The Times asserts that Trump is seeking to “to make truth irrelevant,” which “is extremely damaging to democracy.” But democracy has also been subverted by the media’s long history of ignoring or absolving presidential lies. For more than a century, the press has groveled the worst when presidents dragged the nation into the biggest perils.

Trump’s lies deserve to be exposed and condemned. But Bush’s and Obama’s lies help explain why only 20 percent of Americans trusted the federal government at the end of Obama’s reign. Pretending America recently had a Golden Age of honest politicians encourages the delusion that toppling Trump is all that is necessary to make the federal government great again."

[Francee89]

HTH would I know why he brought it up. I guess I'll have to ask him the next time he calls me.

Right there is your problem, you place too much importance on unimportant minutia. Lose a lot of sleep over that crap, do you?

I’d say the fact that you don’t care about the President’s nonexistent relationship with the truth is your problem. Have your head that far in the sand, do you?

It’s relevant because the President brought it up. As is the sad fact that his best comeback is that he...hired and left someone in a position he’s now arguing they were incompetent in and poorly suited for.

You really don't have a clue on hiring or appointing people in the business world or the gov't. A good boss will give people a chance to prove themselves, how well they play with others, figure out if they are both on the same track, not fire their ass after just a short time. Considering Trump was never a politician, it is understandable to sane people that he might make mistakes when making appointments. I'm sure he was getting advice from those who knew their way around DC politics. But in the end, he corrects those kinds of mistakes.

Whether Trump nicknamed him or someone else did, isn't important in the grand scheme of things.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten all of the lies Obama told while he was president. The ever failed NYT tried to cover up Obama's lies and make Trump look like the worse one....

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... and-frauds

"Has the Times forgotten about Edward Snowden? Obama responded to Snowden’s stunning revelations of the National Security Agency’s vacuuming up millions of Americans’ personal data by going on the Jay Leno Show and proclaiming: “There is no spying on Americans.” But NSA’s definition of “terrorist suspect” was so ludicrously broad that it includes anyone “searching the web for suspicious stuff” (maybe including presidential lies). Obama’s verbal defenses of NSA spying collapsed like a row of houses of cards.

In early 2009, Obama visited Mexico and, in a spiel calling for the renewal of the assault weapon ban, asserted that “more than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States.” This vastly overstated the actual problem, since that statistic measured only firearms that Mexican authorities sent to the U.S. for tracing.

His administration then acted as if 90 percent was a goal, not a lie, launching a secret Fast and Furious gunwalking operation masterminded by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agency, deluging Mexican drug gangs with high-powered weapons. At least 150 Mexicans were killed by guns illegally sent south of the border with Obama administration approval.

Obama’s animosity to the Second Amendment spurred some of his most farcical whoppers. In July 2016, Obama asserted: “We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.” Glocks are the Lexus of handguns, and a person could buy hundreds of volumes of used books via Amazon for the price of a Glock.

A year earlier, Obama bewailed “neighborhoods where it’s easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable.” Obama never offered a single example of a locale where carrots are rarer than .38 Specials. But his false claim helped frighten clueless suburbanites to support Obama’s anti-gun agenda. "

And the biggest most costly lies Obama told:

"The Times column lists only one Obama falsehood on the Affordable Care Act: “If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.” Obama’s dozens of variations and recitals of this lie were disregarded. The Times also ignored the fact that the ObamaCare legislation was carefully crafted to con Congress and the public. As its intellectual godfather, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, explained:

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to get this thing to pass.”

"The Times’ comparison of Trump and other presidents implies that all lies are equally damnable. The Times ignored all the Obama false promises used to justify his troop surge in Afghanistan (which resulted in more than a thousand dead American troops with nothing to show for the sacrifice) and bombing Libya (which now has slave markets). But killing vast numbers of human beings should require more due diligence than assertions on federal spending for peanut subsidies.

The Times asserts that Trump is seeking to “to make truth irrelevant,” which “is extremely damaging to democracy.” But democracy has also been subverted by the media’s long history of ignoring or absolving presidential lies. For more than a century, the press has groveled the worst when presidents dragged the nation into the biggest perils.

Trump’s lies deserve to be exposed and condemned. But Bush’s and Obama’s lies help explain why only 20 percent of Americans trusted the federal government at the end of Obama’s reign. Pretending America recently had a Golden Age of honest politicians encourages the delusion that toppling Trump is all that is necessary to make the federal government great again."

LOL, I’m perfectly aware that Trump’s Administration has a very high turnover rate, which reflects poorly on his ability to hire “the best people”. Mattis wasn’t in the Administration “a short time” - he was Secretary for nearly two years. That’s half a Presidential term, but we’re to excuse Trump for apparently keeping someone he’s now saying was bad at his job there for that long? Hilarious.

I’ve never said Obama didn’t lie. Trump simply lies far more often, about matters big and small and in between. The fact that he’d unnecessarily lie about a nickname is simply more proof of that.

[moviestar]

it is relevant that he is literally incapable of opening his mouth without lying

Who cares who gave Mattis the nickname of mad dog. It's completely irrelevant.

Seems Mattis couldn't get along with any President.....

Trump issued his own blistering condemnation on Twitter late Wednesday, pointing out that then-President Obama removed Mattis as head of U.S. Central Command in 2013.

"Probably the only thing Barack Obama and I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world’s most overrated General," Trump wrote. "I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos', which I didn’t like, & changed it to 'Mad Dog.' His primary strength was not military, but rather personal public relations. I gave him a new life, things to do, and battles to win, but he seldom 'brought home the bacon'. I didn’t like his 'leadership' style or much else about him, and many others agree. Glad he is gone!"