• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:392] Gen. Mattis says he’s 'angry and appalled' at Trump's response to protests

dave8383 said:
Of course he did. He said using the troops would be a mistake. He, along with others, is making that case. They are in fact warning Trump not to escalate the situation.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - The article, though, is 80% anti-Trump rhetoric

He's entitled to his opinion, but I think people have to take it with a grain of salt - It's pretty hard to have an objective opinion about someone who fired you or pressured you to resign
 
Termn8or said:
Where was Mattis speaking out in anger about the biggest abuse of power in US history?

Abut the Russian Collusion Hoax?

About Mueller's corrupt investigation, when in fact he knew almost from day one that Trump had committed no crime.

Dead silent.

So spare me all the glorifying of this guy.
Click to expand...

Oh look, a Trump cultist is upset because Mattis didn’t buy into the Trump cult’s favorite fairy tales.

Yawn.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Fair enough - The article, though, is 80% anti-Trump rhetoric

He's entitled to his opinion, but I think people have to take it with a grain of salt - It's pretty hard to have an objective opinion about someone who fired you or pressured you to resign
Click to expand...

You certainly can take it any way you want. You can say they had a falling out and Mattis isn't objective so on and so forth. But I would say it's a direct and cogent analysis of how we got here and how not to proceed. Frankly, I would say that Mattis has the country in mind and that Trump has his own personal agenda in mind, and that the two are contradictory.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Fair enough - The article, though, is 80% anti-Trump rhetoric

He's entitled to his opinion, but I think people have to take it with a grain of salt - It's pretty hard to have an objective opinion about someone who fired you or pressured you to resign
Click to expand...

Actually it’s pretty easy to take a person seriously if the person resigns because he is a patriot with a long record of distinguished service and he is being pressured to do things that are contrary to his oath. Pressured by a reality TV star who says he knows more than the generals(or any other expert) but who is actually clueless and is too lazy to make the effort to understand complex problems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Dear God, please let General Mattis run for President in 2020.

It would be Mad Dog 2020. If he doesn't, that's what I'm going to be drinking.
 
George50 said:
Actually it’s pretty easy to take a person seriously if the person resigns because he is a patriot with a long record of distinguished service and he is being pressured to do things that are contrary to his oath. Pressured by a reality TV star who says he knows more than the generals(or any other expert) but who is actually clueless and is too lazy to make the effort to understand complex problems.
Click to expand...

I mean - I'm not saying we need to disrespect his point of view - He's entitled to his opinion

But no one on this planet could argue that Mattis is, or even possibly could be, an objective source - Especially because so much of what he said was opinionated rhetoric

He's apparently had sharp disagreements with Obama and George W. Bush as well
 
ReubenSherr said:
I mean - I'm not saying we need to disrespect his point of view - He's entitled to his opinion

But no one on this planet could argue that Mattis is, or even possibly could be, an objective source - Especially because so much of what he said was opinionated rhetoric

He's apparently had sharp disagreements with Obama and George W. Bush as well
Click to expand...

If you think the notion that Trump is dividing this country for his own personal gain is just "opinionated rhetoric", well, you're living on a different planet than I am, and then apparently Mattis is.
 
Admiral Mike Mullen:

I Cannot Remain Silent
Our fellow citizens are not the enemy, and must never become so.

Mike Mullen June 2, 2020
Seventeenth chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

It sickened me yesterday to see security personnel—including members of the National Guard—forcibly and violently clear a path through Lafayette Square to accommodate the president's visit outside St. John's Church. I have to date been reticent to speak out on issues surrounding President Trump's leadership, but we are at an inflection point, and the events of the past few weeks have made it impossible to remain silent.

Whatever Trump's goal in conducting his visit, he laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country, gave succor to the leaders of other countries who take comfort in our domestic strife, and risked further politicizing the men and women of our armed forces.

There was little good in the stunt.
Click to expand...

Mike Mullen: I Cannot Remain Silent - The Atlantic
 
dave8383 said:
If you think the notion that Trump is dividing this country for his own personal gain is just "opinionated rhetoric", well, you're living on a different planet than I am, and then apparently Mattis is.
Click to expand...

"Opinionated rhetoric" isn't necessarily wrong or right - it's just opinionated rhetoric

Personally, I think it's a load of crap, but Mattis is entitled to his opinion - I was just commenting that his opinion couldn't possibly be unbiased since he was fired or pressured to resign by Trump (and apparently had conflicts with both Obama and George W Bush as well)

And if you can't get along with Trump, Obama, or GWBush, something might be a little wrong up there in the head...
 
ReubenSherr said:
I was just commenting that his opinion couldn't possibly be unbiased............
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that's a load of crap and I'm betting you know he's dead on, and that hurts your little buddy Trump.

Admiral Mike Mullen:

"I Cannot Remain Silent
Our fellow citizens are not the enemy, and must never become so.

Mike Mullen June 2, 2020
Seventeenth chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

It sickened me yesterday to see security personnel—including members of the National Guard—forcibly and violently clear a path through Lafayette Square to accommodate the president's visit outside St. John's Church. I have to date been reticent to speak out on issues surrounding President Trump's leadership, but we are at an inflection point, and the events of the past few weeks have made it impossible to remain silent.

Whatever Trump's goal in conducting his visit, he laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country, gave succor to the leaders of other countries who take comfort in our domestic strife, and risked further politicizing the men and women of our armed forces.

There was little good in the stunt."

Mike Mullen: I Cannot Remain Silent - The Atlantic
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Really? What country is HE looking at?

These "small number of lawbreakers" have destroyed millions of dollars worth of property in cities all over the country. They've killed people all over the country. They've attack the police, news people and innocent bystanders all over the country.

As long as Mattis is deliberately blind to reality, he can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...

Because you can't wait for Trump to declare martial law. MAGA, baby
 
Re: Gen. Mattis says he’s 'angry and appalled' at Trump's response to protests

Captain Adverse said:
(Sigh)

I guess General Mattis forgets his history.
Click to expand...

Funny, both of your examples were using troops to protect American citizens to protest. Trump's doing the opposite. Makes the situation somewhat different, as a former vice chair of the JCS notes:

“We are at the most dangerous time for civil-military relations I’ve seen in my lifetime,” Adm. Sandy Winnefeld, a retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an email. “It is especially important to reserve the use of federal forces for only the most dire circumstances that actually threaten the survival of the nation. Our senior-most military leaders need to ensure their political chain of command understands these things.”
 
dave8383 said:
There was little good in the stunt."
Click to expand...

And Mattis is far from alone:

Senior Pentagon leaders are now so concerned about losing public support — and that of their active-duty and reserve personnel, 40 percent of whom are people of color — that Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, released a message to top military commanders on Wednesday affirming that every member of the armed forces swears an oath to defend the Constitution, which he said “gives Americans the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.”

When was the last time a chair of the JCS felt compelled to issue a memo like this?
 
Re: Gen. Mattis says he’s 'angry and appalled' at Trump's response to protests

Captain Adverse said:
No.

However, he can to deal with civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion.

10 U.S. Code SS 253 - Interference with State and Federal law | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Gee, I wonder if violent mobs burning, looting, attacking other people, even killing...would classify as "civil disorder?"

I also wonder if it would apply under such circumstances when the State Governors are unwilling and/or unable to do so themselves?

I believe Trump is in the right here.

He met with the Governors, and directed them to take necessary steps to prevent further "civil disorder." That if they fail to do so, then he will.

Exactly how does this not comply with the very law you cited?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, when Trump takes no responsibility for protecting us from an epidemic, he can just stand down in my opinion. We don't need or want his fake 'heroics'.
 
dave8383 said:
Personally, I think that's a load of crap and I'm betting you know he's dead on, and that hurts your little buddy Trump.
Click to expand...

You can't be "dead on" without any facts or evidence - it's just rhetoric

As far as the content of his emotional claims about Trump, it's way too broad to debate lol - you'd have to break it down topic by topic, I wouldn't even know where to start

Again, though, if he can't get along with two Republican presidents or a Democratic president, he's got some screws loose
 
Re: Gen. Mattis says he’s 'angry and appalled' at Trump's response to protests

Captain Adverse said:
(Sigh)

I guess General Mattis forgets his history.

How Eisenhower not only nationalized the Arkansas National Guard back in 1957...He also sent 1000 men from the 101st Airborne as well. President Sends Troops to Little Rock, Federalizes Arkansas National Guard; Tells Nation He Acted to Avoid An Anarchy

Then we have LBJ nationalizing the Alabama National Guard back in 1965. LBJ Sends Federal Troops to Alabama - HISTORY

The President is the Commander in Chief, which not only includes active Army units, but Reserves and the National Guard. If necessary to protect Americans from internal threats that States either support or refuse to deal with, then the Federal government can step in. Preferably with civilian law enforcement (FBI, etc.). But he can "nationalize" State Guard units to do the job too.
Click to expand...

Hey Mr. History expert. Please enlighten us as to us the last time a chairman of the JCS felt it was necessary to send a message to the top commanders affirming that every member of the armed forces swears an oath to defend the Constitution, which he said “gives Americans the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly"?
 
ReubenSherr said:
You can't be "dead on" without any facts or evidence - it's just rhetoric

As far as the content of his emotional claims about Trump, it's way too broad to debate lol - you'd have to break it down topic by topic, I wouldn't even know where to start
Click to expand...

You had your chance pal, now you can take your BS and stick it where the sun don't shine.
 
Mycroft said:
Really? What country is HE looking at?

These "small number of lawbreakers" have destroyed millions of dollars worth of property in cities all over the country. They've killed people all over the country. They've attack the police, news people and innocent bystanders all over the country.

As long as Mattis is deliberately blind to reality, he can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...

Those right wing rioters?
 
Re: Gen. Mattis says he’s 'angry and appalled' at Trump's response to protests

Captain Adverse said:
(Sigh) I guess General Mattis forgets his history. How Eisenhower not only nationalized the Arkansas National Guard back in 1957...He also sent 1000 men from the 101st Airborne as well. Then we have LBJ nationalizing the Alabama National Guard back in 1965. The President is the Commander in Chief, which not only includes active Army units, but Reserves and the National Guard. If necessary to protect Americans from internal threats that States either support or refuse to deal with, then the Federal government can step in. Preferably with civilian law enforcement (FBI, etc.). But he can "nationalize" State Guard units to do the job too.
Click to expand...

Sigh, I guess some have an alternate facts history book. The reason why President Eisenhower took such extraordinary measures was because segregationists refused to abide by a Supreme Court ruling for years. The governor didn't just not want federal troops, they didn't want to desegregate and thus wanted a sort of state nullification.

If some states refused to abide by a supreme court ruling (not some arbitrary standard by a bully in chief) the President would be justified in federalizing the Guard and calling out the real army.

Just an FYI, the states are dealing with the current unrest- but tRump has to act tough and demand stupid actions to appeal to his base.... :peace
 
ReubenSherr said:
Personally, I think it's a load of crap, but Mattis is entitled to his opinion - I was just commenting that his opinion couldn't possibly be unbiased since he was fired or pressured to resign by Trump (and apparently had conflicts with both Obama and George W Bush as well)
Click to expand...

Yes, Mattis is very much entitled to his opinion. And it's not like his is a lone voice in the wilderness:

“We are at the most dangerous time for civil-military relations I’ve seen in my lifetime,” Adm. Sandy Winnefeld, a retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an email. “It is especially important to reserve the use of federal forces for only the most dire circumstances that actually threaten the survival of the nation. Our senior-most military leaders need to ensure their political chain of command understands these things.”

Senior Pentagon leaders are now so concerned about losing public support — and that of their active-duty and reserve personnel, 40 percent of whom are people of color — that Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, released a message to top military commanders on Wednesday affirming that every member of the armed forces swears an oath to defend the Constitution, which he said “gives Americans the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.”

Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote on Twitter that “America is not a battleground. Our fellow citizens are not the enemy.”

Gen. Tony Thomas, the former head of the Special Operations Command, tweeted: “The ‘battle space’ of America??? Not what America needs to hear … ever, unless we are invaded by an adversary or experience a constitutional failure … i.e. a Civil War.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom