I know the other night, Chicago PD scanners were playing Fuck Tha Police and other stuff.
They'll find ways to push their pro-war bullshit no matter who is president, they just notice what the majority of americans view trump as, a conman. And until Trump is no longer part of the equation, the RNC will push Trump because Republicans trying for office that were against Trump, they all lost in 2018. Outside of Romney, but that's because of the mormons, not Trump. So, because all the anti trumpers lost in 2018, the RNC has basically put all their eggs in the Trump basket.
K-Pop stans have been thwarting efforts by police and right wing groups to coordinate their responses to the protests over social media and apps by spamming them with fancam footage and memes so they are unusable.
Hence why #WhiteLivesMatter, #MAGA, and most police hashtags are now classed as k-pop trends on Twitter.
- - - Updated - - -
They did that in Minneapolis too. Someone nicked a police scanner and blasted NWA for five hours.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Gotta say, I really didn't expect James Mattis to come out against Trump. I figured he'd play the professional military man and hold his tongue:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...zation/612640/
True, but polls have been pretty consistent that Trump has lost almost 20% of the GOP voter base. Now he picked up some of the slack by energizing people that didn't normally vote, but still there are a significant number of Never-Trump conservatives (Now mostly ex-Republicans).
There aren't enough of them to actually win anything with a candidate of their own, but there is enough of them to make a very significant impact by voting for Biden instead of GOP candidate. The margins in a lot of places were razor thin, so a few thousand of them in a given state makes a really big difference. They aren't the reason for really any of the trends we are seeing, but they are taking places that are realistically still several election cycles away from being truly purple, and making them purple right now. Places like Texas, Georgia, and Pennsylvania are really telling for this phenomena. There are still more conservatives then liberals there, but a small, but significant percentage of conservatives are refusing to fall in line, and it is tilting the scale enough to really matter. North Carolina is looking pretty blue these days, and South Carolina only has Trump up by 4, and Lindsey Graham actually dropped below his challenger last week.
So overall, principled conservatives do exist, and do matter, but they really aren't a factor anyone needs to worry about. Most of them are like me, and we are going to hold our nose and vote for any democrat on the ballot anyway, because the alternative is so much worse. The only thing that is worth keeping in mind is many of those votes might go back to a Republican in the future, and are not necessarily a permanent shift. If the GOP ever turns back to people like Bush, most of them will go back.
- - - Updated - - -
I am really torn on Mattis, and always have been. I was harshly critical of him as SECDEF, and I feel completely justified in doing so. He has that weird traditionalist sense of honor that went a lot further then I felt was remotely appropriate. I also disagreed with a lot of his personal decisions, that were separate from the President.
I did however agree with his decision to remain silent after leaving office, for the exact same reasons I have been blasting Milley today. Mattis is permanently linked in the public consciousness with the military, even in retirement, and it is not the place of the military to oppose the Presidents actions any more then it is to endorse them. However, the disgracefulness of Mark Milley's performance this week kind of changed the calculus on him. I think Mattis reached the conclusion that the damaging implications of speaking out were less then the damaging implications of his continued silence. He resigned because Trump chose to betray and abandon our allies, but now Trump has turned on Americans. The militaries duty to remain neutral is rapidly turning into a duty to action, and Mattis is hoping to head it off before it gets to that point.
I never thought I would actually support Mattis unloading on Trump like that. My stance has always been that he isn't the right person to do it. Maybe that is still true... but maybe it isn't, I never liked Mattis, and I still don't, but I do respect him, and I can respect this decision, while hoping it was the right one.
This is a bloodbath.
Now, the theory we on these forums had at the time, was Mattis intentionally worked with Trump with the ongoing intent to keep him in check. He still can. Earlier, I posted that Trump had just handed Biden an enormous advantage: appearing at George Floyd's funeral. This is a second: Mattis. Mattis endorsing Biden would be damaging in itself. Mattis endorsing Biden and explaining why, with specifics and details, could be politically lethal. What's Trump going to do, sue for breaking the NDA? One, I don't think they're enforceable. Two, I don't think Mattis cares. Three, Trump suing Mattis would be admission Mattis was telling the truth, a morbidly obese mistake. And four, if Trump tried to call him a liar, not only would he be outclassed in the credibility department several times over, but there would be no way to prove it.James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution
James Mattis, the esteemed Marine general who resigned as secretary of defense in December 2018 to protest Donald Trump’s Syria policy, has, ever since, kept studiously silent about Trump’s performance as president. But he has now broken his silence, writing an extraordinary broadside in which he denounces the president for dividing the nation, and accuses him of ordering the U.S. military to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens.
“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.”
Mattis’s dissatisfaction with Trump was no secret inside the Pentagon. But after his resignation, he argued publicly—and to great criticism—that it would be inappropriate and counterproductive for a former general, and a former Cabinet official, to criticize a sitting president. Doing so, he said, would threaten the apolitical nature of the military. When I interviewed him last year on this subject, he said, “When you leave an administration over clear policy differences, you need to give the people who are still there as much opportunity as possible to defend the country. They still have the responsibility of protecting this great big experiment of ours.” He did add, however: “There is a period in which I owe my silence. It’s not eternal. It’s not going to be forever.”
“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago,” he writes, “I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”
He goes on to implicitly criticize the current secretary of defense, Mark Esper, and other senior officials as well. “We must reject any thinking of our cities as a ‘battlespace’ that our uniformed military is called upon to ‘dominate.’ At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
Trump might try to handwave him as a disgruntled employee, but how many times can you use that excuse before people say "wow, there sure are a lot of people saying exactly the same thing about Trump for exactly the same reason" before it holds?
By the way, that article links to this one written by a former Admiral/former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman. I'll quote the first and last paragraphs.
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.How long will Trump hold the military vote? Has he lost it already?This is not the time for stunts. This is the time for leadership.
Considering father and son were sued for not renting to blacks, like father like son is appropriate.
Oh yes I do agree with you. Although I don't even think conservatives that are put off are not a factor either, they might be just enough of a factor to tip it towards the dems in 2020. I'm just speaking of the Committee's stratagy in the 2020 cycle, even if Trump bottoms out at 30% or even lower, they'll keep him on, because it'll effect all elections down ticket. There are enough people who are enthusiastic to vote for Trump and down ticket republicans, I don't see much excitement for Pence. So even if Trump loses his race, in key senate races and house races it might be enough for republicans to hold the line. Now if trump loses, then they go back to being the opposition party that they were really good at being in during the obama administration in 2022. At that point, idk what happens, many never trumpers might go back to the party, some might be lost forever due to loss of trust, I have no idea.
I'm trying to grasp what the point of these two photo ops were. I get it's for the evangelical crowd, and I know these kind of things are staged regularly even in other administrations but both of these just feel so transparently fake. It's not some picture of them holding service there despite the damage (COVID aside), it's not a speech about rebuilding it and the rest of America or the importance of the religious community in the area, or anything else at all. He's just... standing there awkwardly waving a bible.
And the one with both of them inside a church is just as bad. They look so sour, it's not even a solemn look, it's just unpleasant. Is that really the best picture they got? Even without the entire shitshow of them getting there and the complicit actions of Milley this was never a good look. It shouldn't feel surprising after three years of this shit but how are they so bad at everything?
The point is more that switching out Trump will destroy whatever chance they had or will have for 2020. Most Neo-cons are probably fine with Trump because he mostly does what they want.
The difference between the likes of Trump and Bush is that Trump does not care about being subtle with lust for blood and racism. Even with 4 more years, it will be hard for him to do more damage than Bush to the world.
I mean the answer's pretty easy; desperation. What else is he going to point to?
Trade deals? What trade deals.
His handling of COVID? "Intelligence says it's worse than 9/11 times a hundred. Yes, you heard me right; 91,100."
The economy? Fucking lol.
If there's one thing you can ascribe to Trump in terms of cognizance, it's that he's keenly aware that the only thing keeping him from spending the rest of his unnatural life buried in lawsuits if not actively jailed, is reelection. A chance for reelection that looks less likely with each passing day as "Make America Great Again" seems to have turned into "Keep America From Burning Down" - not exactly the sort of thing that flies well when your political career is built on machismo and never being wrong or failing.
So that's why we're getting the 'Law and Order' cosplay and the church photo ops. The Trump Playbook is no longer working, so he's falling back on the traditional GOP Playbook; except he's spent the last four years ripping the pages out to wipe his greasy, orange fingers with with every bite of his triple bypass burger.
Expect more performance art of this sort as November nears. We might actually see him make human contact with Melania, who knows.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Oh this is funny.
So earlier in the day, Trump insisted he didn't run to go hide in the bunker -- he inspected it for a short time during the day.
This, of course, immediately invalidated any defense anyone offered of Trump, such as "the SS made him do it because there was a credible threat".
And here's the funny part: they were right.
And they still can't use that defense!
WaPo reports that the temporary barricades falling, which yes we knew about, was the trigger. Meaning it happened around 7PM and also the SS made the call, not Trump.
"But Breccia! That means you were wrong!"
Well, sort of. Yes, I said Trump insisted, and I could be wrong -- it could have been mutual, or Trump could have resisted. The SS won't give details and Trump lies, so we'll never know.
But.
Everyone who defended Trump -- "the SS moved him" -- still cannot use that defense. Trump nullified it by contradicting it. I mean, the could admit that Trump is a liar, I suppose. I'd accept that. They could admit "Trump lied and I believed him". Or, for fun, "Trump lied but I didn't believe him". Kind of an odd thing for a Trump supporter to say, but I won't rule it out.
So congratulations to the rabid fanbase members who said "the SS moved Trump". You were right, making you wrong. You still back a lying loser.
And a coward. A coward who uses military force to move peaceful protestors so he can walk to a church, take some pictures, and leave.
And you know it. You know you backed a lying loser. That's why you've been so quiet for the last 24-48. That's why you didn't log on to say "oh, see, he was moved" because, guess what, that invites you to even worse ridicule for pointing out you know Trump lied to defend his poor widdle feewings.
Let us know when you're ready to ditch the snowflake. All hail's breaking loose.
Probably not long. He will find a yes man that will give the go ahead for air strikes on protesters. All we can hope is that everyone involved, from the people giving the orders to the people doing it, face war crimes tribunals when it's over and get executed.
I'm going to just start calling them the SS now. It's very appropriate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel
Now before you continue this line of thinking, I want you to ask yourself: is there any time at all, even a single time, that Trump has attacked an opponent based on what one of their relatives did? A wife, a child, a sibling, a parent?
Because you have, oh I don't know, 10 minutes to denounce those actions too. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
He lost the officer corps a long time ago. Within months of taking command. The enlisted are likely still behind him, but they will be more loyal to their chain of command then they are to him.
Depending on how far Trump wants to push this by using the military against his own people, voting might be the least of his worries. It is the duty of the military to remain neutral, but when they are ordered against their own people, that duty changes to protecting the people from all enemies foreign and domestic. It is becoming harder every day to describe Trump as anything else.
Mattis isn't alone in the tone of his letter. Mike Mullen wrote a similar article yesterday. I would not be surprised to see one released by Martin Dempsey tonight or tomorrow, Dunford likely will as well, as I would be stunned if they haven't already discussed this. This is as staggering in its implication as it is unprecedented. This is breaking the most sacred taboo of American military tradition, because those men feel that Trump already broke that trust. If they hold those opinions, you can guarantee that the Generals and Admirals that have not yet retired hold the same ones.
This is looking incredibly bad, a showdown between the military and the White House has no winners. Trump will probably be the one that loses the most, but it damages the foundations of this nation like nothing else will. That people like Mullen and Mattis are willing to step out is astonishing, because they believe this is the least bad path they can take.