And naturally his obviously closeted ball-gargler Lindsay Graham is there to explain. “Mattis has been suckered by the anti-Trump liberal media.” This is the time in your life/career when the lightbulb finally clicks on and you have your D-FENS Moment: Spoiler Luckily Trump is in such a place to berate a war hero. Just look at all the incredible toughguy things he’s accomplished in his life, like declaring bankruptcy at least four times and having his dad die while having $450 million in his chequing account.
Yup. trump is only person I’m aware of to go from a half a billionaire, to a millionaire. We think. Don’t know for sure. He says he’s really really rich though. Guess we gotta trust him?
Do you guys remember why Mattis left? Because Trump wouldn't put enough troops in the middle east, particularly Syria. Mattis subscribes to that idiotic, destructive neocon philosophy that wants to keep us fighting war after war over there until the end of time. It's always the same bullshit. America will lose face. It would mean betraying our allies if we leave. It will make America look weak on the world stage. I'm so sick of it. I don't care how much of a buffoon or how much of an idiot Trump is. Mattis was 100% wrong on this and I'm glad he's gone.
Do you ever have anything to say other than these stupid douchey remarks? If you have an opinion on Mattis' role in the administration, increasing troop deployments to Syria, or anything then go ahead and let's discuss it. If you just want to be a snide little twat then fuck off and go annoy someone else. There's plenty of MAGA thumpers out there happy to shit post back and forth with you.
You don't care about the main cause of so many of these issues. Surely, you see a problem with that line of logic. It's like saying "I don't care how big the tumor is, I am sick because I can't get my essential oils." Mattis wasn't the most qualified guy for the gig, and God knows he wasn't the right guy to tangle with the Middle East quagmire we seem to be dead set on staying involved in. However, he is wildly popular with military and vets, and he did an admirable job of keeping Trump away from the world's most formidable war engine. He might not have done a ton of good, but he certainly prevented a lot of potential bad. Trump with our military is like making Cartman the Chief of Police, while he's high on PCP and cannot be dissuaded he's not playing Grand Theft Auto V....I shudder to think of the horrific ideas that didn't make it to the public, and I cringe at the ones that did like the NK-esque military parade, or his current hard-on for deploying troops to quell protesters over the objections of mayors and governors. I can't say he was right or wrong on the Syria decisions, but I can say his rebuke of Trump is smoldering, and I think it will cause a lot more of the same from the military, State Department, FBI, etc. Trump has antagonized every single entity within his own government at one point or another, and as they start to speak out in the next few months, it will do the maximum damage to his campaign. Mattis knows this. Sessions knows this. And all but a few of the most invulnerable Republicans know this as well. You think the people he's fired over the past few years won't have an opinion on his re-election? You think that's all Mattis had to say? I don't. I think we'll see one of those missives about once per week until November. The Trump bandwagon is about to empty. For the record: Civil Unrest across the entire fucking globe that he seems intent on inflaming, going as far as labeling protesters "terrorists" 40 million unemployed, the highest since WW2. 105k dead and counting Trillions of debt (also a record) So, when Mattis says "we are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership", the message resonates well enough that it really doesn't matter that Mattis isn't a teddy bear. Or in other words, the truth of that statement isn't invalidated by you not liking the person saying it, or their previous deeds.
Nope, but I can still be glad he's gone. For the issues you listed I see Trump more as a catalyst than a main cause, which is really only to say holding a gas can because he was too late to start the fire himself.
See this is a comment where you should have just used that signature. See how easy that was. So much easier then just spending all of that time typing. Everyone here knows what you mean. You don't need to bother hiding it.
LOL Lindsay Graham. You can’t hide in the closet when the closet is made of glass, it has no doors and we can see you having gay sex inside of it.
Leslie Neilsen overcame being named Leslie. And just look at Englebert Humperdinck, that sounds like the name of a gay railroad property. Stacy Keach will slice your balls off with his hair lip. They should remake “Three’s Company” starring Graham as Jack Tripper. That way this time not only is Jack ambiguously gay, but also creepy and self-destructive as well.
Question. There's been a MASSIVE uptick in "Capitalism=White Supremacy", "Revolution is the only way", "Socialism/Communism/Leninism is the way" that I've begun to see more of now. Is there a particular reason for this now? That and a lot of those same people advocating these things have any number of reasons why its failed in other countries that never include the system being faulty. Why? Is there some truth to that or is it just posturing?
Here's my take on this: Capitalism as it's been implemented in real life often depends on an underclass of people that aren't equal: slaves, robots, minorities, etc. In other words, capitalism runs off of exploitation in some capacity or another, and it's inherently an unequal system. The defense against that is a rising tide lifts all boats: your average bartender at Chili's leads a more comfortable life than Rockefeller did, but that "lift" isn't as significant as it used to be, and it may actually come to pass where the current generation's quality of life is significantly worse than the previous ones. Also, a defense of capitalism is that supposedly, voting is the great equalizer, but....well, if anyone still believes that my vote is the same as Bezos' vote, I have a bridge to sell you. Money not only walks and talks, it has fucking sway. Since so much of our system is predicated on economic power, and so much of that power is inherently concentrated, with very few mechanisms that act to redistribute it, the people who feel oppressed by this system naturally look for alternatives. So, what are systems that do not depend on an exploited class? Socialism, supposedly. I think we're seeing a lot of this as an echo of "Occupy Wall Street" when a certain cohort reached an age where they were heard and taken somewhat seriously as voters/economic actors, or some of the more ridiculous notions presented in the "Me Too" movement: when a collective voice is suddenly given a platform, there's a lot of sociology 101 shit discussed. I also loathe the "isms". What does "socialism" look like here? Probably something analogous to what Canada, the UK or Australia has, with better worker protections, universal healthcare and unions. It's a far cry from the French system, and I think the "ism" label is used as a kind of boogey man to scare the boomers. Our current system is wildly unsustainable, and it stands to reason the people who expect to be in it the longest and who are often trampled by it are the ones most interested in seeing it change. Right now, there's a movement that is forcing others to listen, and much of this movement is in it's infancy, so there's a lot of wild "solutions" being touted. As things change, and the public sentiment shifts, the solutions will take a more coherent and recognizable form into things we can actually accomplish.