| To: CentralParkRanger who wrote (166449) | 6/5/2020 2:08:24 PM | | From: Thomas M. | | | | Mattis was fired because he wanted to support ISIS.
John Dowd wrote an elegant letter putting Mattis in his place:
==========================================
Jim:
I slept on your statement and woke up appalled and upset. You lost me. Never dreamed you would let a bunch of hack politicians use your good name and reputation—earned with the blood and guts of young Marines. You did what you said you would—engage in this discourse.
Marines keep their word.
The phony protesters near Lafayette park were not peaceful and are not real. They are terrorists using idle hate filled students to burn and destroy. They were abusing and disrespecting the police when the police were preparing the area for the 1900 curfew. Jim, this is the new nihilism. See Dan Henninger in WSJ today.
Marines support the police in harms way.
Did you forget that President Bush used active duty Marines to quell the riots in LA? President Trump has countless cities and some snowflake governors and mayors wetting themselves in the use fo force to protect innocent lives and property. The AG of Massachusetts thinks burning property is good protest. Three more policemen were stabbed and shot in NYC last night.
Think about it. Should he be upset about the obvious failure of leadership? Where are you Jim?
Marines go to the fight.
No one divided this country more than Obama. He abandoned our black brothers and sisters. He gave guns to the cartels. He apologized for our precious sacrifice and generosity overseas.
You remember, he fired you.
President Trump has done more to help our minority brothers and sisters in the three years than anyone in the last fifty. Ask the black pastors. Ask the leaders of the black colleges and universities. He got them funded. Ask them about the prison reform which ended the draconian sentences imposed on young black men by the laws enacted by Biden and his hacks. You need to bone up on your homework and stop listening to Uncle Leon.
I understand, you had to stick to the assigned narrative which did not include three years of corrupt investigations and evidence to destroy this President, his office, and his lawful free election. Nancy has no tolerance for dissent in the ranks—including those with stars.
You said nothing of the ugly, hate filled, disgraceful comments of Pelosi, Schumer, Perez and other Democrat hacks defaming the President and his office. You said nothing of the unlawful sanctuary cities and the unlawful release of hoodlums. You said nothing of the resistance movement to paralyze our courts and our government operations. You said nothing of the obstruction and subversion of our immigration laws. You said nothing of MS-13 killers and the drug cartels who own huge sections of our major cities. Jim, do you think that hateful rhetoric and those corrupt actions were inspiring and unifying? Do you think the DI’s at Parr’s Island would find such behavior as unifying?
Maybe, your problem, is a lot deeper. Perhaps you ought to explain how and why you (and John Allen), as CG Central Command, did not engage and take out Iranian Major General Soleimani who roamed the Middle East and wreaked havoc and death of American boys with his infamous IEDs?
Why did it take President Trump to have the instinct and balls to take him out (of course over the objection the geniuses in the Pentagon)?
Looks like the Persian mullahs were a one horse sleigh and Trump nailed the horse….forever. It has been quiet ever since. Perhaps, your anger is borne of embarrassment for your own failure as the leader of Central command. Did you applaud when the President recognized the central problem in the middle east? Did you applaud the President when he wanted to save American lives by bringing them home in one piece?
John M Dowd
==========================================
twitter.com
Tom |
| | The Trump Presidency | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Brumar89 who wrote (166675) | 6/5/2020 2:21:19 PM | | From: Thomas M. | | | | Kevin from Texas is a lifelong Republican
Swamp rat is mad that someone wants to drain the swamp? Shocker!
He admits that he spent years working for the GOP. He participated in the process of turning the legislative process over to lobbyists. He made money off of it. OF COURSE he's mad at Trump for hiring Robert Lighthizer.
Tom |
| | The Trump Presidency | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| From: bentway | 6/5/2020 2:48:25 PM | | | | | | Trump pointed at the sky, proclaimed it a great day
for a black man killed by police, because jobs!:
|
| | The Trump Presidency | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Lane3 who wrote (166693) | 6/5/2020 2:49:03 PM | | From: i-node | | | | >>>Should I infer that you approve of unidentified and unidentifiable riot police controlling protest demonstrations?
This seems to be the typical response to the idea of police controlling unruly crowds this week.
I do not expect the cops are able to predetermine the instant when an excited crowd of protestors will become an angry mob. I think the past week, if nothing, has shown such crowds are volatile.
As a result, I do think it is sometimes necessary to control unruly mobs even though some will call it protesting, which I agree is a fundamental right. It is not, however, a fundamental right that protestors be allowed to destroy property and loot stores, etc., as they spin out of control. Like shouting fire in a crowded theater, such rights are subservient to commonsense regulation (which, of course, comes without codification and hence has some variability about it).
In the case of Lafayette Park, the people involved may have had good intentions the day after the fire, but they were told to disperse by authorities and refused to do it. This, by any rational analysis, is not a decision the crowd gets to make: If authorities say, "We need you out of here" and you refuse to respond, then you might find yourself coughing and choking a little on standard crowd control agents used to force a dispersal.
It isn't cops getting out of hand. It isn't contrary to one's constitutional protections. It is just something that needed to happen. The crowd was positioned close enough to the White House that a small crowd is manageable, but a larger crowd, as this was, could pose a threat. So, it was entirely appropriate to clear the people out of that park.
I think it is a falsely predicated argument. They had no permit to protest in that park, an effort was made to accommodate them the previous night and it resulted in a couple of structure fires of a 200 year old historic structure, so it was reasonable in the circumstances to protect the space.
If you are talking about a different area then I can give my view on it instead. But in the last week, cops should have had extremely broad authority to intervene in behavior that might be protesting or might be criminal, if it is difficult to discern. |
| | The Trump Presidency | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
