cinque said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

HashTag said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fubar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fubar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fubar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wallace said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Stone's words are disturbing. It is equally disturbing that Mattis and others may have conspired to overthrow Trump's presidency.

---

They serve the country. Not POTUS.

---

The country elected POTUS. A general has no business saying otherwise. Civilians control the military in this country, not the other way around.

---

Mattis is a civilian, but you knew that.

---

It's unclear exactly in what role he was speaking. He was no longer a cabinet member, so any "collective action" would have to be by others at his instigation. At best he's a civilian who thinks his military experience gives him the right to overrule the president via the 25th Amendment. At worst he's a civilian with high-level military connections who may be contemplating a coup.

---

Not sure why you think "his military experience" has anything to do with this. Mattis is a civilian, period. There is no evidence presented that he was considering using his influence within the military to conduct a coup.

For some reason the cultists -- not calling you one, of course -- want to carp on a conversation (and what didn't follow) while ignoring the fact that at least two very reasonable people thought and said what they did.

---

I'm not sure how reasonable they are when it comes to Trump. Mattis' statement on the Lafayette Square incident alone calls that into question. More important, if someone in his position is going to talk about removing a president, he needs to avoid any appearance that he's motivated by policy disagreements. Mattis has done the exact opposite, which is incredibly irresponsible.

---

With what do you take issue regarding Mattis' statements re: Lafayette Square?

---

I take issue with the claim that Trump acted unconstitutionally and violated the rights of peaceful protesters. The assembly he dispersed on that occasion was not peaceful and could not have been allowed to continue, regardless of the photo-op.

---

I think if you fact check that event, it was peaceful. It's been pretty well documented with live footage and reliable reporting.

---

reliable and reporting appearing in the same sentence. That's hilarious!

---

Set aside your hyperbole, and when you drill down, there is still reliable reporting. Woodward's book is a good example, and fortunately he has the tapes to back it up. No reporting or state run reporting is far worse.

---

depends on how you use those words... context matters. Just like the example of keeping your floors clean...

We all know Trump is not an elequent speaker, as we have all seen it but it is easy for a journalist who are typically good with word smithing to twist his words to fit their narrative if they chose to do it.

Both sides are spewing about as much horse crap as aonyone can stand to read/listen to so you have to fall back on which policies that matter to you.

No off shore drilling, no fracking, Abortion, increased taxes and business regulations, and many other policy stances make it hard for me to vote Biden(Harris)

---

The tapes are there for all to hear. Let's not make this harder than it already is.

---

What's hard about it? People interpret his words differently.

Gruvin said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

HashTag said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fubar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fubar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fubar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wallace said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Stone's words are disturbing. It is equally disturbing that Mattis and others may have conspired to overthrow Trump's presidency.

---

They serve the country. Not POTUS.

---

The country elected POTUS. A general has no business saying otherwise. Civilians control the military in this country, not the other way around.

---

Mattis is a civilian, but you knew that.

---

It's unclear exactly in what role he was speaking. He was no longer a cabinet member, so any "collective action" would have to be by others at his instigation. At best he's a civilian who thinks his military experience gives him the right to overrule the president via the 25th Amendment. At worst he's a civilian with high-level military connections who may be contemplating a coup.

---

Not sure why you think "his military experience" has anything to do with this. Mattis is a civilian, period. There is no evidence presented that he was considering using his influence within the military to conduct a coup.

For some reason the cultists -- not calling you one, of course -- want to carp on a conversation (and what didn't follow) while ignoring the fact that at least two very reasonable people thought and said what they did.

---

I'm not sure how reasonable they are when it comes to Trump. Mattis' statement on the Lafayette Square incident alone calls that into question. More important, if someone in his position is going to talk about removing a president, he needs to avoid any appearance that he's motivated by policy disagreements. Mattis has done the exact opposite, which is incredibly irresponsible.

---

With what do you take issue regarding Mattis' statements re: Lafayette Square?

---

I take issue with the claim that Trump acted unconstitutionally and violated the rights of peaceful protesters. The assembly he dispersed on that occasion was not peaceful and could not have been allowed to continue, regardless of the photo-op.

---

I think if you fact check that event, it was peaceful. It's been pretty well documented with live footage and reliable reporting.

---

reliable and reporting appearing in the same sentence. That's hilarious!

---

Set aside your hyperbole, and when you drill down, there is still reliable reporting. Woodward's book is a good example, and fortunately he has the tapes to back it up. No reporting or state run reporting is far worse.

---

depends on how you use those words... context matters. Just like the example of keeping your floors clean...

We all know Trump is not an elequent speaker, as we have all seen it but it is easy for a journalist who are typically good with word smithing to twist his words to fit their narrative if they chose to do it.

Both sides are spewing about as much horse crap as aonyone can stand to read/listen to so you have to fall back on which policies that matter to you.

No off shore drilling, no fracking, Abortion, increased taxes and business regulations, and many other policy stances make it hard for me to vote Biden(Harris)

---

I hear and appreciate what you are saying on the issues. However, for me, it boils down to his character and his mental stability. His impulsiveness, compulsive self interest and instability, inability to comprehend and grasp issues and concepts that so many who have been through the White House have recognized, and have reported on, makes him dangerous to our country and to the world. All of that to me overrides the issues. I'm not a Biden supporter. We'll survive Biden if he is elected. I think drilling and fracking will continue (Biden has said he is not against fracking). It will be difficult a to do too much in the way of taxes and regulations when the economy is undergoing a recovery. Republicans have already demonstrated they are not serious about changing abortion. Republicans had control of the House, Senate, and White House at the same time twice since 2000, and nothing could be agreed upon just within the Republican Party, much less bi partisan. Changes in abortion will have to come from the courts, and that doesn't seem likely i.e. stare decisis.

Mothra said:

---

fubar said:

---

Mothra said:

---

fubar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

fubar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm not sure how reasonable they are when it comes to Trump. Mattis' statement on the Lafayette Square incident alone calls that into question. More important, if someone in his position is going to talk about removing a president, he needs to avoid any appearance that he's motivated by policy disagreements. Mattis has done the exact opposite, which is incredibly irresponsible.

---

With what do you take issue regarding Mattis' statements re: Lafayette Square?

---

I take issue with the claim that Trump acted unconstitutionally and violated the rights of peaceful protesters. The assembly he dispersed on that occasion was not peaceful and could not have been allowed to continue, regardless of the photo-op.

---

Strange. The demonstrators I was watching that evening were peaceful. The journalists covering it said that they were. It's possible demonstrators who weren't on camera were using other methods, but Lafayette Square isn't that big. Easy enough for me not to see, being dependent on camera angles and such, but reporters covering from a rooftop could've seen the whole area without issue.

I was watching because Kansas City (my home area) got pretty dicey the night before. It was a bizarre spectacle in D.C., what with the various agencies forming an expanding police line, with Bill Barr standing in the background. I went to attend to dinner for a sec, came back to the police sweeping the protesters out, and yes, there was some violence pressing back.

But there was none evident prior to the police action.

---

Is this the peaceful protest you are referencing, the day before Lafayette Square was cleared, which even the Democrat Mayor of D.C. condemned as violent and dangerous? I am really surprised that narrative is still propagated.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/3rd-day-george-floyd-protests-washington-dc/2318177/

Fires, Looting, Tear Gas: DC in Turmoil Following 3rd Night of Protests

Angry protesters took over the streets of downtown D.C., again Sunday night, with some setting fires, looting, and vandalizing buildings and cars as unrest cropped up elsewhere in Northwest D.C.

Sixty-one U.S. Park Police officers and seven D.C. police officers were hurt in the clashes, officials said in updates Monday.

Three Park Police officers were hospitalized, a representative said. One was hit in the head with a brick, one was hit in the groin with a brick and a third was thrown from his horse. The officer who was hit in the groin required surgery, sources said.

Fires were set at the historic church across from the White House, at at least three CVS stores and in other commercial buildings in downtown D.C. Incensed agitators broke windows and looted stores in D.C.'s upscale Georgetown shopping district and attacked a man there.

The unrest was reported as far away as Tenleytown and Friendship Heights, where a Target store and the Mazza Gallerie shopping area were hit.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser admonished protesters who participated in destruction and violence after surveying the damage in different neighborhoods.

"We recognize that people are frustrated and mad, but tearing up our beautiful city is not the way to bring attention to what is a righteous cause," she told "TODAY."

Hoping to stop looting, burning and vandalizing and citing concerns about coronavirus spreading through protests, Bowser ordered a curfew from 11 p.m. Sunday to 6 a.m. Monday and deployed the National Guard. In a rare move, US Marshals and DEA agents were activated to assist police. But turmoil continued after the curfew went into effect.

The streets cleared out overnight and by 5 a.m. a cleanup effort was underway in the city. Some debris was cleared but evidence of the unrest was still visible.

Lafayette Square, where peaceful protesters and demonstrators more antagonistic to police had gathered throughout the weekend, remained closed Monday morning to keep any demonstrators far from the White House. Litter and trash were strewn around and a statue had been spray painted.

Video from News4 crews shows numerous fires near the White House, including a small building set on fire at Lafayette Square and one outside a historic church.

A fire found in the basement of the historic St. John's Episcopal Church across from the White House was extinguished, fire officials said. The yellow and white church is known as the "Church of Presidents" and has been standing in the city since the early 1800s. Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have all attended services there.

The protective glass over a stained-glass window was broken, church leaders said. The stained glass was not damaged. Graffiti stained the exterior.

Church leaders said they were able to secure some valuable items and voiced support for peaceful protesters.

"Our community and our country are in anguish and unrest. And yet, we can see that thousands of people are lifting their voices and organizations are engaging in peaceful, meaningful action to ensure the life of George Floyd and countless others are not lost in vain," a letter to worshippers read.

---

No, that is not the peaceful protest I was referencing. I was referring to the peaceful protest on Monday, June 1st.

There was rioting, looting and vandalism at other protests on other days (nights, really). Those things are NOT OK. It's also NOT OK to use such things to justify violently suppressing people protesting peacefully. To say "this other protest devolved into lawlessness, we'll just make sure that THIS protest doesn't either" ... that particular dog won't hunt.

And to disperse peaceful people for a photo op is especially galling.

---

If you read the article, you will see that the protest referenced in the article occurred on June 1, 2020. It began on the night of May 31st and continued into the early morning hours of June 1, 2020. And it saw protestors try to burn down the cathedral in Lafayette Square, as well as looting of buildings, and bricks and rocks thrown at police. And that same protest had been going on for days in Lafayette Square. It was so bad, that even the liberal mayor of D.C. chided protestors for their violence and looting.

This particular protest didn't occur in a vacuum. It had been going on for days, and turned violent when the sun went down. While it was MORE peaceful during the day, the National Guard reported that bricks and rocks were thrown at them during the attempt to clear them from the area. So, while attempting to compartmentalize the protest at issue with that backdrop may fit a certain narrative, it's not factual. Clearing the mob during the day when they were attempting to burn down buildings at night is justified under any reasonable standard.

---

I've noticed something that happens a lot. A protest (or something akin to that) starts peacefully, then has a few people start the burning ... vandalism ... rioting ... looting ... shooting at cops, shooting at civilians ... the works. Gets completely out of control. And then ... goes back to being peaceful. You've seen this too, haven't you?

No you haven't. Neither have I.

When a protest turns violent, you act. I will support you 100%. If previous protests have turned violent as the night wears on, you have more police at the ready. Common sense, 100% support from me.

But when you act against one group of peaceful protesters because of what others have done, you're acting against the protest itself. Not against violence or vandalism or looting or destruction of property. You're acting against the protest. Constitutionally protected speech and assembly.

You wonder why this **** has gone on all summer? There's a big part of the answer.

As an aside, I'll note the changing stories of the various policing agencies (I don't know quite what to call them, there were several agencies involved that day). We didn't use tear gas! Ummm, well maybe a form of tear gas. They were throwing **** at us! Yeah, after we started tear gassing, uhhh, pepper spraying them while forcefully moving them out. We warned them! Three times! Yeah, but not where any could actually hear that. It had nothing, NOTHING to do with Trump's photo op!

Well, never mind.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Stone's words are disturbing. It is equally disturbing that Mattis and others may have conspired to overthrow Trump's presidency.

---

Where is the evidence for Mattis and others conspiring to overthrow the president?

---

In the Woodward book, where Mattis is talking to Coats about taking collective action against Trump.

---

What should be disturbing is the fact that Coats, Mattis or anyone else of their integrity would even have to contemplate the 25th amendment, if that in fact is what they did. What should be alarming is the long list of quality people that have passed through the White House, as high ranking officials, and to a person they tell us Trump is unstable, incapable and unfit. As Kushner has indicated, they believe lying is good, allows them to create their own reality, and through controversy elevates the message. Their conclusions about Trump are glaringly obvious to anyone viewing through an objective lens. Woodward's conclusion about Trump is spot on. Woodward's book certainly lays out the justification for the cabinet to consider 'collective action' if there ever is justification for implementing the 25th amendment. A Trump second term may force the question, given the right circumstances. Trump is clearly impulsive and irrational.

---

Y'all keep saying that, but you ignore the policy disagreements underlying the charges. One of the biggest complaints was Trump's "impulsive" decision not to commit to war in Syria. I'll take that over Bolton's calculated push for war with Iran any time.

Stone's talk of martial law is troubling, as I said. It should also be extremely troubling when there's talk of removing a president over policy disagreements. That is a constitutional problem of the highest order.

---

I don't think the talk is over policy disagreements. It's over national security issues and whether Trump has the mental acuity, and ability to rationally consider and differentiate national interest from his personal interests.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Stone's words are disturbing. It is equally disturbing that Mattis and others may have conspired to overthrow Trump's presidency.

---

Where is the evidence for Mattis and others conspiring to overthrow the president?

---

In the Woodward book, where Mattis is talking to Coats about taking collective action against Trump.

---

What should be disturbing is the fact that Coats, Mattis or anyone else of their integrity would even have to contemplate the 25th amendment, if that in fact is what they did. What should be alarming is the long list of quality people that have passed through the White House, as high ranking officials, and to a person they tell us Trump is unstable, incapable and unfit. As Kushner has indicated, they believe lying is good, allows them to create their own reality, and through controversy elevates the message. Their conclusions about Trump are glaringly obvious to anyone viewing through an objective lens. Woodward's conclusion about Trump is spot on. Woodward's book certainly lays out the justification for the cabinet to consider 'collective action' if there ever is justification for implementing the 25th amendment. A Trump second term may force the question, given the right circumstances. Trump is clearly impulsive and irrational.

---

Y'all keep saying that, but you ignore the policy disagreements underlying the charges. One of the biggest complaints was Trump's "impulsive" decision not to commit to war in Syria. I'll take that over Bolton's calculated push for war with Iran any time.

Stone's talk of martial law is troubling, as I said. It should also be extremely troubling when there's talk of removing a president over policy disagreements. That is a constitutional problem of the highest order.

---

I don't think the talk is over policy disagreements. It's over national security issues and whether Trump has the mental acuity, and ability to rationally consider and differentiate national interest from his personal interests.

---

If that's true then Mattis needs to stop focusing on policy issues. At the very least he's giving the wrong impression.

It ain't just Stone...

cinque said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

The once unthinkable becomes acceptable.

---

And the scariest part of it all is the Trumpkins just shrug their shoulders and say, "don't care."

---

Who cares about Roger Stone? He makes me ill just looking at him. He needs his ass kicked. Hard.

I've never cared one iota about him and count his as just another dirty politician/consultant left over from the old days.

HuMcK said:

---

It ain't just Stone...

---

Should Biden concede on Election Night if he loses?

Neat trick to respond to a post without acknowledging its substance at all.

Does it count as a loss if there are signifigant amounts of uncounted votes still outstanding? I appreciate the deliberately misleading way that you framed your question, but mine is the more relevant one.

I've been warning all along that Trump/DeJoy is slowing down the mail, to slow down counting of mail-in ballots, so he can declare victory on election night and stop any further counting. And as more evidence becomes apparent I become more convinced that is one contingency Trump is planning for. Your question indicates that you are already prepared to accept Trump doing just that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Stone's words are disturbing. It is equally disturbing that Mattis and others may have conspired to overthrow Trump's presidency.

---

Where is the evidence for Mattis and others conspiring to overthrow the president?

---

In the Woodward book, where Mattis is talking to Coats about taking collective action against Trump.

---

What should be disturbing is the fact that Coats, Mattis or anyone else of their integrity would even have to contemplate the 25th amendment, if that in fact is what they did. What should be alarming is the long list of quality people that have passed through the White House, as high ranking officials, and to a person they tell us Trump is unstable, incapable and unfit. As Kushner has indicated, they believe lying is good, allows them to create their own reality, and through controversy elevates the message. Their conclusions about Trump are glaringly obvious to anyone viewing through an objective lens. Woodward's conclusion about Trump is spot on. Woodward's book certainly lays out the justification for the cabinet to consider 'collective action' if there ever is justification for implementing the 25th amendment. A Trump second term may force the question, given the right circumstances. Trump is clearly impulsive and irrational.

---

Y'all keep saying that, but you ignore the policy disagreements underlying the charges. One of the biggest complaints was Trump's "impulsive" decision not to commit to war in Syria. I'll take that over Bolton's calculated push for war with Iran any time.

Stone's talk of martial law is troubling, as I said. It should also be extremely troubling when there's talk of removing a president over policy disagreements. That is a constitutional problem of the highest order.

---

I don't think the talk is over policy disagreements. It's over national security issues and whether Trump has the mental acuity, and ability to rationally consider and differentiate national interest from his personal interests.

---

If that's true then Mattis needs to stop focusing on policy issues. At the very least he's giving the wrong impression.

---

The problem is we are closer to having to go to war with Iran now more than ever, if a nuclear weaponized Iran is unacceptable. I agree, it would be bad precedent to remove presidents over policy disagreements. I don't believe that is the issue here, especially in the context of the long line of former White House staffers who question the President's character, mental stability, and acuity.

Question for you. Do you believe there is a legitimate scenario for Trump to declare the election invalid, and maintain office through marshal law?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Stone's words are disturbing. It is equally disturbing that Mattis and others may have conspired to overthrow Trump's presidency.

---

Where is the evidence for Mattis and others conspiring to overthrow the president?

---

In the Woodward book, where Mattis is talking to Coats about taking collective action against Trump.

---

What should be disturbing is the fact that Coats, Mattis or anyone else of their integrity would even have to contemplate the 25th amendment, if that in fact is what they did. What should be alarming is the long list of quality people that have passed through the White House, as high ranking officials, and to a person they tell us Trump is unstable, incapable and unfit. As Kushner has indicated, they believe lying is good, allows them to create their own reality, and through controversy elevates the message. Their conclusions about Trump are glaringly obvious to anyone viewing through an objective lens. Woodward's conclusion about Trump is spot on. Woodward's book certainly lays out the justification for the cabinet to consider 'collective action' if there ever is justification for implementing the 25th amendment. A Trump second term may force the question, given the right circumstances. Trump is clearly impulsive and irrational.

---

Y'all keep saying that, but you ignore the policy disagreements underlying the charges. One of the biggest complaints was Trump's "impulsive" decision not to commit to war in Syria. I'll take that over Bolton's calculated push for war with Iran any time.

Stone's talk of martial law is troubling, as I said. It should also be extremely troubling when there's talk of removing a president over policy disagreements. That is a constitutional problem of the highest order.

---

I don't think the talk is over policy disagreements. It's over national security issues and whether Trump has the mental acuity, and ability to rationally consider and differentiate national interest from his personal interests.

---

If that's true then Mattis needs to stop focusing on policy issues. At the very least he's giving the wrong impression.

---

The problem is we are closer to having to go to war with Iran now more than ever, if a nuclear weaponized Iran is unacceptable. I agree, it would be bad precedent to remove presidents over policy disagreements. I don't believe that is the issue here, especially in the context of the long line of former White House staffers who question the President's character, mental stability, and acuity.

Question for you. Do you believe there is a legitimate scenario for Trump to declare the election invalid, and maintain office through marshal law?

---

closer than ever before? How ever will we fight another war with all the other ones Trump has started?

No- the courts will decide the election if it is close...

HuMcK said:

---

Neat trick to respond to a post without acknowledging its substance at all.

Does it count as a loss if there are signifigant amounts of uncounted votes still outstanding? I appreciate the deliberately misleading way that you framed your question, but mine is the more relevant one.

I've been warning all along that Trump/DeJoy is slowing down the mail, to slow down counting of mail-in ballots, so he can declare victory on election night and stop any further counting. And as more evidence becomes apparent I become more convinced that is one contingency Trump is planning for. Your question indicates that you are already prepared to accept Trump doing just that.

---

I'll rephrase my question. Are there any circumstances in which Biden should concede on Election Night?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Stone's words are disturbing. It is equally disturbing that Mattis and others may have conspired to overthrow Trump's presidency.

---

Where is the evidence for Mattis and others conspiring to overthrow the president?

---

In the Woodward book, where Mattis is talking to Coats about taking collective action against Trump.

---

What should be disturbing is the fact that Coats, Mattis or anyone else of their integrity would even have to contemplate the 25th amendment, if that in fact is what they did. What should be alarming is the long list of quality people that have passed through the White House, as high ranking officials, and to a person they tell us Trump is unstable, incapable and unfit. As Kushner has indicated, they believe lying is good, allows them to create their own reality, and through controversy elevates the message. Their conclusions about Trump are glaringly obvious to anyone viewing through an objective lens. Woodward's conclusion about Trump is spot on. Woodward's book certainly lays out the justification for the cabinet to consider 'collective action' if there ever is justification for implementing the 25th amendment. A Trump second term may force the question, given the right circumstances. Trump is clearly impulsive and irrational.

---

Y'all keep saying that, but you ignore the policy disagreements underlying the charges. One of the biggest complaints was Trump's "impulsive" decision not to commit to war in Syria. I'll take that over Bolton's calculated push for war with Iran any time.

Stone's talk of martial law is troubling, as I said. It should also be extremely troubling when there's talk of removing a president over policy disagreements. That is a constitutional problem of the highest order.

---

I don't think the talk is over policy disagreements. It's over national security issues and whether Trump has the mental acuity, and ability to rationally consider and differentiate national interest from his personal interests.

---

If that's true then Mattis needs to stop focusing on policy issues. At the very least he's giving the wrong impression.

---

The problem is we are closer to having to go to war with Iran now more than ever, if a nuclear weaponized Iran is unacceptable. I agree, it would be bad precedent to remove presidents over policy disagreements. I don't believe that is the issue here, especially in the context of the long line of former White House staffers who question the President's character, mental stability, and acuity.

Question for you. Do you believe there is a legitimate scenario for Trump to declare the election invalid, and maintain office through marshal law?

---

Absolutely not. Trump's term will end in January. If for some reason there's no legitimate successor, the Speaker of the House will become president.

If he is the clear loser and there aren't enough votes left uncounted to change that, he should concede. If Trump is up in votes on election night but there are still signifigant amounts of ballots uncounted, then no he should not concede. If Trump tries to stop counts from going past election night (he already has lawsuits filed seeking to accomplish just that, while he deliberately slows down mail delivery and seeks changes to post-mark date rules) or otherwise tries to invalidate mailed in ballots, then Biden should do everything in his power to get those votes counted and not concede until it happens.

What is it about Trump that makes you give him such a benefit of the doubt? His reputation for honesty and ethics (lol)? It just seems strange with everything going on to question Biden's motives but still act like Trump is some upstanding citizen with pure intentions.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Stone's words are disturbing. It is equally disturbing that Mattis and others may have conspired to overthrow Trump's presidency.

---

Where is the evidence for Mattis and others conspiring to overthrow the president?

---

In the Woodward book, where Mattis is talking to Coats about taking collective action against Trump.

---

What should be disturbing is the fact that Coats, Mattis or anyone else of their integrity would even have to contemplate the 25th amendment, if that in fact is what they did. What should be alarming is the long list of quality people that have passed through the White House, as high ranking officials, and to a person they tell us Trump is unstable, incapable and unfit. As Kushner has indicated, they believe lying is good, allows them to create their own reality, and through controversy elevates the message. Their conclusions about Trump are glaringly obvious to anyone viewing through an objective lens. Woodward's conclusion about Trump is spot on. Woodward's book certainly lays out the justification for the cabinet to consider 'collective action' if there ever is justification for implementing the 25th amendment. A Trump second term may force the question, given the right circumstances. Trump is clearly impulsive and irrational.

---

Y'all keep saying that, but you ignore the policy disagreements underlying the charges. One of the biggest complaints was Trump's "impulsive" decision not to commit to war in Syria. I'll take that over Bolton's calculated push for war with Iran any time.

Stone's talk of martial law is troubling, as I said. It should also be extremely troubling when there's talk of removing a president over policy disagreements. That is a constitutional problem of the highest order.

---

I don't think the talk is over policy disagreements. It's over national security issues and whether Trump has the mental acuity, and ability to rationally consider and differentiate national interest from his personal interests.

---

If that's true then Mattis needs to stop focusing on policy issues. At the very least he's giving the wrong impression.

---

The problem is we are closer to having to go to war with Iran now more than ever, if a nuclear weaponized Iran is unacceptable. I agree, it would be bad precedent to remove presidents over policy disagreements. I don't believe that is the issue here, especially in the context of the long line of former White House staffers who question the President's character, mental stability, and acuity.

Question for you. Do you believe there is a legitimate scenario for Trump to declare the election invalid, and maintain office through marshal law?

---

There's no chance Trump goes to war with Iran. At worst, we can expect some sort of targeted strike in response to an aggressive act on their part. From a military standpoint, Trump has shown incredible restraint in dealing with Iran, and with our other enemies.

We were much closer to wars with multiple parties during the Obama admin. See NK, Syria, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia. If anything, Trump has made us much safer, and unlike previous admins, seems disinclined to put American lives on the line for other countries' messes.

Gruvin said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Stone's words are disturbing. It is equally disturbing that Mattis and others may have conspired to overthrow Trump's presidency.

---

Where is the evidence for Mattis and others conspiring to overthrow the president?

---

In the Woodward book, where Mattis is talking to Coats about taking collective action against Trump.

---

What should be disturbing is the fact that Coats, Mattis or anyone else of their integrity would even have to contemplate the 25th amendment, if that in fact is what they did. What should be alarming is the long list of quality people that have passed through the White House, as high ranking officials, and to a person they tell us Trump is unstable, incapable and unfit. As Kushner has indicated, they believe lying is good, allows them to create their own reality, and through controversy elevates the message. Their conclusions about Trump are glaringly obvious to anyone viewing through an objective lens. Woodward's conclusion about Trump is spot on. Woodward's book certainly lays out the justification for the cabinet to consider 'collective action' if there ever is justification for implementing the 25th amendment. A Trump second term may force the question, given the right circumstances. Trump is clearly impulsive and irrational.

---

Y'all keep saying that, but you ignore the policy disagreements underlying the charges. One of the biggest complaints was Trump's "impulsive" decision not to commit to war in Syria. I'll take that over Bolton's calculated push for war with Iran any time.

Stone's talk of martial law is troubling, as I said. It should also be extremely troubling when there's talk of removing a president over policy disagreements. That is a constitutional problem of the highest order.

---

I don't think the talk is over policy disagreements. It's over national security issues and whether Trump has the mental acuity, and ability to rationally consider and differentiate national interest from his personal interests.

---

If that's true then Mattis needs to stop focusing on policy issues. At the very least he's giving the wrong impression.

---

The problem is we are closer to having to go to war with Iran now more than ever, if a nuclear weaponized Iran is unacceptable. I agree, it would be bad precedent to remove presidents over policy disagreements. I don't believe that is the issue here, especially in the context of the long line of former White House staffers who question the President's character, mental stability, and acuity.

Question for you. Do you believe there is a legitimate scenario for Trump to declare the election invalid, and maintain office through marshal law?

---

closer than ever before? How ever will we fight another war with all the other ones Trump has started?

No- the courts will decide the election if it is close...

---

Yes closer, if a nuclear weaponized Iran is unacceptable. They will have nukes soon, short of intervention, along with the materials to export terror (dirty bombs etc.) and weaponry to further destabilize the Middle East.

Ok, you think courts will decide, and they may. There is also a scenario where it ends up in the House, where Trump would win based upon the current membership. My question for Sam was/is does he foresee a legitimate scenario for Trump to remain in office through marshal law?

He gives our enemies everything they want and lets them do anything they want. We are hardly more safe.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Stone's words are disturbing. It is equally disturbing that Mattis and others may have conspired to overthrow Trump's presidency.

---

Where is the evidence for Mattis and others conspiring to overthrow the president?

---

In the Woodward book, where Mattis is talking to Coats about taking collective action against Trump.

---

What should be disturbing is the fact that Coats, Mattis or anyone else of their integrity would even have to contemplate the 25th amendment, if that in fact is what they did. What should be alarming is the long list of quality people that have passed through the White House, as high ranking officials, and to a person they tell us Trump is unstable, incapable and unfit. As Kushner has indicated, they believe lying is good, allows them to create their own reality, and through controversy elevates the message. Their conclusions about Trump are glaringly obvious to anyone viewing through an objective lens. Woodward's conclusion about Trump is spot on. Woodward's book certainly lays out the justification for the cabinet to consider 'collective action' if there ever is justification for implementing the 25th amendment. A Trump second term may force the question, given the right circumstances. Trump is clearly impulsive and irrational.

---

Y'all keep saying that, but you ignore the policy disagreements underlying the charges. One of the biggest complaints was Trump's "impulsive" decision not to commit to war in Syria. I'll take that over Bolton's calculated push for war with Iran any time.

Stone's talk of martial law is troubling, as I said. It should also be extremely troubling when there's talk of removing a president over policy disagreements. That is a constitutional problem of the highest order.

---

I don't think the talk is over policy disagreements. It's over national security issues and whether Trump has the mental acuity, and ability to rationally consider and differentiate national interest from his personal interests.

---

If that's true then Mattis needs to stop focusing on policy issues. At the very least he's giving the wrong impression.

---

The problem is we are closer to having to go to war with Iran now more than ever, if a nuclear weaponized Iran is unacceptable. I agree, it would be bad precedent to remove presidents over policy disagreements. I don't believe that is the issue here, especially in the context of the long line of former White House staffers who question the President's character, mental stability, and acuity.

Question for you. Do you believe there is a legitimate scenario for Trump to declare the election invalid, and maintain office through marshal law?

---

There's no chance Trump goes to war with Iran. At worst, we can expect some sort of targeted strike in response to an aggressive act on their part. From a military standpoint, Trump has shown incredible restraint in dealing with Iran, and with our other enemies.

We were much closer to wars with multiple parties during the Obama admin. See NK, Syria, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia. If anything, Trump has made us much safer, and unlike previous admins, seems disinclined to put American lives on the line for other countries' messes.

---

Ok, I agree there is no chance (short of Iranian aggression) Trump will go to war with Iran. Therefore his policy of withdrawing from the treaty guarantees a nuclear weaponized Iran. He's shown restraint because has no choice since he' not going to use military force, Iran knows it.

I don't believe we were any closer to war with any of those countries under Obama (I don't care for Obama and didn't support him). Trump has taken a similar hands off approach. Like Obama, Trump, rhetoric aside, has tolerated Venezuela and increasing Russian influence there.

PartyBear said:

---

He gives our enemies everything they want and lets them do anything they want. We are hardly more safe.

---

he has sanctioned Russia more than O did... u sure?

HuMcK said:

---

If he is the clear loser and there aren't enough votes left uncounted to change that, he should concede. If Trump is up in votes on election night but there are still signifigant amounts of ballots uncounted, then no he should not concede. If Trump tries to stop counts from going past election night (he already has lawsuits filed seeking to accomplish just that, while he deliberately slows down mail delivery and seeks changes to post-mark date rules) or otherwise tries to invalidate mailed in ballots, then Biden should do everything in his power to get those votes counted and not concede until it happens.

What is it about Trump that makes you give him such a benefit of the doubt? His reputation for honesty and ethics (lol)? It just seems strange with everything going on to question Biden's motives but still act like Trump is some upstanding citizen with pure intentions.

---

It's a dicey time, and there are people on both sides making it worse. Hillary leaves little room for doubt when she says Biden shouldn't concede under any circumstances. I don't know what Biden's intentions are, but the fact that this is an acceptable conversation among Democrats should alarm any observer.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Stone's words are disturbing. It is equally disturbing that Mattis and others may have conspired to overthrow Trump's presidency.

---

Where is the evidence for Mattis and others conspiring to overthrow the president?

---

In the Woodward book, where Mattis is talking to Coats about taking collective action against Trump.

---

What should be disturbing is the fact that Coats, Mattis or anyone else of their integrity would even have to contemplate the 25th amendment, if that in fact is what they did. What should be alarming is the long list of quality people that have passed through the White House, as high ranking officials, and to a person they tell us Trump is unstable, incapable and unfit. As Kushner has indicated, they believe lying is good, allows them to create their own reality, and through controversy elevates the message. Their conclusions about Trump are glaringly obvious to anyone viewing through an objective lens. Woodward's conclusion about Trump is spot on. Woodward's book certainly lays out the justification for the cabinet to consider 'collective action' if there ever is justification for implementing the 25th amendment. A Trump second term may force the question, given the right circumstances. Trump is clearly impulsive and irrational.

---

Y'all keep saying that, but you ignore the policy disagreements underlying the charges. One of the biggest complaints was Trump's "impulsive" decision not to commit to war in Syria. I'll take that over Bolton's calculated push for war with Iran any time.

Stone's talk of martial law is troubling, as I said. It should also be extremely troubling when there's talk of removing a president over policy disagreements. That is a constitutional problem of the highest order.

---

I don't think the talk is over policy disagreements. It's over national security issues and whether Trump has the mental acuity, and ability to rationally consider and differentiate national interest from his personal interests.

---

If that's true then Mattis needs to stop focusing on policy issues. At the very least he's giving the wrong impression.

---

The problem is we are closer to having to go to war with Iran now more than ever, if a nuclear weaponized Iran is unacceptable. I agree, it would be bad precedent to remove presidents over policy disagreements. I don't believe that is the issue here, especially in the context of the long line of former White House staffers who question the President's character, mental stability, and acuity.

Question for you. Do you believe there is a legitimate scenario for Trump to declare the election invalid, and maintain office through marshal law?

---

There's no chance Trump goes to war with Iran. At worst, we can expect some sort of targeted strike in response to an aggressive act on their part. From a military standpoint, Trump has shown incredible restraint in dealing with Iran, and with our other enemies.

We were much closer to wars with multiple parties during the Obama admin. See NK, Syria, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia. If anything, Trump has made us much safer, and unlike previous admins, seems disinclined to put American lives on the line for other countries' messes.

---

Ok, I agree there is no chance (short of Iranian aggression) Trump will go to war with Iran. Therefore his policy of withdrawing from the treaty guarantees a nuclear weaponized Iran. He's shown restraint because has no choice since he' not going to use military force, Iran knows it.

I don't believe we were any closer to war with any of those countries under Obama (I don't care for Obama and didn't support him). Trump has taken a similar hands off approach. Like Obama, Trump, rhetoric aside, has tolerated Venezuela and increasing Russian influence there.

---

The Iran deal was terrible. It allowed Iran to go nuclear ANYWAY while getting paid billions of U.S. dollars. It was a total disaster, universally panned.

The sanctions against Iran have been working, as evidenced by their newest concessions and agreement to allow the UN into the country to test their nuclear sites. Growing civil unrest blamed the Iranian govt. for the sanctions, and no longer buys the Great Satan narrative. It may take time, but I think it will ultimately either bankrupt Iran or force a leadership change.

We should not be rewarding Iran's bad behavior and that is essentially what Obama's plan would have done.

And if you don't think we were closer to conflict with all of the countries mentioned during the Obama admin, then I think you're not being intellectually honest.

---

I agree it was a terrible deal. I don't like the Obama "plan." My view has been that once Trump inherited the deal, it was better to try to strengthen it bringing allies along, without rewarding Iran's bad behavior, before deciding on withdrawal.

I don't see where much has changed regarding conflict with those other countries, with the possible exception of Syria, since we have conceded Syria as a Russian satellite. I think we're on the same path with Venezuela.

Sm Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

If he is the clear loser and there aren't enough votes left uncounted to change that, he should concede. If Trump is up in votes on election night but there are still signifigant amounts of ballots uncounted, then no he should not concede. If Trump tries to stop counts from going past election night (he already has lawsuits filed seeking to accomplish just that, while he deliberately slows down mail delivery and seeks changes to post-mark date rules) or otherwise tries to invalidate mailed in ballots, then Biden should do everything in his power to get those votes counted and not concede until it happens.

What is it about Trump that makes you give him such a benefit of the doubt? His reputation for honesty and ethics (lol)? It just seems strange with everything going on to question Biden's motives but still act like Trump is some upstanding citizen with pure intentions.

---

It's a dicey time, and there are people on both sides making it worse. Hillary leaves little room for doubt when she says Biden shouldn't concede under any circumstances. I don't know what Biden's intentions are, but the fact that this is an acceptable conversation among Democrats should alarm any observer.

---

Hasn't the conversation been more in the other direction? Trump not conceding? Although not conceding from either party is alarming.

PartyBear said:

---

He gives our enemies everything they want and lets them do anything they want. We are hardly more safe.

---

Such as taking out Soleimani, the Iranian terrorist leader who was destabilizing the Middle East? That was a huge blow to Iranian influence and their ability to undermine governments in the region.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sm Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

If he is the clear loser and there aren't enough votes left uncounted to change that, he should concede. If Trump is up in votes on election night but there are still signifigant amounts of ballots uncounted, then no he should not concede. If Trump tries to stop counts from going past election night (he already has lawsuits filed seeking to accomplish just that, while he deliberately slows down mail delivery and seeks changes to post-mark date rules) or otherwise tries to invalidate mailed in ballots, then Biden should do everything in his power to get those votes counted and not concede until it happens.

What is it about Trump that makes you give him such a benefit of the doubt? His reputation for honesty and ethics (lol)? It just seems strange with everything going on to question Biden's motives but still act like Trump is some upstanding citizen with pure intentions.

---

It's a dicey time, and there are people on both sides making it worse. Hillary leaves little room for doubt when she says Biden shouldn't concede under any circumstances. I don't know what Biden's intentions are, but the fact that this is an acceptable conversation among Democrats should alarm any observer.

---

Hasn't the conversation been more in the other direction? Trump not conceding? Although not conceding from either party is alarming.

---

I think Trump has always said he would wait and see. Which is bad enough, but Hillary managed to top it and then some.

To be clear, Hillary was warning about the same thing I am involving a narrow lead for Trump before mailed in ballots gave been counted (the Trump campaign is currently suing NJ to stop them from starting to count mailed in votes before election day, why would they do that?), and her comment was the Biden should not concede on election night while vote counts are ongoing. It's easy to portray it otherwise with the shortened quote, but her full response makes clear what that she was talking about conceding on election night with votes still outstanding. That is not even close to the same as Trump saying the things he does, or his officials like Stone and Caputo.

Mothra said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

He gives our enemies everything they want and lets them do anything they want. We are hardly more safe.

---

Ah, ok. Pray tell, what has he given our enemies specifically that has made us less safe?

---

Intel on Israel while hosting Russian spies on the Oval Office.

HuMcK said:

---

To be clear, Hillary was warning about the same thing I am involving a narrow lead for Trump before mailed in ballots gave been counted (the Trump campaign is currently suing NJ to stop them from starting to count mailed in votes before election day, why would they do that?), and her comment was the Biden should not concede on election night while vote counts are ongoing. It's easy to portray it otherwise with the shortened quote, but her full response makes clear what that she was talking about conceding on election night with votes still outstanding. That is not even close to the same as Trump saying the things he does, or his officials like Stone and Caputo.

---

I don't think I'm mischaracterizing what she said. Candidates have always conceded with votes still outstanding. Refusing to do so is rare. Refusing two months in advance is unprecedented.

There will only be one possible concession and that is if Biden loses. I can't see Trump ever conceding. It is not in his nature. It would tag him as a loser and he would be admitting it for the public to hear. He may lose the election and even if it is an overwhelming defeat in the Electoral College that a blind squirrel could see, if I were Biden, I wouldn't be standing by my phone waiting for a call that will never come. I also would not expect any turnover from Trump as is the custom with outgoing and incoming presidents.

Trump will not allow himself to be painted as having lost the election, if the counts do not go his way. His ego will just not allow it. He doesn't have the character to act honorably in such a situation. All we will hear about from him is how the election was rigged, stolen, etc., for as long as Trump is alive.

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

To be clear, Hillary was warning about the same thing I am involving a narrow lead for Trump before mailed in ballots gave been counted (the Trump campaign is currently suing NJ to stop them from starting to count mailed in votes before election day, why would they do that?), and her comment was the Biden should not concede on election night while vote counts are ongoing. It's easy to portray it otherwise with the shortened quote, but her full response makes clear what that she was talking about conceding on election night with votes still outstanding. That is not even close to the same as Trump saying the things he does, or his officials like Stone and Caputo.

---

I don't think I'm mischaracterizing what she said. Candidates have always conceded with votes still outstanding. Refusing to do so is rare. Refusing two months in advance is unprecedented.

---

Here's POTUS last night saying he plans to do exactly what Hillary was warning about, he will try to stop counting votes and declare victory on election night, or else have a recently stacked SCOTUS do it for him: "We're counting on the federal court system to make it so that we can actually have an evening where we know who wins. Not where the votes are going to be counted a week later or two weeks later."

Keep in mind he's saying this while Republicans and his campaign fight against states allowing any mailed in ballots to be counted before election day. He wants to slow the process down so he can declare a premature end. He wants chaos on election night so he an use it to his advantage.