George Truett said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

George Truett 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.

---

It is disturbing that they were that scared.

---

Their fears were at least as much about Trump's policies as they were about his fitness for office. And the more you read of Mattis' statements, the clearer it is that he doesn't know the difference. He believes Trump is "dangerous" because he wants to withdraw troops from Afghanistan? Sorry, Jim, you don't get to make that call.

---

That may be true, but his arguments about his unfitness as a whole are convincing.

Of course, we already knew that.

You knew that as well before you became a Trumpist. You argued vociferously against his election years ago.

You were right.

---

I see those of your ilk use this term quite a bit, but I am not sure what it means. What is a "Trumpist" exactly? Is it someone who votes for Trump over the socialist, Green New Deal, Defund the Police, alternative? Does voting for Trump, who I think personally is a d bag, over the bat-**** crazy alternative, make me a Trumpist?

Mothra said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

George Truett 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.

---

It is disturbing that they were that scared.

---

Their fears were at least as much about Trump's policies as they were about his fitness for office. And the more you read of Mattis' statements, the clearer it is that he doesn't know the difference. He believes Trump is "dangerous" because he wants to withdraw troops from Afghanistan? Sorry, Jim, you don't get to make that call.

---

That may be true, but his arguments about his unfitness as a whole are convincing.

Of course, we already knew that.

You knew that as well before you became a Trumpist. You argued vociferously against his election years ago.

You were right.

---

I see those of your ilk use this term quite a bit, but I am not sure what it means. What is a "Trumpist" exactly? Is it someone who votes for Trump over the socialist, Green New Deal, Defund the Police, alternative? Does voting for Trump, who I think personally is a d bag, over the bat-**** crazy alternative, make me a Trumpist?

---

I'd say no. I think the reference was to "true believers"...ie. rifle, hashtag,Bearitto etc

J.R. said:

---

Mothra said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

George Truett 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.

---

It is disturbing that they were that scared.

---

Their fears were at least as much about Trump's policies as they were about his fitness for office. And the more you read of Mattis' statements, the clearer it is that he doesn't know the difference. He believes Trump is "dangerous" because he wants to withdraw troops from Afghanistan? Sorry, Jim, you don't get to make that call.

---

That may be true, but his arguments about his unfitness as a whole are convincing.

Of course, we already knew that.

You knew that as well before you became a Trumpist. You argued vociferously against his election years ago.

You were right.

---

I see those of your ilk use this term quite a bit, but I am not sure what it means. What is a "Trumpist" exactly? Is it someone who votes for Trump over the socialist, Green New Deal, Defund the Police, alternative? Does voting for Trump, who I think personally is a d bag, over the bat-**** crazy alternative, make me a Trumpist?

---

I'd say no. I think the reference was to "true believers"...ie. rifle, hashtag,Bearitto etc

---

Thanks. I wouldn't call Sam Lowry a "Trumpist" by that standard, but that is exactly what Truett called him. I am interested in his definition.

fubar said:

---

Mothra 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.

---

Not suggesting that a coup was forthcoming, but a former 4-star general and Sec. of Defense is not a civilian in the same way you and I are civilians. If I suggest removing the president via some means other than an election/impeachment, it doesn't hold nearly as much weight and should be a cause for concern, IMO.

And it does appear that Mattis' main complaint was Trump trying to pull us out of Afghanistan, which is troubling.

---

Mattis resigned over Trump's decision to abandon an ally (the Kurds) in Syria. Mattis seems to have a lot of issues with which he disagreed with Trump. He has spoken very little on those. Dan Coats, on the other hand, focused on the habitual lying and Trump's behavior vis-a-vis Russia.

I do agree that using the 25th Amendment to remove any president would be concerning. The fact that two men who were overwhelmingly confirmed may have discussed doing that? And why? That shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

---

I think Trump has good people in his cabinet that wouldn't cover for him if they thought the 25th Amendment should be in play, but I agree that such comments can't be dismissed out of hand.

cinque said:

---

You cons gonna punish the White House personnel who removed documents from Trump's desk in order to keep him out of trouble?

---

copies of them are on Muellers teams cell phones... we good!

Gruvin said:

---

cinque said:

---

You cons gonna punish the White House personnel who removed documents from Trump's desk in order to keep him out of trouble?

---

copies of them are on Muellers teams cell phones... we good!

---

You've gone off the deep end.

This is funny and sad:

cinque said:

---

This is funny and sad:

---

and bigger than any gathering for Biden in 2020... in fact, there were more Trump supporters outside a Biden rally recently than there was Biden supporters inside...

Barbara tried to tell you:

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.

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?

George Truett said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

George Truett 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.

---

It is disturbing that they were that scared.

---

Their fears were at least as much about Trump's policies as they were about his fitness for office. And the more you read of Mattis' statements, the clearer it is that he doesn't know the difference. He believes Trump is "dangerous" because he wants to withdraw troops from Afghanistan? Sorry, Jim, you don't get to make that call.

---

That may be true, but his arguments about his unfitness as a whole are convincing.

Of course, we already knew that.

You knew that as well before you became a Trumpist. You argued vociferously against his election years ago.

You were right.

---

My arguments against Trump were about qualifications and character, not fitness. That's an important distinction. Opposing Trump's election is vastly different from removing him after the fact, and Mattis has not made the case on fitness grounds.

You would be horrified, and rightly so, if you saw this kind of effort to unseat a Democratic president for not toeing the military/industrial line.

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.

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.

Except that it was a peaceful gathering, the crowd was dispersed for a curfew (at least that's what they said initially, we know by now it was the photo-op), not because it was unruly. So there goes your whole underlying presmise for why it was acceptable. The leaders and clergy of that church were among the crowd and got pepper sprayed too, btw. All so Trump could take a photo holding a bible he never read or will read (he signed it and it's up for sale now with a $40k+ price tag last I checked, as god intended).

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.

---

I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I take your word for it. It wouldn't surprise me if a number of cabinet level personnel considered Article 25. The fact that Mattis and others didn't attempt a 'coup' speaks to their loyalty to the country and the unlikelihood that anyone of their caliber would attempt such a thing. The more likely and real danger of a 'coup' attempt is from Trump through claiming election fraud and retaining office should he lose the election. Although, I personally don't believe the military nor law enforcement would go along with such an attempt. Nor do I believe in the final analysis the SC would uphold such. That would be the end of democracy. In all likelihood the Constitution will ultimately prevail and we'll survive Trump, or whatever comes after him, or that's my hope.

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.

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.

---

You sound an awful lot like a sunshine, rainbows, and unicorns Democrat. Reality escapes you.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 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.

---

You sound an awful lot like a sunshine, rainbows, and unicorns Democrat. Reality escapes you.

---

Reality is reality. If you want to discuss other non-peaceful events elsewhere, I'm game.

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.

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.

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!

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Amazing to me how many on the Left think Roger Stone is more significant than a pimple on an elephant's ass. Of course these are the same people that resurrected an extinct KKK and made them larger than life.

---

So, somebody, Roger Stone who has absolutely no power over anything, says something outragious, and people go ape.

Biden hires 600 lawyer to litigate the election, and crickets.

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.

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!

---

HuMcK said:

---

Literally the only reason he is a free man able to spout off this kind of lunacy is because of Trump's protection of him. He got special treatment from DoJ because he has the power to expose POTUS to criminal liability, so stop acting like he is some random citizen with no influence.

---

He isn't running for the Presidency, thank goodness.

Trump will be gone if he loses. Trump will likely be gone even if he doesn't lose.

The DNC is setting this up for litigation already. Clinton, much more influential than that loser Roger Stone, has already stated that Biden should not concede the election for any reason whatsoever.

That sounds like a coup attempt to me. And again, it gets crickets.

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton has a piece of advice for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden: "Whatever happens, do not concede defeat on the night of the Nov. 3 election."

"Eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is," Clinton said.

---

This is the real threat out there.

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.

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)

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.