Dear Pete Hegseth, I’m Grateful the Japanese Navy Spared My Grandfather’s Life

[Servus]

Sometimes personal attacks can seem like the only viable response to attacks on logic, rational thought, respect for the law, Christian values and basic human decency.

Unfortunately that is how some react to viewpoints that differ from theirs. Insults, accusations, anything other than just adressing the topic.

 

[Servus]

And? Republicans have done the very same thing to the Democrats. That's politics.

No party has been as wackadoodles over a president as the democrats have been against Trump.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The Democrats will refuse to cooperate with Trump on most anything and everybody knows it. The 43 day government shutdown removed any doubt that if there's any kind of work around to get past them it should be taken.

you are most likely correct, Democrats are unlikely to work with Republicans or provide President Trump with the authorization necessary to take action against Narco traffickers. While this situation can be a source of frustration, it is a direct reflection of how our democracy operates.

A fundamental aspect of the American democratic system is the presence of checks and balances. These mechanisms are designed to prevent any one branch of government from holding unchecked power. As long as the system remains unchanged, and unless there is a complete overhaul granting absolute authority to the executive branch—as seen in other governance models—the President of the United States does not possess the unilateral power to initiate such actions independently.

I find it concerning that most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, support our current government system but only value checks and balances when their side is not in power; when their party holds the White House, they tend to favor greater executive authority.

 

[Servus]

you are most likely correct, Democrats are unlikely to work with Republicans or provide President Trump with the authorization necessary to take action against Narco traffickers. While this situation can be a source of frustration, it is a direct reflection of how our democracy operates.

A fundamental aspect of the American democratic system is the presence of checks and balances. These mechanisms are designed to prevent any one branch of government from holding unchecked power. As long as the system remains unchanged, and unless there is a complete overhaul granting absolute authority to the executive branch—as seen in other governance models—the President of the United States does not possess the unilateral power to initiate such actions independently.

I find it concerning that most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, support our current government system but only value checks and balances when their side is not in power; when their party holds the White House, they tend to favor greater executive authority.

What I said is a workaround. Based on provisions that already exist within the established system.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

No party has been as wackadoodles over a president as the democrats have been against Trump.

It is possible that you are correct in your observation. The Democrats are behaving obstructionist and hindering President Trump from carrying out necessary actions. However, does their behavior justify placing a hold on our democratic system? Should this situation result in granting President Trump unchecked authority over our government?

 

[Servus]

It is possible that you are correct in your observation. The Democrats are behaving obstructionist and hindering President Trump from carrying out necessary actions. However, does their behavior justify placing a hold on our democratic system? Should this situation result in granting President Trump unchecked authority over our government?

Again it's a matter of utilizing provisions that already exist. Trump didn't come up with them, he's just making use of them.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

What I said is a workaround. Based on provisions that already exist within the established system.

The existing system is to go to Congress and have Congress authorize any military action. Anything else is undermining the balance of power in our system.

 

[Servus]

The existing system is to go to Congress and have Congress authorize any military action. Anything else is undermining the balance of power in our system.

Is that kind of like saying established provisions used by a president and presidential executive orders were designed by the government to undermine the balance of power? Since those things exist, they obviously exist for a reason, and are there to be utilized. And it seems unlikely that the reason for their existence is to undermine democracy.

 

[Yarddog]

No party has been as wackadoodles over a president as the democrats have been against Trump.

No President has been so wackadoodles as Trump. That was the consensus of all the living Presidents and VPs.

Even first term Trump thinks 2nd term Trump is wackadoodles. Lol

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Incorrect. The US isn't, Trump is but he is being very selective. Some Cartels are being helped by Trump while others he has targeted. This isn't about Drugs or death to Americans.

He helped MS-13 criminals and he helped the former President of Honduras out of prison. He is playing both ways.

He loves dictators but hates Maduro of Venezuela. Why? He wants their oil.

Trump says US is in 'armed conflict' with drug cartels after ordering strikes in the Caribbean

President Donald Trump has declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and says the United States is now in an “armed conflict."

apnews.com

Trump declares U.S. in 'non-international armed conflict' with drug cartels

President Donald Trump has declared drug cartels operating in the Caribbean are unlawful combatants and says the United States is now in a “non-international armed conflict.”

www.pbs.org

Trump Tells Congress U.S. Is at War With Cartels: What That Means

Legal experts and lawmakers have raised concerns after President Donald Trump declared in a notice to Congress that the U.S. is in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

time.com

https://thehill.com/homenews/5535523-trump-armed-conflict-drug-cartels-caribbean/

Furthermore, what MS-13 criminals did Trump help, and why would Trump caren about Venezuelan oil when he made America energy independent?

Shall i.comtinue?

 

[Yarddog]

Trump says US is in 'armed conflict' with drug cartels after ordering strikes in the Caribbean

President Donald Trump has declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and says the United States is now in an “armed conflict."

apnews.com

Trump declares U.S. in 'non-international armed conflict' with drug cartels

President Donald Trump has declared drug cartels operating in the Caribbean are unlawful combatants and says the United States is now in a “non-international armed conflict.”

www.pbs.org

Trump Tells Congress U.S. Is at War With Cartels: What That Means

Legal experts and lawmakers have raised concerns after President Donald Trump declared in a notice to Congress that the U.S. is in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

time.com

https://thehill.com/homenews/5535523-trump-armed-conflict-drug-cartels-caribbean/

As I said, Trump is not the US. The US will need Congress to agree before we are.

Furthermore, what MS-13 criminals did Trump help,

Ranking Member Robert Garcia Demands Trump Administration Come Clean on Reported Deal to Release MS-13 Leaders to El Salvador

and why would Trumpmcarenabout Venezuelan oil when he made America energy independent?

The US isn't energy independent. We just export more oil than we import.

Why is Trump so obsessed with Venezuela? His new security strategy provides some clues

The Trump administration is reviving the Monroe Doctrine for Latin America. The aim: keeping China out and securing oil and resources for itself.

theconversation.com

U.S. energy facts - imports and exports - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. energy imports and exports since 1950.

www.eia.gov

 

[A2SG]

No party has been as wackadoodles over a president as the democrats have been against Trump.

You should have been around back when President Obama was in office. Man, the GOP was wackadoodle over him! I could tell you some stories, like so many racist caricatures and invective, false claims about his religion, citizenship (including a lengthy one from the current Oval Office resident), etc. It was pretty weird, you should have seen it!

And even the leadership of the Republican party got into the act. The majority leader of the Senate at the time actually said, "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Granted, Trump's actions in office have been unprecedented, which does prompt unprecedented responses, but to think that only Democrats strongly oppose a president only shows you must not have been paying attention from 2008 to 2016.

-- A2SG, it was a wild time, you shoulda been here.....

 

[Servus]

You should have been around back when President Obama was in office. Man, the GOP was wackadoodle over him! I could tell you some stories, like so many racist caricatures and invective, false claims about his religion, citizenship (including a lengthy one from the current Oval Office resident), etc. It was pretty weird, you should have seen it!

And even the leadership of the Republican party got into the act. The majority leader of the Senate at the time actually said, "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Granted, Trump's actions in office have been unprecedented, which does prompt unprecedented responses, but to think that only Democrats strongly oppose a president only shows you must not have been paying attention from 2008 to 2016.

-- A2SG, it was a wild time, you shoulda been here.....

Comparing what Obama experienced to what Trump has experienced is like comparing a camp fire to a forest fire.

 

[A2SG]

Comparing what Obama experienced to what Trump has experienced is like comparing a camp fire to a forest fire.

I dunno about that. It was pretty strong at the time. But, as I said, I will grant you that many of the things Trump has done in office far exceeds anything President Obama did, so the reaction seems to be responsive to what's been done. Just as an example, President Obama never tried to overturn a presidential election (though, to be fair, he never lost one), nor did he ever urge his followers to "fight like hell or you won't have a country any more" prompting an attack on the Capitol.

A key difference seems to be that those who oppose Trump do so based on what he's actually done; most of the opposition to President Obama was based on stuff he didn't do, and never did, like when some called him a "socialist" or "radical marxist".

But, if you want to call the various reactions to Trump's actions "wackadoodle," I'd say there was more than plenty of "wackadoodle" stuff lobbed toward President Obama back in the day. A lot of it wasn't even close to being tethered to reality, like the birther stuff and the false assumptions about his religion.

-- A2SG, but maybe you had to be there....

 

[Servus]

I dunno about that. It was pretty strong at the time. But, as I said, I will grant you that many of the things Trump has done in office far exceeds anything President Obama did, so the reaction seems to be responsive to what's been done. Just as an example, President Obama never tried to overturn a presidential election (though, to be fair, he never lost one), nor did he ever urge his followers to "fight like hell or you won't have a country any more" prompting an attack on the Capitol.

A key difference seems to be that those who oppose Trump do so based on what he's actually done; most of the opposition to President Obama was based on stuff he didn't do, and never did, like when some called him a "socialist" or "radical marxist".

But, if you want to call the various reactions to Trump's actions "wackadoodle," I'd say there was more than plenty of "wackadoodle" stuff lobbed toward President Obama back in the day. A lot of it wasn't even close to being tethered to reality, like the birther stuff and the false assumptions about his religion.

-- A2SG, but maybe you had to be there....

I remember it all quite well and there's no comparison. The opposition towards Obama was about the same as it was towards Bush. The freakout over Trump however was and still is totally unprecedented.

 

[A2SG]

I remember it all quite well and there's no comparison. The opposition towards Obama was about the same as it was towards Bush.

No, not even close. No one claimed President Bush wasn't a US citizen, repeatedly and constantly, even after proof was given. No one called President Bush a radical muslim, despite his doing nothing whatsoever to indicate he held either that position, or that religion. No one mocked President Bush based on the color of his skin, or made disparaging comments about his wife's gender.

The freakout over Trump however was and still is totally unprecedented.

To the extent that Trump's actions have been unprecedented, sure. Again, no president who lost a reelection bid previously ever tried to overturn that election, nor tried to install fake electors to change the outcome; no losing president ever called a state's officials and demanded they "find" enough votes to change the results; no president urged their followers to storm the Capitol to stop the certification of that election.

Trump has done stuff no president in office (or having left office) has done before. So, sure, a lot of the criticism of Trump is based on those unprecedented acts. People have reacted to things Trump has actually done, and continues to do.

But the wackadoodle stuff, that's a different story. The wackadoodle stuff some did to object to President Obama, much of it based on stuff that had nothing whatsoever to do with the man himself, or any actions he took, was off the charts.

-- A2SG, objections to Trump are based on reality, a large part of the objections to President Obama were not....

 

[Servus]

No, not even close. No one claimed President Bush wasn't a US citizen, repeatedly and constantly, even after proof was given. No one called President Bush a radical muslim, despite his doing nothing whatsoever to indicate he held either that position, or that religion. No one mocked President Bush based on the color of his skin, or made disparaging comments about his wife's gender.


To the extent that Trump's actions have been unprecedented, sure. Again, no president who lost a reelection bid previously ever tried to overturn that election, nor tried to install fake electors to change the outcome; no losing president ever called a state's officials and demanded they "find" enough votes to change the results; no president urged their followers to storm the Capitol to stop the certification of that election.

Trump has done stuff no president in office (or having left office) has done before. So, sure, a lot of the criticism of Trump is based on those unprecedented acts. People have reacted to things Trump has actually done, and continues to do.

But the wackadoodle stuff, that's a different story. The wackadoodle stuff some did to object to President Obama, much of it based on stuff that had nothing whatsoever to do with the man himself, or any actions he took, was off the charts.

-- A2SG, objections to Trump are based on reality, a large part of the objections to President Obama were not....

No they came up with other ways to attack Bush in what was called "Bush Derangement Syndrome". But none of it, regarding Obama or Bush, was close to how members of government have freaked out over Trump and the extremes they've gone to against a sitting president.

 

[A2SG]

No they came up with other ways to attack Bush in what was called "Bush Derangement Syndrome".

Care to provide examples of this? I've literally never heard that term used in connection with President Bush. Father or son. I've only ever heard "derangement syndrome" used in connection with Trump.

But none of it, regarding Obama or Bush, was close to how members of government have freaked out over Trump and the extremes they've gone to against a sitting president.

Because Trump has gone far beyond the extremes of a sitting president. But all of the objections to and criticisms of Trump, even the hyperbolic ones, are based on actions he himself, has taken, or words he, himself, has said.

I'd say, in fact, that it's certain supporters of Trump who have become unconnected to reality. For example, those who continue to claim he's innocent of the crimes he was proven to have committed in a court of law.

-- A2SG, seems to me Trump supporters like that are truly the ones suffering from a "derangement syndrome"....

 

[Servus]

Care to provide examples of this? I've literally never heard that term used in connection with President Bush. Father or son. I've only ever heard "derangement syndrome" used in connection with Trump.

That's because my recollection and knowledge of events is better than yours.

Because Trump has gone far beyond the extremes of a sitting president. But all of the objections to and criticisms of Trump, even the hyperbolic ones, are based on actions he himself, has taken, or words he, himself, has said.

I'd say, in fact, that it's certain supporters of Trump who have become unconnected to reality. For example, those who continue to claim he's innocent of the crimes he was proven to have committed in a court of law.

-- A2SG, seems to me Trump supporters like that are truly the ones suffering from a "derangement syndrome"....

The extreme level of wackadoodle against Trump is closely followed by the extreme level of wackadoodle against his supporters.

 

[A2SG]

That's because my recollection and knowledge of events is better than yours.

Dunno about that, since you seem to have forgotten a lot of the wackadoodle things said about President Obama. But regardless, I never claimed to have total recall. So....what are some examples of this "Bush derangement syndrome" you claim was a thing back in the day? And who, exactly, called it that?

The extreme level of wackadoodle against Trump is closely followed by the extreme level of wackadoodle against his supporters.

I think his supporters, many of them anyway, are fully capable of sufficient wackadoodle all on their own. But, as I said, the criticism and objections to Trump, even the hyperbolic ones, are based on reality: things he's done, or said. Nothing wackadoodle about it.

-- A2SG, on the other hand, a lot of stuff Trump has done, himself, that can be quite wackadoodle....