world

White House-Pentagon tensions near breaking point

65 Comments
By ROBERT BURNS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


65 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

a recently retired Army four-star general, says this “sacred trust” has been breached by Trump's

Trump's confused the role of the US president with that of a banana republic dictator's. His knowledge of the military came from the private military reform school his rich daddy sent him to.

18 ( +20 / -2 )

Pentagon people are generally well educated professionals whose roles require an understanding of a bigger picture and the potential consequences of their actions. The same cannot be said of Trump.

17 ( +20 / -3 )

It is surprising that these men who are well happy to see the American people fleeced to create the most unnecessarily grossly over-funded military in human history which has gleefully terrorized so many nations around the world in the imperial campaign of never-ending war even think of drawing the line at terrorizing the American people along with the police. Well, lets see what happens if Trump actually gives the order. Remember, not everyone agreed with Caesar crossing the Rubicon either, but in the end Caesar won a victory there and even after being assassinated his supporters won out.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

That law allows a president to use the armed forces “as he considers necessary” when “unlawful obstructions ... or rebellion against the authority of the United States” make it impractical to enforce U.S. laws in any state by normal means

The above is all well and good except for the fact that it is not occurring.  I know this will upset some posters but the vast, vast majorities of protests are peaceful, which does not make for prime time news.  The people of America are angry at what their nation has become and are protesting peacefully in their millions.  Trump want's zero protests as they make him look bad, and is willing to (attempt) launch the military against protesters to protect his image and ego.

If Trump wants to play at dictator, he should also be mindful that such dictators often face coups when they lose control.

18 ( +18 / -0 )

Trump lost his first defense secretary, retired Marine Gen. Jim Mattis, over an accumulation of grievances

Including Mattis' opposition to drawing down troops in Afghanistan and Syria.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

Trump's confused the role of the US president with that of a banana republic dictator's. His knowledge of the military came from the private military reform school his rich daddy sent him to

No, seems like certain military officials are confused. If they don’t want to execute the Presidents order resign, it becomes a banana republic when you have “yes, men” defying orders, now if these men want to get out of uniform and put on a suit and tie and become a civilian and challenge the President, fine. But NO ONE elected this men to the highest office.

-21 ( +1 / -22 )

Pentagon director refusing to be bullied by Trump.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley had 'shouting match with Donald Trump to force him to back down over sending in troops to clear Washington DC protesters who he stated he supported.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

 to execute the Presidents order re

Legal question? Perhaps some generals have greater allegiance to the Constitution (and the republic for which it stands) than to a leader who's trying to undermine the republic to establish himself as Supreme Leader.

@bas4f “yes, men” defying orders,

Wouldn't a 'yes' man follow orders? Is Trump going to clear out generals who don't 'obey' him. Stalin did that.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

The Pentagon is further upset by Trump building fortress walls around the people's home, the White House.

The ridiculousness of shielding himself from America is symbolically a division to the people. Instead of showing unison, peace and reason, Trump shows anger and cowardice toward his fellow Americans. This is not a leader of a free democracy, it is dictatorial. What a stupid, unstable, scared wimp he is.

btw, Is Mexico paying for it?

17 ( +17 / -0 )

Legal question? Perhaps some generals have greater allegiance to the Constitution (and the republic for which it stands) than to a leader who's trying to undermine the republic to establish himself as Supreme Leader.

Ok, then if that is so, then as servants of the President, their job is to execute orders given to them, if they can’t, then they need to step aside and take off the uniform. We don’t elected the military to lead the nation or decide on policies in the executive branch, that’s absolutely not their job, they are supposed to execute an order.

Wouldn't a 'yes' man follow orders? Is Trump going to clear out generals who don't 'obey' him. Stalin did that.

I hope he does, but in other words, what you are essentially saying is, Washington to shut up and submit to the mob, that’s just crazy. Blacks and their agenda get to dictate policy and the nation has to fold because of political correctness or the alternative is, we burn it all down? Now who is the threat and terrorist?

-16 ( +0 / -16 )

No one are required to carry out illegal orders, just like the Watergate.

Presidents are not dictators.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

No one are required to carry out illegal orders, just like the Watergate.

This is not Watergate.

Presidents are not dictators.

Neither are the military.

-15 ( +0 / -15 )

This cause of this unprecedented fine mess is simple: the "boss" can't do his job. He doesn't understand what he is supposed to do because he has never had a real job. He can't perform as PotUS because he has no clue of what the role entails. But then even learning on the job and growing into the role are beyond his capabilities since he cannot read or write and has the concentration of the 74-year-old dotard that he is. This whole ramshackle administration is a fake and sham and the US military brass know it. This might be the only occasion when a military coup could be justified to restore democracy to the people of America.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

The right to assemble and protest is written into the constitution. WW2 was a fight against fascism which wanted to remove those kinds of rights. Millions gave their lives to fight the fascism.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Apple built a steel wall around their Apple store in NYC. its just a store. has no historical significance.

But we cant protect the White House with an extra fence and some extra guards right now?

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

uh, we dont do that. we vote.

This might be the only occasion when a military coup could be justified to restore democracy to the people of America.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Ok, then if that is so, then as servants of the President, their job is to execute orders given to them, if they can’t, then they need to step aside and take off the uniform. 

The fact that you even posit this thought shows how misguided and off base you are. The military, from the lowest private to the highest ranked general, are not 'servants of the President.'

This is the Oath of Commission than I took on 27 May 2000, and is the same oath that every officer takes:

I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

https://www.army.mil/values/officers.html

Note, nowhere in that oath is there swearing to become a 'servant of the President.' Even the enlisted oath, which does mention obeying the orders of the President and officers appointed above them, couch that in orders conforming to ' according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.'

They are soldiers, not servants.

Not that you'd know anything about that.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

No one are required to carry out illegal orders, just like the Watergate.

This is not Watergate.

Absolutely true - it's far more worse....

Nixon was a crook and a liar - but he had enough intelligence to understand geopolitical threats and keep our adversaries and enemies at bay. Trump is not only a crook and a liar, he's an imbecile that coddles, praises, and enters into business deals with our enemies...

The politicization of our military is one of the biggest challenges we face - it's Trump and Putin's attempt to subvert the main institution that protects us from external threats. But it won't work. Trump's petty and pathetic trashing of these respected military leaders speaks for itself. Our military members know who wore the uniform and led them into battle - and who was the coward that hide behind his fake bone spurs...

And they don't look favorably on a Commander in Chief that hides in a bunker when a couple elderly protesters show up...

4 ( +5 / -1 )

And they don't look favorably on a Commander in Chief that hides in a bunker when a couple elderly protesters show up...

Yes, but he's got money, and jets, and yachts. (Swoon).

8 ( +8 / -0 )

The fact that you even posit this thought shows how misguided and off base you are. The military, from the lowest private to the highest ranked general, are not 'servants of the President.' 

Yes, they are and if they don’t want to execute any order given by the executive, step down or step aside. Again, take off the uniform, start a grassroots campaign and good luck, other than that, you follow orders, unless you want anarchy to reign.

This is the Oath of Commission than I took on 27 May 2000, and is the same oath that every officer takes:

Ok, and? Doesn’t absolve you from you’re duty to take orders from the commander in chief.

Tracing back to the Magna Carta, the British charter of liberty signed in 1215, there is a longstanding tradition against military involvement in civilian affairs. 

However, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the national government will protect the states in times of violence and permits Congress to enact laws that enable the military to aid in carrying out the law.

Almost immediately after the Constitution’s enactment in 1787, Congress passed a law that allowed the president to use the military to respond to a series of citizen rebellions. 

Troops serving as what’s called “posse comitatus,” which translates roughly to “attendants with the capacity to act,” could be called to suppress insurrections and help carry out federal laws.

They are soldiers, not servants. 

They are soldiers that serve the President.

Not that you'd know anything about that.

Sadly, I do, but it seems you don’t.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

However, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the national government will protect the states in times of violence and permits Congress to enact laws that enable the military to aid in carrying out the law.

How does that work out when the day comes people decide to use the 2nd amendment.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yes, they are and if they don’t want to execute any order given by the executive, step down or step aside. Again, take off the uniform, start a grassroots campaign and good luck, other than that, you follow orders, unless you want anarchy to reign.

In correct. It is widely known within Military Law, the UCMJ, that executing an illegal or immoral order is not only not allowed, but a soldier/officer has a sworn duty to actively disobey such orders.

Article 90 & 92 of the UCMJ states that a member of the military is only bound to obey the lawful orders of those above them. The UCMJ actually protects a military servicemember in such a situation, and that obeying unlawful orders is no defense against crimes committed under such orders. See United States vs. Keegan from the Vietnam War for example, where the court found that:

"the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."

So no, again you are just flat out wrong.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

The U.S. military serve the country and the people not the president.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

https://us.cnn.com/2020/06/06/politics/white-house-10k-troops-protesters/index.html

Note in the story:

A second defense official said Milley strongly felt the threshold -- informally described as dire circumstances -- for calling in active duty troops could not be met, opening the door to whether such a potential presidential order would be legal.

In this case, the Sec Def and the JCOS basically told Trump that such an order would be illegal, and they would not follow it. They called Trump to the floor, and Trump couldn't do anything about it.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

"The five branches of the US military are part of the Executive Department. Each branch is headed by both a civil servant ("Secretary") and a uniformed military officer ("Chief of Staff"), who is also a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The President of the United States, who is the head of the Executive Branch, is also the Commander-in-Chief of the US military. He or she has the ability to mobilize troops to a limited extent. Only Congress can declare war."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

than that, you follow orders, unless you want anarchy to reign.

The Posse Comitatus Act has not changed much since that time. The law prohibits the use of the military in civilian matters but, over time, Congress has passed at least 26 exemptions to the act that allow the president to send troops into states.

The Insurrection Act says that the president may use the armed forces to subdue an insurrection or rebellion and take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress violence. 

But before doing so, he must issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse and return to their homes.

So no, again you are just flat out wrong.

Sadly, I’m not, please try again.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Well thanks. That one sentence says a lot. First it disrespects combat veterans that have laid down their lives to protect our country and Constitution.

But they can equally disrespect the POTUS, spare me. There goes your anti-American rebellion right there, nice.

imagine Putin

Oh, here we go....lol

Hmmmmm.... Grandma and Grandpa are angry thugs. Yep, Donald was probably worried they'd throw their teeth at him.... 

A fate worse than death.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

They are soldiers that serve the President.

More 'let's make America even more of a banana republic' cheerleading. The US president's role is determined by the Constitution. Those who want to undermine the republic and with zero understanding of the Constitution and the role of the US military would want to see an authoritarian, especially someone as corrupt as Trump, rule.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The U.S. military serve the country and the people not the president.

They serve the oligarchy including the president. You need to stop reading pretty words and start looking at ugly actions.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ok, then if that is so, then as servants of the President...

They are soldiers that serve the President.

You're not an American if you believe the US military SERVES THE PRESIDENT. You have lost your cotton frickin' MIND. You HAVE GONE COMPLETELY INSANE to make comments like that. You have a sickness that comes from your soul to even think that is anywhere near what the US military is in service to the president... SMH.

Wrap your head around the oath of enlistment:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States (NOT SERVE) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I see, so the President of the US should court and meet with angry thugs. 

Who just happen to be US CITIZENS. Only those who riot and loot can rightfully be called thugs. We have the right to protest.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Even your precious CIC can be told "No, I will not do as you ask" because if the order is a REALLY STUPID order that violates not only the military oath but the Presidential oath to uphold the constitution of the US and especially the constitution itself.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

More 'let's make America even more of a banana republic' cheerleading.

So then why don’t the liberals stop?

The US president's role is determined by the Constitution.

Yes, but if you go solely by that alone, then Obama or Bush or Clinton wouldn’t have been able to serve for terms.

Those who want to undermine the republic and with zero understanding of the Constitution and the role of the US military would want to see an authoritarian, especially someone as corrupt as Trump, rule

Says the people who supported to farce investigations

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

You're not an American

Yes, born, bred and red to the core.

if you believe the US military SERVES THE PRESIDENT. You have lost your cotton frickin' MIND. You HAVE GONE COMPLETELY INSANE to make comments like that.

No, I have not, but I feel the same about people that think the military is and can play judge and jury with the Constitution.

You have a sickness that comes from your soul to even think that is anywhere near what the US military is in service to the president... SMH.

Right back at you.

Who just happen to be US CITIZENS. Only those who riot and loot can rightfully be called thugs. We have the right to protest. 

To vandalize, not lewd and not to destroy pregnant public property or prohibit or inhibit people from doing so extremely livelihood.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Which he is trying to do, but now we have some disgruntled ticked off insignificant yes, men that think they can override the POTUS, that’s pathetic.

Even your precious CIC can be told "No, I will not do as you ask" because if the order is a REALLY STUPID order that violates not only the military oath but the Presidential oath to uphold the constitution of the US and especially the constitution itself.

No, it doesn’t, so if these fools don’t want to execute an order Trump should replace them with someone that will.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

This might be the only occasion when a military coup could be justified to restore democracy to the people of America.

BlackLabel's answer to this incitement of violence, "we dont do that. we vote," had a unanimous 6 downvotes. Says a lot about the kind of people voting here. Makes me feel better when I know my downvotes come from people who hate democracy and prefer violence.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Yes that tells me all I need to know that people would downvote me for simply and correctly saying we dont have military coups, we vote.

Because of course they know they will lose the vote again, so thats not an option for them.

"A man with no enemies is a man with no character." — Paul Newman

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Upholding the U.S. Constitution in not a military coup.

The Constitution is the ultimate law, not the politicians.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Barr attacking peaceful protestors so that the president could shuffle across and grope a bible.

A bunch of mysterious armed, unfit and all white group pretending to protect the WH.

These 2 acts will come back to haunt that disgraceful bunch who took the walk of shame.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Barr attacking peaceful protestors so that the president could shuffle across and grope a bible.

That debunked story again.

A bunch of mysterious armed, unfit and all white group pretending to protect the WH.

Is that bad?

These 2 acts will come back to haunt that disgraceful bunch who took the walk of shame.

Yeah. Liberals keep saying that.....

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

That debunked story again.

Which part??

Is that bad?

Yes

Yeah. Liberals keep saying that.....

Barr in orange might look good!!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

A bunch of mysterious armed, unfit and all white group pretending to protect the WH.

These 2 acts will come back to haunt that disgraceful bunch who took the walk of shame.

Trump and his GOP campaign people know roughly 67% of white males voted for Trump in 2016. I think they'll use that picture to appeal to many in their base.

Trump's got a tough re-election ahead; he can't afford to lose any white votes. Especially when so many white, working class men - and women - might still be out of work come November. Look at how many Trump supporters on this site are, using their own term, 'playing the race card' in their attempts to keep intellectually vulnerable white people upset about the 'others'.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

A man with no enemies is a man with no character." — Paul Newman

Bur our dear president, trump has enemies and no character!!!

He stole from children’s charities, remember!!!

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Which part??

Esper, debunked that story.

Yes

Really, I disagree.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

BlackLabel's answer to this incitement of violence, "we dont do that. we vote," had a unanimous 6 downvotes. Says a lot about the kind of people voting here. Makes me feel better when I know my downvotes come from people who hate democracy and prefer violence.

Yes that tells me all I need to know that people would downvote me for simply and correctly saying we dont have military coups, we vote.

Trump supporters whining about being down-voted - while they call our military heroes "idiots" and say they have no right to free speech. Then they post far-right, nutty conspiracy theories and support white supremacy violence...

And their feelings get hurt when they get a down vote...

Awwwwww....wanna lollipop?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Esper, debunked that story.

No he didn’t.

Really, I disagree.

Not a surprise, support for klansmen runs deep in the right wing.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Trump and his GOP campaign people know roughly 67% of white males voted for Trump in 2016. I think they'll use that picture to appeal to many in their base. 

92% of Blacks voted for Obama, you don’t think that’s racist?

Trump's got a tough re-election ahead;

So does Biden, even more so.

he can't afford to lose any white votes.

He’s gaining quite a few black votes though

Especially when so many white, working class men - and women - might still be out of work come November.

Well thanks to the thugs, there will be more blue collar workers, more jobs, more votes for Trump.

Look at how many Trump supporters on this site are, using their own term, 'playing the race card' in their attempts to keep intellectually vulnerable white people upset about the 'others'.

Such as?

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Trump lost his first defense secretary, retired Marine Gen. Jim Mattis, over an accumulation of grievances

Mattis was a deep state warmonger. Outside of the "mainstream" media bubble that was pointed out many times. Only the low-information "mainstream" media consumers are unaware of that.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Trump's got a tough re-election ahead; he can't afford to lose any white votes. Especially when so many white, working class men - and women - might still be out of work come November. Look at how many Trump supporters on this site are, using their own term, 'playing the race card' in their attempts to keep intellectually vulnerable white people upset about the 'others'.

Trump’s approval rating is sinking at the moment and his strongest suit, the handling of the economy, is sinking towards 50%.

Dangerous territory.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Outside of the "mainstream" media bubble that was pointed out many times. 

Please link to these sources.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Now who is the threat and terrorist?

Insane liars who twist the truth in order to defend trump.

They clearly haven't studied history and the fate of dictators.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Well thanks to the thugs, there will be more blue collar workers, more jobs, more votes for Trump.

During civil rights marches, participants were labelled as thugs, communists and anti-American.

The time for peaceful protests has passed.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Mattis was a deep state warmonger.

I agree Mattis was a warmonger. But I got some of the info to form an opinion of him from 'traditional', 'corporate' media sources. And books.

Outside of the "mainstream" media bubble

Curious what the fringe/kook media said different from what I'd read. Because I don't want to make Breitbart/RT/infowars Colonel Lang sic semper etc any richer I won't click on their sites. Could you paste something from one of the fringe sites that would be different?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

They clearly haven't studied history and the fate of dictators.

Which is decades of enjoyment of power before being killed in old age or dying of it? Best not to rely too much on those who were killed just before dropping dead of old age anyway. We all die. Those who love and admire dictators know that. But few of us get to enjoy the power of being a dictator for years only to suffer the brief terror of a sudden death. That's not punishment. That is just a twisting of a fate that awaits most of us anyway be it a heart attack or a fall in the bath.

And keep in mind that Trump is in his 70s and has absolutely nothing to lose.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Insane liars who twist the truth in order to defend trump.

But what about the liars defending the brutal attacks on the police, innocent people, rioting and looting

They clearly haven't studied history and the fate of dictators

Nor have most liberals.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Trump lost his first defense secretary, retired Marine Gen. Jim Mattis, over an accumulation of grievances

Mattis was a deep state warmonger. Outside of the "mainstream" media bubble that was pointed out many times. Only the low-information "mainstream" media consumers are unaware of that.

Isn't it interesting, and enlightening, that every Trump supporter in this thread has attempted (and failed badly) to insult and disrespect an American hero that devoted over 40 years of his life to defending our country? Who wore our uniform and led troops in a combat zone in the fight against our enemies?

It says everything that needs to be said about their disdain, scorn, and derision for our nation's finest...

And its not a one-time event - look at any thread and their hate for our military is well documented....

If you have a father, mother, son, daughter, or other family member serving their country in uniform, this is what Trump supporters think of them...

Remember that in Nov...

5 ( +5 / -0 )

They clearly haven't studied history and the fate of dictators

Nor have most liberals.

I disagree with that non-partisan conclusion undoubtedly based on sound research and well presented stats. I read studies by non-partisan historians who said that liberals are generally more well read in history than conservatives.

Don’t ask me for their names because I posted them a while ago.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

He’s gaining quite a few black votes though

ROFL, I hope that was humor.

If not try keeping up with what’s happening!!!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

92% of Blacks voted for Obama, you don’t think that’s racist?

No.

It's a very logical choice for a black person to make when all Republican and Democratic nominees of the previous 230 years were white. 1 black man in 2 centuries, and out of more than 100 nominees, and you think it's racist for blacks to overwhelmingly vote for him! No one imagines you're so colour blind that you'd not vote for the first white nominee if there had been two centuries of black nominees - hell, you don't sound like the most stoical person to start with.

Also, this didn't happen in a total vacuum. In any year, Black Democrat voters vastly outnumber black Republican voters. Obama won an election after two terms of George Bush, an excruciatingly bad president who handed on two failing wars and a failed economy. Obama was the favourite to beat McCain, and he did so: 53% of all voters chose Obama, McCain got less than 46%.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Obama won an election after two terms of George Bush, an excruciatingly bad president who handed on two failing wars and a failed economy

I thought that but Bass told me about non-partisan historians who regard the Bush 2 years as a success. I’d be fascinated to read them as I like having my opinions challenged and reading things which go against the consensus.

The idea of Bush 2’s presidency as a successful one is an interesting idea.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The idea of Bush 2’s presidency as a successful one is an interesting idea.

Successful at bankrupting America probably.

After our dear president, trump has bankrupted 6 companies, lost most money in a decade, more than any other person in America, was forced to close down a charity because he stole from it, and they still call him a successful businessman!!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

White House-Pentagon tensions near breaking point

I very hope this moron Trump does not get mad and push his "bigger nuclear button" on his desk, the button he was bragging about to the scumbag Kim Jong-un...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

25th Amendment. Throw him under the bus. Don't look back.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I disagree with that non-partisan conclusion undoubtedly based on sound research and well presented stats.

Same here

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

ROFL, I hope that was humor.

If not try keeping up with what’s happening!!!

Yeah, what’s a tickle in the tummy is not finding anything positive the Democrats have done for blacks.

Successful at bankrupting America probably.

Not for 3 years and not before February of this year, but thank God it’s coming back to everyone's surprise.

After our dear president, trump has bankrupted 6 companies, lost most money in a decade,

Bounced back Writing two NY Bestsellers with a 14 year successful TV show and then to win the Presidency is nothing but astounding.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

It's a very logical choice for a black person to make when all Republican and Democratic nominees of the previous 230 years were white. 1 black man in 2 centuries, and out of more than 100 nominees, and you think it's racist for blacks to overwhelmingly vote for him! No one imagines you're so colour blind that you'd not vote for the first white nominee if there had been two centuries of black nominees -

hell, you don't sound like the most stoical person to start with.

Aahhh, that’s a prejudice way of thinking of someone you never met. Anyone, so what you’re saying is, blacks shouldn’t take a chance with something different, they should continue to allow their lives to continue to erode under stagnant Democrat policies that have decimated the black community, fair enough, carry on....

Also, this didn't happen in a total vacuum. In any year, Black Democrat voters vastly outnumber black Republican voters.

So tell me how many black cities have low crime rates, prosperous, cleanest neighborhoods with some of the most prestigious shops in them. Name a few please.

Obama won an election after two terms of George Bush, an excruciatingly bad president who handed on two failing wars and a failed economy.

Thanks to Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, once again, Dem policies destroyed America.

Obama was the favourite to beat McCain, and he did so: 53% of all voters chose Obama, McCain got less than 46%.

McCain....ROFL!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Yeah, what’s a tickle in the tummy is not finding anything positive the Democrats have done for blacks.

Hard to find anything with your eyes closed.

Not for 3 years 

Ever heard of Federal deficit, I suggest some reading.

Bounced back Writing two NY Bestsellers with a 14 year successful TV show and then to win the Presidency is nothing but astounding.

If I wanted a trashy TV host for a President, I prefer Jerry Springer. Far more intelligent, not a bigot and doesn’t live off Daddy’s money.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Hard to find anything with your eyes closed.

Blacks sadly have been doing that for 60 years.

Ever heard of Federal deficit, I suggest some reading.

Funny, Obama wasn’t for lowering the corporate tax rate, didn’t believe in giving incentives to small businesses, stifling regulations, but yeah, he did increase salaries for government workers...

If I wanted a trashy TV host for a President, I prefer Jerry Springer.

If I wanted one, I would Obama, Nancy and Schumer.

Far more intelligent, not a bigot and doesn’t live off Daddy’s money

Oh, I forget rich is bad, I spoil my kids, never knew it was a liberal sin. Lol

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites