Corrupt warmongers complain about Trump's "character"

So recently retired General McChrystal and Mitt Romney both came out and attacked Trump, saying he was immoral or of unfit character to lead the country.

www.cnn.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... a3c8c2-0d1a-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html?utm_term=.ed62219a507a

Now two quick things.

1. Trump predictably went after both, and honestly I am not a big fan of him doing this. Though the "outrage" by those of his going after Romney and McChrystal is even more laughable. But still, Trump needs to have his people fight these battles instead of doing it himself.

2. If you agree Trump is unfit of character, thats perfectly fine. I am not saying that is not a valid opinion (though I would disagree), and my criticism with this thread is not based on people who have that opinion.


But here is what bothers me about all of this.

Lets look at what McChrystal says for example.

"What I would ask every American to do is, again, stand in front of that mirror and say, what are we about?" McChrystal continued. "Am I really willing to throw away or ignore some of the things that people do that are pretty unacceptable normally just because they accomplish certain other things that we might like. If we want to be governed by someone we wouldn't do a business deal with because their background is so shady, if we're willing to do that then that's in conflict with who I think we are."
"And so I think it's necessary in those times to take a stand," he said.

Well you know what type of people I am disgusted by when I stare in the mirror Gen. McChrystal?

People that push immoral wars like you. People that want to bail out corrupt bankers like Romney and Obama, and also push those wars.

I am so tired of this faux outrage that somehow being crude, or using foul language, or being a liar about things, or being an adulterer is somehow a bridge to far.

But wanting to have innocent people killed in an illegal/immoral war in order that we lie to get into, thats perfectly ok. Robbing Ameircan citizens of their wealth to bail out corrupt bankers, thats perfectly fine.

Its like its ok to being a thieving murderer, as long as you put on your best suit and tie and speak eloquently. But be brash and use curse words, time to clutch those pearls and get the vapors!

IN fact, if you read Romney's piece, one of the things he is upset about is trump saying he may pull troops from Syria and Afghanistan. The only time both parties (especially the Party of Peace the dems) and the media have praised trump is in fact when he is bombing somewhere like syria.

But hey, these blood thirsty war mongers know better than us peons, and they know they are morally virtuous in their calls for these wars, and therefore can judge the moral character of people as our betters.

So lets take what Romney, McChrystal, and all other war mongering banker bailing out hypocrites say about morality with a huge grain of salt.



(I need to get better shortening up my videos. Start at 6:30 for the rant)

a reply to: Grambler


The media always makes a mountain out of a mole hill.

President Trump's return salvo regarding Romney was rather light, I thought.

His words were tougher about McChrystal. But, McChrystal was rude and insulting in his interview, and our president's style is not the kind that allows himself to be verbally slapped around. He counter punches and his counter to McChrystal was spot on.

Fired like a dog...

Trumps fragile ego and his reaction is driving away the support of his own party. Soon he is going to need all the
support he can get, but it won't be there because of his ugly abrasive reaction to anything except adoration. He can't even put together a competent staff!!

btw...your set would look much better if you darken the background and put a little light on that pretty face.

originally posted by: olaru12
Trumps fragile ego and his reaction is driving away the support of his own party. Soon he is going to need all the
support he can get, but it won't be there because of his ugly abrasive reaction to anything except adoration.

btw...your set would look much better if you darken the background and put a little light on that pretty face.

Thanks for the set advice.

I know but I am at work, I do 24/7 so do videos when I am on break, and cant really mess with the background.

But I am working on it.

As far as trump, the point I am making in this OP is that I fine a person with a fragile ego who is an adulterer, liar, etc., to be mar less immoral than war mongerers, or people who advcate using tax payer money to bail out corrupt bankers.

McCrystal, in particular, benefits greatly from continual war. He can't let it go even though he was removed for his disrespect of Obama to the press while in uniform. I think McCrystal is just mad he doesn't have the reigns of the armed forces.

I was once under the impression that war is an awful profession.
That men die in the arms of one another.
That men cry for the warmth of their mothers.
That men crumble the pillars of empires and time helps them forget it.
I was once at the end a sword and it would cut deep until I said it...

"No more war for I have grown to regret it."

a reply to: olaru12

You stepped up to the opportunity to bash trump, and did so very well, but you didnt address anything the thread was really about.
Well, you did comment on the set of the video, ill give ya that.

Is McCrystal the empty uniform who said he was turning in his Top Secret security clearance, to protest Trump taking away John Brennan's clearance?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: olaru12
Trumps fragile ego and his reaction is driving away the support of his own party. Soon he is going to need all the
support he can get, but it won't be there because of his ugly abrasive reaction to anything except adoration.

btw...your set would look much better if you darken the background and put a little light on that pretty face.

Thanks for the set advice.

I know but I am at work, I do 24/7 so do videos when I am on break, and cant really mess with the background.

But I am working on it.

As far as trump, the point I am making in this OP is that I fine a person with a fragile ego who is an adulterer, liar, etc., to be mar less immoral than war mongerers, or people who advcate using tax payer money to bail out corrupt bankers.

You're being to analytical. Most people don't even know who Romney and McCrystal are, much less their political background. Trumps response just makes him look like a spoiled crybaby not a counter puncher.

It's about perception and can he really afford to lose supporters? Especially Republicans? He's not going to run again anyway imo. So I guess it doesn't even matter how he acts. Except when the GOP trots out their field of criminals for the next rodeo.

a reply to: olaru12

There's really no need to be so harsh with Trump.

He's better than most and he actually cares about what he's doing.

Bush was worse by orders of magnitude.

If you're afraid of what Trump could potentially do, then it's time we start reigning in the scope of government as envisioned by the neocons at height of the Iraq war.

Trump is trying to bring troops home? Let's do it. You're not going to convince a lot of people that all the wars that used to be bad are now good because Trump wants out.

It is quite common for a lot of criticisms to be a self reflection of the person giving it. Because many of us do live in denial about our own failings, it is easier to reflect these failings onto other people. Subconsciously we know we can do better, socially it's all their fault.

a reply to: carewemust

I'm not sure about that, but remember the journalist, Michael Hastings, whose Mercedes crashed on a Los Angeles street under suspicious circumstances? He wrote an article that played a large part in McChrystal having to resign. Obama and Biden were not pleased with McChrystal after that article came out, and it appeared to be either resign or be fired.

The Runaway General: The Profile That Brought Down McChrystal

Michael Hastings' car crashed almost 3 years to the day that article was released.

a reply to: Grambler

I need to get better shortening up my videos.

Like with Crisco?

I think that since McCrystal is using Mattis' departure as part of his reasoning behind making these statements, we should look a little deeper at this:
First let's look at what Mattis said in his departure letter to the troops;

From Military.com

SUBJECT: Farewell Message
On February 1, 1865, President Lincoln sent to General Ulysses S. Grant a one sentence telegram. It read: "Let nothing which is transpiring, change, hinder, or delay your military movements, or plans."

Our Department's leadership, civilian and military, remains in the best possible hands. I am confident that each of you remains undistracted from our sworn mission to support and defend the Constitution while protecting our way of life. Our Department is proven to be at its best when the times are most difficult. So keep the faith in our country and hold fast, alongside our allies, aligned against our foes.

It has been my high honor to serve at your side. May God hold you safe in the air, on land, and at sea.

James N. Mattis

It's an unusual quote to use since it has to do with... well here you can read it here raabcollection.com

Lincoln wrote Secretary of State William H. Seward the next day, January 31, assigning him to meet with the Confederates, and setting conditions that: there must be a restoration of the Union; there would be no “receding” of the Emancipation Proclamation; and no “cessation of hostilities short of an end of the war”. That day the 13th Amendment banning slavery was passed by the House, strengthening Lincoln’s position.

But Lincoln was taking no chances on that latter point – that there would be no truce – and followed up on his instructions to Grant sent through Stanton, with his own telegram directly to Grant, sent February 1, 1865, at 9:30 AM. “Let nothing which is transpiring change, hinder, or delay your military movements or plans.

Gen. Grant replied to President Lincoln:

A Lincoln, President”. “Your dispatch received. There will be no armistice in consequence of the presence of Mr. Stevens & others within our lines. The troops are kept in readiness to move at the shortest notice if occasion should justify it. U.S. Grant, Lt. Gen

With this historical reference in mind, I believe that if (let me re-emphasize this "IF" )I am right, what may be the difference between Mattis and Trump could be dealing with corrupt politicians and not about troop movements at all. It would fit better with the context of Mattis' farewell statement to the troops, and the turmoil we are seeing in DC.

OK so why does this context matter? If we are to believe that the primary issues that McCrystal has with Trump are in fact what he stated, then what does that say about his personal relationship with David Petraeus? Some of the criticisms McCrystal has about Trump, Petraeus is could also be called out over. On the other hand if all three military men (Mattis, McCrystal, and Petraeus) are really only bothered about treatment of certain politicians, then this weird turn of events makes sense (again with the "IF" )

Let's assume that Trump may have stated that certain politicians could be excused of their crimes, while others that have committed capital offenses (ie those with a possible body count)would have to stand trial. This could explain why Chuck Schumer is pushing back so hard while Nancy Pelosi isn't. In my opinion that would be the only way to deal with this level of corruption without tearing the country apart. The alternative to this would be to arrest everyone that is involved with trying to undermine the US and create an environment where a civil war would be the only outcome. The President does have the ability to pardon, so lesser crimes being pushed aside for politicians that have committed capital offences makes the best sense. I can see the Generals not liking this solution, but it would be the best way going forward.


I may be wrong though (and I will admit that I am probably wrong on this account) but it does seem to me that it's lining up this way. Only time will tell.

***EDITED DUE TO WIERD MISSED TEXTS***

While Romney might have been speaking out of a need for the profits of war (thanks again National Security Act of 1947), I don't think McCrystal was speaking as a warmonger, but rather as a concerned warrior.

a reply to: queenofswords



trump also now claims he Fired Mattis. Really? Because I am pretty sure he wrote a scathing exit letter! Also, trump said "I think I would have been a good General." Has anyone told him, you don't just become a General. You have to be in the military, and work your way up. It takes a lot of hard work. Just another stupid comment from bone spurs!

originally posted by: LunaticPandora
a reply to: olaru12

There's really no need to be so harsh with Trump.

He's better than most and he actually cares about what he's doing.

Bush was worse by orders of magnitude.

If you're afraid of what Trump could potentially do, then it's time we start reigning in the scope of government as envisioned by the neocons at height of the Iraq war.

Trump is trying to bring troops home? Let's do it. You're not going to convince a lot of people that all the wars that used to be bad are now good because Trump wants out.

Well that deserves a quote for truth if ever there was one.

a reply to: iplay1up2

He's right.

He's not a politician looking to make a buck off the blood of soldiers.

You've finally come into contact with someone who wants to fight wars in a way that makes sense and end wars that don't make sense.

This is what it's like.

Give it a chance or get out of the way and let the peacemakers work.

a reply to: LunaticPandora

Bush wasnt really in charge it was Dick Cheney.

originally posted by: carewemust
Is McCrystal the empty uniform who said he was turning in his Top Secret security clearance, to protest Trump taking away John Brennan's clearance?

"Empty uniform"? Just curious how your military record stacks up against his?

a reply to: iplay1up2

Trump is right. I'm sure he had conversations with Mattis. When it became apparent Mattis was not onboard, I can see Trump saying, "if you tender your resignation, I will accept it. So, tender it...the sooner the better." When Mattis said he would stay to the end of February, President Trump forced him out 2 months early.

So...yeah...basically, Mattis was "fired".

Trump is also right about the Taliban and ISIS when he said they were fighting each other, and why should we get in the middle of it when they are both our enemies.

He would have made a GREAT general, I think. By saying that, he is not saying he should be one. But, if he had had the proper military training and that was his goal, he would have become a great one, imo.

a reply to: LunaticPandora

Give it a chance or get out of the way and let the peacemakers work.

But trump isn't a peacemaker, he's a draft dodging coward content to let the real patriots do the dirty work.

www.independent.co.uk... 71536.html

General....lol...he wouldn't even serve when he had the opportunity. And his condemnation of patriots that did serve, shows his true character.
Go to the VFW or American Legion and sit at the bar and listen to real patriots missing arms and legs tell you about Cadet Bonespurs.