“In some states, thousands of people, nobody young… they have a strong immune system, who knows? But it affects virtually nobody. It’s an amazing thing.”
—Donald Trump, attempting once again to “downplay” the effects of the coronavirus, on Monday in Ohio.
“It’s turning out it’s not just old people. Just today and yesterday, some startling facts came out. It’s not just old – older. Young people, too. Plenty of young people.”
—Donald Trump, in taped interview with writer Bob Woodward in March. [Although the answer to this question is obvious, I’ll ask it anyway: can we believe anything this clown says?]
“Normally, when people are chosen for high-profile positions relating to climate change, I’ve heard of them,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric and climate sciences at Texas A&M University, wrote on Twitter. “I have no idea who this person is. … I suspect that he has the one and only necessary qualification for the job: A willingness to advance the agenda of climate deniers.”
—Texas A&M professor of atmospheric and climate sciences Andrew Dessler, on Trump’s expected nomination of meteorologist Ryan Maue as the next chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“When you have the Senate, when you have the votes, you can sort of do what you want as long as you have it.”
—Trump, on plans to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s vacant seat on the Supreme Court. [Well, that we do believe.]
“It sounds so beautiful. But that sounds like a Schumer deal or maybe a Pelosi or shifty Schiff. So that came out of the wind. Let’s see. I mean, maybe she did and maybe she didn’t.”
—Trump, casting doubt on reports that Ginsburg didn’t want Trump naming her successor. [My advice, which is worth precisely what I charge (nothing) is for the Democrats to drop that fool’s errand. Without a recording or the presence of impartial witnesses, it’s a lose-lose proposition to pursue the deathbed wish tactic, no matter how crass Trump may be in his comments.]
Louisiana Voice 
Yes, the Russians are working to influence our Presidential elections and more should be done to stop them. But when you have Putin’s pet (tRump) spouting a litany of disinformation daily and sowing divisiveness and discord constantly, you may not be able to prove collusion (secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose) but you can darn well say they are in cahoots (which describes the conspiring activity of people up to no good).
We have to ask ourselves why Putin was and is so in favor of having tRump as POTUS. Could it be to his advantage to have someone in the WH who does not question him, confront him, says he believes what Putin tells him, and cowers in obeyance to his manipulations. Just the opposite of what Hillary would have done and what Biden will do…hold his feet to the fire and push back on his international meddling, autocratic rule, and interference in our elections.
POTUS has not said a word about Russia putting a bounty on our troops. He has insulted my military service and all others who have served and died as losers and suckers, all the while hiding behind his bone spurs and daddy’s money.
He is a revolting and abominable president and appalling human being. A sick, lying, incompetent, harmful, and disgusting excuse for a man.
I agree with everything you’ve said and, as usual, find his own words speak for themselves in the quotes cited. I also know, 100%, that his supporters, including those who post here don’t care. They only care that their individual agendas are being advanced and that the end they see in the future will justify any means.
Every day, including moments ago on the radio, I hear his supporters say this one way or another: “I don’t like a lot of things about the President, but I will vote for him to defeat his opponent who I see as a greater danger.” Four years ago plenty of people voted for him as an alternative to career politicians. The people I know personally who still support him, use that as their reason, as in, “He’s not a politician and that’s why I’m with him.”
There are also people who believe he has accomplished a lot. If they respond when asked to list them, I find they are either made up accomplishments or that the things he has done are not, in my opinion, positive. Finally, there are among his supporters, anarchists. Oh, they would NEVER characterize themselves that way, but they actually believe we must tear down our current political system from the bottom up (Not the very top down, mind you) and replace it with some miraculously better one. Guess what, the only way to do that is to destroy the country, itself, and start over. How can one love one’s country, on the one hand, and want to destroy it on the other?
I’m sure the bots and/or people who post in opposition to my views and yours will have answers. They should already know I will no sooner accept the validity of any of them than they accept the validity of mine. That’s why we are on the very brink of a second civil war.
Mr. Winham,
As a supporter of our nation and its elected leader, no doubt we would be at odds on many issues. A difference of opinion is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact, that balance of ideas from either side has moved us along quite nicely since the inception of our nation.
Unfortunately, your assessment of supporters of the President as “anarchists” is quite off the mark. The facts are much more aligned with supporters of the Democrats as “anarchists” as evidenced by groups such as Antifa, BLM, etc. Those groups, and others like them, are determined to undermine our current system of government and jettison capitalism, law enforcement, and any other system in which they might grasp control of society and interject themselves as usurpers of the status quo. To be sure, these groups are not specifically an arm of the DNC as noted, but they are certainly supported by the Democrats as an active arm of revisionist politics ( i.e. Brown Shirts in 1933 Germany ).
The fact that you mentioned the moniker “justify any means” seems odd as it has been used as fodder for incitement during the majority of live protests…except not by the supporters of the President, but rather by those “peaceful protesters” that instigate looting businesses, attacking citizens, and burning down police stations. Can you seriously label supporters of the President as “anarchists” and, if so, be specific about what else you might have “100%” knowledge of. Extremists at either end of the spectrum are likely to hold any measure of radical and/or fractured views…but that does not make them the mainstream ideal of what most Americans desire. On the other hand, the members of antifa and BLM, just to mention two, have been vocal about shunning capitalism and moving toward socialism as their mainstream ideal, even if their party’s nominee appears head over heels against that philosophy all of a sudden ( Biden, i.e. “I beat the socialist”…)
I always respect the variable views of anyone that can explain to me factually how my own approach might be flawed or in some way misaligned with the betterment of our nation. I also look forward to the three debates between the President and Mr. Biden, as most Americans do. It would appear that every American is invested in seeing the two candidates face the issues, and each other, in a forum in which one candidate is not handed the questions in advance as in 2016.
But the one question which you highlight stands out above any other. You mention, “How can one love one’s country, on the one hand, and want to destroy it on the other?” That is as prolific a question as anyone could ask in the current debate, and perhaps we might begin to get the real answer to that beginning on September 29th. By the way, during the last four months of protests, I have never seen even one supporter of the President burning down any building, or looting a department store, or destroying a small business. I wonder which side was actually doing that?
Oh, Outlaw, where to begin. First of all, you’ve never seen one supporter of the president burning down a building or looting. That’s because you’re not supposed to see them. How else can they infiltrate, wreak havoc, and blame BLM or Antifa? Mind you, I’m not saying that’s the case because I haven’t seen them either (in fact, I’m not even suggesting it), but I am suggesting that you keep an open mind on that possibility.
As for labeling Trump supporters as anarchists being “off the mark,” consider such groups as the 3 Percenters, the Boogaloo Boys, the KKK, the Cajun Guard, militia groups too numerous to list here, the alt-right, neo-Nazi groups, Patriot Prayer, and individuals like Christopher Hasson, Patrick Crusius, Justin Olsen, Richard Dean Clayton, Conor Climo and others. There are plenty anarchists on the right to go around, so don’t point fingers. Just because you haven’t seen them doesn’t mean they’re not actively engaged.
Thanks. You made my reply unnecessary.
You needn’t have replied. You were right. And he didn’t write the comments. Based on his past comments, which at times made no sense and were so poorly written, someone wrote this for him. And he certainly wouldn’t have called you Mr. Winham.
Plagiarize: “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own use (another’s production) without crediting the source.”
Below is a direct quote taken from an FBI report of September of 2011.
“Last March, nine members of an extremist militia group were charged in Michigan with seditious conspiracy and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction in connection with an alleged plot to attack law enforcement and spark an uprising against the government.
According to the federal indictment, the nine individuals planned to kill a law enforcement officer and then use bombs to attack the caravan of cars taking part in the subsequent funeral procession, hoping that this violence would incite a larger armed conflict with authorities. Fortunately, the FBI and the Michigan State Police intervened and took the subjects into custody before they could carry out their alleged plot.
It’s just one example of the dangers posed by so-called militia extremists—the latest topic in our series to educate the nation on domestic terror threats that the FBI investigates today. Previous stories have focused on anarchist extremists, eco-terrorists/animal rights extremists, lone offenders, and sovereign citizen extremists.
Who they are. Like many domestic terrorism groups, militia extremists are anti-government. What sets them apart is that they’re often organized into paramilitary groups that follow a military-style rank hierarchy. They tend to stockpile illegal weapons and ammunition, trying illegally to get their hands on fully automatic firearms or attempting to convert weapons to fully automatic. They also try to buy or manufacture improvised explosive devices and typically engage in wilderness, survival, or other paramilitary training.
Who and what they target. They usually go after the government itself—including law enforcement personnel, representatives of the courts, and other public officials,along with government buildings. When caught, most militia extremists are charged with weapons, explosives, and/or conspiracy violations.
What they believe in. Many militia extremists view themselves as protecting the U.S. Constitution, other U.S. laws, or their own individual liberties. They believe that the Constitution grants citizens the power to take back the federal government by force or violence if they feel it’s necessary. They oppose gun control efforts and fear the widespread disarming of Americans by the federal government.”
So Outlaw, you think that certain individuals who have taken the opportunity to loot, riot, and destroy property, while others are peacefully protesting, are anarchists. I don’t believe anybody within the BLM movement condones this type of action, nor do any of the movement supporters. Also, I believe that the trump supporters that Stephen was referring to are groups like the one mentioned above. Whose actions can be characterized as anarchy, much more than the actions of the sincere BLM movement.