John Kelly -- Bringing Order to the West Wing?

[formergothardite]

11 minutes ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

Race and religion is often part of who people are and I want to respect that.

So you think discriminating against Muslim people is bad? What do you think of the current fear about "scary Muslims" and how many conservatives have helped stir up the idea that the Muslim religion is more dangerous than others. Trump once said in an interview he would "look at" closing some Muslim mosques in the country, which is pretty damn scary that a president thinks like that.

Edited October 28, 2017 by formergothardite

[Rachel333]

There are people who were previously more left-leaning but have moved to supporting Trump. I find it completely bizarre, but it's true that it happens. To be honest, I've grown kind of disillusioned with some of the rhetoric on the left, but in no way has it made me lean to the right! I couldn't be okay a party that is still so hostile to anyone who isn't a straight, white, rich, Christian man.

Seeing so many Republicans embrace Trump just because he was the nominee even though they hated him at first has actually made me look at my own party loyalty. I never want to put party over country the way so many Republicans have done. I know it's frustrating to Democrats that Democrat voters won't fall in line as easily as Republicans tend to, and I certainly found it incredibly frustrating that so many liberal voters didn't vote for Hillary (or at all) just because she wasn't perfect when the alternative was someone as awful as Trump, but maybe that's also a good sign that what happened with Trump and the Republican party is less likely to happen with a similar candidate with the Democrats.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Rachel333

[Ali]

4 hours ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

e of that was a statement about how I lean when it comes to these issues. They were examples.

I am also doubtful all liberals or conservatives absolutely agree on how healthcare should be approached.

Why am I not surprised that you are not owning your beliefs?

What do you think about a mother dressing her children like this?

 

But liberals are the ones indoctrinating their children right?

This crazy lady who threw a Trump themed birthday party for two of her children and tortures her daughters by dressing them like dolls is being discussed here:

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Ali

[OtterRuletheWorld]

9 hours ago, formergothardite said:

So you think discriminating against Muslim people is bad?

I am fairly certain I made myself clear above. 

[OtterRuletheWorld]

8 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

There are people who were previously more left-leaning but have moved to supporting Trump. I find it completely bizarre, but it's true that it happens. To be honest, I've grown kind of disillusioned with some of the rhetoric on the left, but in no way has it made me lean to the right! I couldn't be okay a party that is still so hostile to anyone who isn't a straight, white, rich, Christian man.

Seeing so many Republicans embrace Trump just because he was the nominee even though they hated him at first has actually made me look at my own party loyalty. I never want to put party over country the way so many Republicans have done. I know it's frustrating to Democrats that Democrat voters won't fall in line as easily as Republicans tend to, and I certainly found it incredibly frustrating that so many liberal voters didn't vote for Hillary (or at all) just because she wasn't perfect when the alternative was someone as awful as Trump, but maybe that's also a good sign that what happened with Trump and the Republican party is less likely to happen with a similar candidate with the Democrats.

I know some people who felt pretty disillusioned with the left. I also know a lot of people feel both parties are hostile. Maybe in different ways, but I know a lot of people who simply cannot get on board with either side. I do think a decent number of Bernie supporters jumped ship after that whole fiasco. I know a lot of people who decided it is likely both parties are dishonest. I have spent much of my life learning to listen to political discussion. Even as a kid. I think our family moving to the US brought was intriguing enough at the time to have people ask questions. People had all sorts of opinions and they seemed happy to share with us, often assuming a lot about my parents opinions. My father always sat there kindly listening and being so respectful. I always loved listening to differing opinions and the past couple years have been so interesting.  

I often heard people not liking either candidate but feeling they needed to do something and it seemed often it was for or against one party, but unhappy with both candidates.People seemingly felt forced to settle to avoid the other. 

 

5 hours ago, Ali said:

Why am I not surprised that you are not owning your beliefs?

What do you think about a mother dressing her children like this?

But liberals are the ones indoctrinating their children right?

This crazy lady who threw a Trump themed birthday party for two of her children and tortures her daughters by dressing them like dolls is being discussed here:

 

I mentioned the the "raised right" shirts people put their kids in above. Trump Birthday parties might top my week in strange news, but Trump's Bear gets it. 

 

[formergothardite]

9 hours ago, OtterRuletheWorld said:

I am fairly certain I made myself clear above. 

No, you didn't. Can you also answer the questions you snipped from the post? 

You never did say if you would tell your children using religion to oppress people is wrong if they had decided it was ok. 

[candygirl200413]

Just another reminder: He is still trash

Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly Defends Confederate Monuments

The quote is from him speaking on Faux News.

Quote

Well, history's history. And there are certain things in history that were not so good and other things that were very, very good.

I think we make a mistake, though, and as a society, and certainly as individuals, when we take what is today accepted as right and wrong and go back 100, 200, 300 years or more and say, 'What Christopher Columbus did was wrong.'

You know, 500 years later, it's inconceivable to me that you would take what we think now and apply it back then. I think it's just very, very dangerous. I think it shows you just how much of a lack of appreciation of history and what history is.

I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country. It was always loyalty to state first back in those days. Now it's different today. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand.

1

John Kelly refuses to apologize for false attacks on Florida congresswoman

Quote

White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly said Monday he would not apologize for the false attacks he leveled against Rep. Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.) this month when he sought to defend President Trump for his handling of a condolence call to the widow of a fallen soldier.

On Oct. 19, in a rare appearance at the White House media briefing, Kelly attacked Wilson as an “empty barrel” and accused her of grandstanding at a public event two years ago in Florida by taking credit for securing federal funding for a new building.

Video of the event soon released by the Florida Sun Sentinel showed Wilson did no such thing. Rather, she used her speech to praise the two slain FBI agents in whose memory the building was named. Wilson accused Kelly of “character assassination,” and members of the Congressional Black Caucus demanded that Kelly apologize.

In an interview to be broadcast Monday night, Fox News Channel host Laura Ingraham asked Kelly whether he had something to apologize for.

“Oh, no,” Kelly replied. “No. Never. Well, I'll apologize if I need to. But for something like that, absolutely not. I stand by my comments.”

Kelly suggested that he may have been accusing Wilson of grandstanding in a private discussion, as opposed to in her public speech, although his comment to Ingraham was vague.

“I'll go back and talk about before her comments and at the reception afterwards,” Kelly said. “Again, it was a package deal. Don't want to get into it.”

Kelly went on to say that Myeshia Johnson, the widow of fallen Sgt. La David Johnson, has acted within her rights to speak out publicly about Trump's handling of his condolence call.

“As far as the young widow goes, she has every right to say what she wants to say,” Kelly told Ingraham. “But it's the politicization of something that was so from the heart.”

3

 

[SilverBeach]

Kelly is showing himself to be an asshole.

[onekidanddone]

7 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

Now it's different today. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand.

There we go again with the 'both sides'. "Sure there were (are) lynch mobs. But you gotta know there were good and bad bad people on both sides of your typical lynching. Just ask Jeff, he left his white hood at the cleaners, Sessions 

[formergothardite]

8 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

I think we make a mistake, though, and as a society, and certainly as individuals, when we take what is today accepted as right and wrong and go back 100, 200, 300 years or more and say, 'What Christopher Columbus did was wrong.'

Selling little girls as sex slaves was wrong then. It is appalling that Kelly thinks that we shouldn't judge Columbus for selling children as sex slaves. And you know how we know it was considered wrong then? Because even back then there were people actively protesting the terrible things being done. 

8 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country. I

He gave up his country to side with another country who not only didn't value state rights(and anyone who actually read the Confederate Constitution would know this), but whose cornerstone was oppression. That isn't what honorable people do. There is also this entire myth about Lee that way too many people bought into. The guy had slaves who escaped from him severely beaten and then their wounds washed with brine. Lee was supposed to have freed all his father's slaves within five years after his father died, he didn't. United States soldiers who temporarily lived at Lee's house were horrified at the living conditions of his slaves.

 

8 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand.

Kelly has bought into a hell of a lot of propaganda. Kelly is turning a blind eye to true history so that he can appeal to the Trump base. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by formergothardite

[GrumpyGran]

11 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand.

Okay during the civil war, not okay now? People of other religions beside Christianity aren't "men and women of good faith"? I guess not, not anymore.

He really needs to quit talking but I guess that's not allowed now.

[onekidanddone]

13 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand.

How does one compromise on owning and enslaving people? How does one compromise on the forcible kidnapping of generations of people from their homes, their country, their loved ones, putting them on ships and the selling them as objects? 

No John, there is no compromise. There is only right and wrong. Good and evil.   You sir, are neither right nor good.

Now I'm wondering if Kelly wrote Trumps "good and bad people on both sides".  They sound so similar.

Edited October 31, 2017 by onekidanddone

[candygirl200413]

Some people were thinking he said this because of deflection on Russia. But I think in the end it's becoming more evident that he is just as bad as orange fuckface. I'll be always thankful for him fighting for this country and empathize with the loss of the son but that's it. He is just as bad as everyone in that administration. He was never going to be the adult in the room.

 

Also, the whole both sides/compromise needs to end. Both sides are like tea vs. coffee. Everyone can respect your decision to drink both/either/none for many reasons. When it comes to things like slavery or nazis, there are no both sides. It's just nazis and slavery are bad, nothing positive comes from them.

[Audrey2]

5 hours ago, formergothardite said:

 He gave up his country to side with another country who not only didn't value state rights(and anyone who actually read the Confederate Constitution would know this), but whose cornerstone was oppression. That isn't what honorable people do. There is also this entire myth about Lee that way too many people bought into. The guy had slaves who escaped from him severely beaten and then their wounds washed with brine. Lee was supposed to have freed all his father's slaves within five years after his father died, he didn't. United States soldiers who temporarily lived at Lee's house were horrified at the living conditions of his slaves.

 

I've always had this perverse satisfaction that the Lee property was seized and made into Arlington National Cemetery, where generations of Patriots have been buried.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Audrey2

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

Now I'm wondering if Kelly wrote Trumps "good and bad people on both sides".  They sound so similar.

I think it's the other way around. Somebody's putting words in Kelly's mouth. It's a little too thoughtful and wordy for Sessions. Not profane and bombastic enough for Bannon. Don't know but I find it hard to believe these are his words. He wouldn't have the reputation he had if this is what has always come out of his mouth. And he's said more in the last two weeks than than two months before. He's a puppet now.

[GreyhoundFan]

Alexandra Petri's snarky take on Kelly's Civil War comments: "John Kelly was right: The Civil War was all about compromise"

Spoiler

John F. Kelly was right. The Civil War was not about slavery. It was about a lack of ability to COMPROMISE (on the issue of slavery). These are two completely different things.

This ethically neutral view of the world is lots of fun. Here are some other lacks of ability to compromise:

The French Revolution began because there was a lack of ability to compromise about whether Louis XVI’s head should stay attached to his body. (Louis XVI felt very strongly one way, but this was ultimately shortsighted.)

Captain Ahab’s position was that he wanted to chase Moby Dick and kill him with a harpoon, but there was a lack of ability to compromise on the whale’s part.

Those students at Kent State wanted both to protest and to remain alive, but they showed a remarkable lack of ability to compromise.

The Titanic was a huge failure to compromise: The Titanic wanted only some parts of the boat to be underwater, but the iceberg did not agree.

Hitler wanted to invade Poland, and Poland displayed a stunning lack of ability to compromise on this simple request.

Definitely Abraham Lincoln’s death was the result of his failure to compromise: He wanted to attend “Our American Cousin” and leave it without being assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, which was a pretty big ask.

Also, Lincoln was WAY, WAY off when he said that “a house divided against itself cannot stand” or that “this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.” What he should have said was that “a house divided against itself should try to find some compromise about different things.”

There is no moral valence to any of this. There are not certain things that cannot be compromised. As Kelly surely knew, and Ta-Nehisi Coates pointed out on Twitter, compromise on whether or not people can be property is something of an American tradition— from the three-fifths compromise to the Missouri Compromise and beyond. In fact, if you look at all the Declarations of Intent to secede of the Confederate states you can clearly see that, at the time, it was never about slavery, and always about compromise.

Georgia complained in its Declaration of Intent about the fact that the country had elected an anti-slavery party to the White House. So, we can see already that this was not about being pro-slavery. It was about being anti-ANTI-slavery, a very different stance, distinguishable in almost zero particulars. Also, Georgia did not like that the Fugitive Slave Act was not being enforced. Georgians wanted to be able to take slaves into a part of the country where slavery was illegal — just one area in which compromise was possible, and where compromise failed.

Mississippi said, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world.” Which, out of context, sounds as if they are saying that the reason they are seceding has to do with slavery, but if you read more closely, it turns out that they are saying that they are seceding because they want to preserve their state right to own slaves. Mississippi goes on to say, “There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.” It wasn’t that they were seceding because they were pro-slavery, it was just that they had to leave the union to prevent slavery from being abolished. Again, totally different. And plenty of room for compromise.

Texas said, “We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable … that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations.” So this was just about maintaining the servitude of the African race (mutually beneficial to both bond and free) — which, no, well, look. This sounds bad, but there must have been room for compromise.

The Civil War was about states’ rights. (Don’t ask, “States’ rights to do what?” We are trying to avoid the subject of slavery, remember.) After all, the election of Abraham Lincoln, a candidate who opposed the territorial expansion of slavery, was an act of aggression on the part of the North, which was trying to take away property that the South owned. (What kind of property? PLEASE STOP DOING THIS! MY ARGUMENT WAS GOING SO WELL.) As long as you concede that people can be property, then this was just a question of property rights, which sounds a lot better than a war about slavery. Why, if you’re willing to compromise on this point, you could have avoided the war entirely. Lincoln was too rigid. That was his problem.

I am glad we cleared this up.

She is certainly good at the sarcasm.

[formergothardite]

16 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

I think it's the other way around. Somebody's putting words in Kelly's mouth. 

I don't know, I think he might have always believed these terrible things, he just had the sense not to say them. 

There are two options:

1. Kelly always believed the whole "compromise over slavery thing" and that Columbus shouldn't be judged for doing terrible things, he just didn't state them publicly. Being around Trump has given him the nerve to finally be vocal about what he believes. In this option Kelly has not been and is not an honorable person.

2. Kelly doesn't actually believe these things, but he has sold his soul to Trump and is willing to spout evil lies. In this option Kelly is no longer an honorable person.

Either option Kelly is a currently a shit human. 

[fraurosena]

25 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I don't know, I think he might have always believed these terrible things, he just had the sense not to say them. 

There are two options:

1. Kelly always believed the whole "compromise over slavery thing" and that Columbus shouldn't be judged for doing terrible things, he just didn't state them publicly. Being around Trump has given him the nerve to finally be vocal about what he believes. In this option Kelly has not been and is not an honorable person.

2. Kelly doesn't actually believe these things, but he has sold his soul to Trump and is willing to spout evil lies. In this option Kelly is no longer an honorable person.

Either option Kelly is a currently a shit human. 

I'm going with option 1.

For me, option 2 has too many why's and wherefore's, and is only feasible if the presidunce has some kind of dirt on him. Why else would Kelly be beholden to the tangerine toddler, and willing to lie for him? Why would Kelly have sold his soul, if he was honorable before then? What would have induced him to do so? 

Like you said, either way, Kelly is a shitstain human. Like everybody else that willingly chose to be a part of the mandarin menace's administration.

[formergothardite]

Racist birds do tend to flock together. 

[Zola]

I really hesitate to admit, but I've been guilty of similar thinking in regards to Confederate statues & iconery. 

I said something on another thread some time ago about leaving statues etc in battlefields and cemeteries. Now that I hear how awful it sounds, I'm done and have changed my thinking.

I meant to speak for the dead, viewing common soldiers in the CSA army differently from officers. No. They are traitors just the same.

I worried the Antietam & Gettysburg battlefield parks I love to visit might change if they look different. No. They will be same serene and beautiful places without any plaques, statues, monuments, etc.

I didn't realize how fucked up my thinking was until I heard echoes of it coming from Trump and Kelly. I hear it now and don't want any part of it. If anyone took offense, I apologize to you now and ask you to forgive me.

[fraurosena]

29 minutes ago, Zola said:

I really hesitate to admit, but I've been guilty of similar thinking in regards to Confederate statues & iconery. 

I said something on another thread some time ago about leaving statues etc in battlefields and cemeteries. Now that I hear how awful it sounds, I'm done and have changed my thinking.

I meant to speak for the dead, viewing common soldiers in the CSA army differently from officers. No. They are traitors just the same.

I worried the Antietam & Gettysburg battlefield parks I love to visit might change if they look different. No. They will be same serene and beautiful places without any plaques, statues, monuments, etc.

I didn't realize how fucked up my thinking was until I heard echoes of it coming from Trump and Kelly. I hear it now and don't want any part of it. If anyone took offense, I apologize to you now and ask you to forgive me.

Wow, @Zola, I'm in awe! Kudos to you. It takes a whole lot of unbiased critical thinking to change one's personal views, and is possibly the most difficult thing for anyone to do. And to then to own it so publicly, that takes a lot of courage. 

I take my hat off to you. 

[GrumpyGran]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

For me, option 2 has too many why's and wherefore's, and is only feasible if the presidunce has some kind of dirt on him. Why else would Kelly be beholden to the tangerine toddler, and willing to lie for him? Why would Kelly have sold his soul, if he was honorable before then? What would have induced him to do so? 

Mmhmm 

 

[formergothardite]

3 hours ago, Zola said:

I really hesitate to admit, but I've been guilty of similar thinking in regards to Confederate statues & iconery.

I really think a lot of people simple just do not know. In America we tend to not treat the Confederacy like a group of traitors who wanted to form a country built on oppression. If we taught the truth nobody would want statues up to commemorate these people. A hundred years of propaganda has worked and so many people have a false view of the Civil War. 

I'm understanding when people are unaware(I"m less understanding when they flat out refuse to look at the truth), but with someone like Kelly there is no excuse. In his position he shouldn't be making false statements that downplay the atrocities committed by Columbus or the Confederacy. Him standing on the side of white people hurting people of color(with both his Columbus and Confederacy remarks) shows a lot about him. 

[samurai_sarah]

4 hours ago, Zola said:

I really hesitate to admit, but I've been guilty of similar thinking in regards to Confederate statues & iconery. 

I said something on another thread some time ago about leaving statues etc in battlefields and cemeteries. Now that I hear how awful it sounds, I'm done and have changed my thinking.

I meant to speak for the dead, viewing common soldiers in the CSA army differently from officers. No. They are traitors just the same.

I worried the Antietam & Gettysburg battlefield parks I love to visit might change if they look different. No. They will be same serene and beautiful places without any plaques, statues, monuments, etc.

I didn't realize how fucked up my thinking was until I heard echoes of it coming from Trump and Kelly. I hear it now and don't want any part of it. If anyone took offense, I apologize to you now and ask you to forgive me.

 

On a purely personal level, as a person of colour, apology accepted. Having said that, I'm German and a biracial individual, so I have no idea what anyone else thinks, and would not dare to presume. But thank you for joining the ranks!!! 

[Botkinetti]

I am still trying to wrap my head around his apparent lack of personal integrity.

I worked in a bank for decades. When we talked about embezzlement with newer employees we said don't take even a dime because if you get away with it it becomes easier to take a quarter then a dollar etc. It becomes easier to justify with each theft.

Is this how it is with the political lies Kelly is saying ? Does no-one in his family or circle of friends make any comment ? Does he ever question his own morality ? 

To lose yourself in support of that buffoon is what I don't understand.