Trump's Demand for Loyalty

[Razblo]

Supine, why are you bringing up something as irrelevant as the Democrats? Rather bizarre. Are you trying to justify Trump's bad behavior by pulling the old trick that others may have done something offensive as well? That's part of what is wrong with Trump --- he is so crazed that he never takes responsibility for his attacks against the First Amendment, the press, the truth, but instead brings up "Hillary" every time he is on the ropes. Here are the facts: Trump can be wrong, and fascist, while others are also in the wrong as well. Trump cannot, however, ever justify his wrongful conduct by hiding behind someone else's failures.

Trump has called for loyalty to him, and not just by cabinet members. Even for cabinet members, they should not have loyalty to him, but to the Constitution. Trump is president Trump, not dictator Trump, King Trump, but our public employee who is supposed to serve us, and be loyal to us, not the other way around.

I've asked for this before, so I'll try again. Example of Trump demanding loyalty (with those he apparently shouldn't, in your opinion)? Trump quotes of such?

[Fan of Science]

For one, he asked for loyalty from Comey, the former FBI Director, who rightfully responded by failing to provide it. For two, just days ago, Trump asked for loyalty from all Republicans and accused them of not fighting for him like they "should" be doing. He has at press sessions accused the press of being disloyal by telling the truth about "leaks." One can go on and on with Trump's insistence for loyalty. He has no right to ask for loyalty from any American.

[Razblo]

For one, he asked for loyalty from Comey, the former FBI Director, who rightfully responded by failing to provide it. For two, just days ago, Trump asked for loyalty from all Republicans and accused them of not fighting for him like they "should" be doing. He has at press sessions accused the press of being disloyal by telling the truth about "leaks." One can go on and on with Trump's insistence for loyalty. He has no right to ask for loyalty from any American.

Well let's, then, examine this statement: "I ask for your loyalty".

Now, first of all, how is this either a command or demand? Secondly, why is simply asking for something, which therefore could be answered with a yes or a no (just as it is if one asked another for their vote on something), then be regarded as dictatorial or fascist?

Now on this Comey situation: Comey says Trump asked for his loyalty while Trump says he did not. How is that evidence? Is it not simply a "he says, she says" situation? Why some seemingly automatic conclusion that somehow Comey always operates apolitically?

[Fan of Science]

He's asking for loyalty, while he is in a position of power over Comey, so he is not asking but commanding. Trump even admitted that was one reason he fired Comey. As Comey pointed out, Trump had no right to ask for such a thing.

Trump is already on record with so many lies that anyone who thinks his word is significant against Comey's is delusional. Do you believe Trump told the truth when he said had a larger inauguration crowd than Obama, despite the clear evidence otherwise? Trump even lied about the rain during his speech that day. Just on his first day as president, he made numerous lies.

Trump also asked for more loyalty for himself during the political speech he recently gave before the Boy Scouts. Trump is obsessed with having people be loyal to him. That's how fascists operate.

[Razblo]

He's asking for loyalty, while he is in a position of power over Comey, so he is not asking but commanding. Trump even admitted that was one reason he fired Comey. As Comey pointed out, Trump had no right to ask for such a thing.

Trump is already on record with so many lies that anyone who thinks his word is significant against Comey's is delusional. Do you believe Trump told the truth when he said had a larger inauguration crowd than Obama, despite the clear evidence otherwise? Trump even lied about the rain during his speech that day. Just on his first day as president, he made numerous lies.

Trump also asked for more loyalty for himself during the political speech he recently gave before the Boy Scouts. Trump is obsessed with having people be loyal to him. That's how fascists operate.

The title of this thread features the word "Demand". Asking is not demanding. If it is interpreted as such then the interpreter should perhaps grow a spine and say no. Apparently the protocol Comey should have followed, if some apparent threat was made, is for him to report it immediately to some other authority.

Calling someone delusional, by the way, is far from being further evidence that Comey always tells the truth or always operates apolitically. This is simply something you wish to believe.....which is yourself being political. I am not believing either because I see no actual evidence. What I see is politics.

Was Comey NOT accused of political bias by Hillary Clinton and many of her democrat colleagues when he re-animated the Hillary e-mail investigation 9 or 10 days out from the election?

Also, by the way, the press does lie from time to time. The press also gets political and there is much evidence of press political bias. It would be delusional to believe otherwise of journalists and/or their employers.

Have not all politicians told non-truths? Is Hillary Clinton, for example, totally squeaky clean? Is this not just the nature of politics?

[Burning ghost]

Also, by the way, the press does NOT lie from time to time.

Amended

[Supine]

Supine, why are you bringing up something as irrelevant as the Democrats? Rather bizarre.

Because you brought up Loyalty. Tell me you have never heard the phrase "Party Loyalty" in the United States. This is not my opinion. I'm simply stating what the Two-Party proponents boast like strutting peacocks why American Two-Party system is better than a Multi-Party system. Or do you think it just mere accident the US is run under a Two-Party system as opposed to the Multi-Party system like some countries have? How many major (not minor) political parties does Brazil have? I can't remember the exact number but I think its like 5 or 7 major parties and then many more minor political parties under those.

The boast is that when you have a Two-Party system you can play "bad guy vs good guy," demand absolute loyalty to the party (not the US Constitution). You never heard of this concept called "Party Loyalty"? It forms the foundation of American "democracy." Supposedly. As you see McCain and Hillary as the same warhawks serving the same masters in banks and military weapons industries (including building contractors that will get *government* contracts to rebuild in countries the US bombs etc.) one ought see the Dems and Reps are two-sides of the same coin.

Are you trying to justify Trump's bad behavior by pulling the old trick that others may have done something offensive as well? That's part of what is wrong with Trump --- he is so crazed that he never takes responsibility for his attacks against the First Amendment, the press, the truth, but instead brings up "Hillary" every time he is on the ropes. Here are the facts: Trump can be wrong, and fascist, while others are also in the wrong as well. Trump cannot, however, ever justify his wrongful conduct by hiding behind someone else's failures.

I never said Trump couldn't be wrong. I've voted Democrats my entire voting life except for twice now. I voted for Obama his first time running by the way. Trump is only the second person not a Democrat I have voted for. In local city elections I vote Democrats all the time. Frankly, have contempt for both parties. I stopped voting for a while and came back out of hibernation for Trump or Bernie. Originally I voted for Bernie but the Democrats decided they would criminally conspiring to ensure Hillary would be the one facing off with Trump. No way whatsoever I was going to vote for Hillary. The best President for the USA right now would be Tulsi Gabbard, and she would make an outstanding President, so good of a President that both the Dems and Reps would ensure she never got elected. And the CIA/NSA who does in fact run every major mainstream news source now would wage a propaganda war against her.

Of course, you don't believe that. You think it's just by accident only Two Major parties run the USA. More importantly, the USA has the 3rd largest population on planet earth only smaller than China and India, yet out of 300 million Americans the best that 3rd largest population on earth could fields as Presidential candidates were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And neither party expected Trump to win. But Trump knew something the peacock elites didn't nor did million of pompous Americas doing well in the USA: There has been growing discontent and rage building among the masses, the masses being kicked to the curb, left behind, mocked, and scorned.

This "Trumps Bad Behavior" is a meme. I keep hearing people recite it. Makes you wonder if they humans or birds in a cage called parrots. The whole political elite "behaves badly" in my book. I don't much pay attention to what Trump says. Why? Because I'm disobedient to the Dems and Reps and CIA/NSA. They keep saying, "Look, listen to what Trump says." And I keep ignoring them and listen to some music or something.

Trump has called for loyalty to him, and not just by cabinet members. Even for cabinet members, they should not have loyalty to him, but to the Constitution. Trump is president Trump, not dictator Trump, King Trump, but our public employee who is supposed to serve us, and be loyal to us, not the other way around.

Listen, no one puts the US Constitution first and foremost. Not even the Supreme Court Justices. That whole document has been worthless for sometime now.

-- Updated July 27th, 2017, 11:25 pm to add the following --

For one, he asked for loyalty from Comey, the former FBI Director, who rightfully responded by failing to provide it. For two, just days ago, Trump asked for loyalty from all Republicans and accused them of not fighting for him like they "should" be doing. He has at press sessions accused the press of being disloyal by telling the truth about "leaks." One can go on and on with Trump's insistence for loyalty. He has no right to ask for loyalty from any American.

Remember when the head of the FBI had President JFK terrified? J. Edgar Hoover. And who is Comey, a partial wanna-be reincarnation of him? Federal Prosecutors make the decision to prosecute or decline to prosecute Americans, including high ranking Government officials like Hillary Clinton, and not the FBI. The FBI simply turns over the case info to Federal Prosecutor. But what did Comey do? He made a preemptive strike and said based on the evidence the Federal Government will not bring charges against Hillary Clinton. Well, Comey is a multi-millionaire too like Hillary Clinton. Except he likely made his legitimately, before he ever joined the FBI I think.

As for the Republican Party they have been trying to sabotage Trump.





With the Dems and Reps who plays what acting role as "good cop" and "bad cop" today? They switched up acting roles the immigration thing. I wonder who is directing the stage play?

Oh Billy Clinton in the assigned acting role of "tough on illegal immigration." Thanks to good ol' Party Loyalty he got a standing ovation from Democrats and Rep establishment for preaching Donald Trump talk on illegal immigrants screwing Americans.

Bill Clinton Was Trump Back In 1995 - Illegal Immigration

Ol' Micky Mc the McCain is in his acting role he's been assigned on stage in the great American play to be outraged against Trump that medically and physically qualified Americans can be banned or kicked out the US military--but only for the transsexual issue because Trump has to be the only unfair person in the whole of USA.

But he wasn't given that public acting role for Americans with tattoos on their forearms even if they are combat veterans.

Local Marine being forced to leave the service for a tattoo.

Notice he supposedly was inspired by the tattoos he saw on his Drill Instructors arms. In fact I got tattoos on my forearms when I was in the US Marine Corps. The Army has placed restrictions on tattoos too I think. Basically, if you are an American college football player who physically tough and would make one of the top soldiers or Marines, you shouldn't be let in if you have a tattoo on your forearm but if you are transsexual with no tattoos are say "average" in fitness and ability it's a Holy Right! to be allowed in the US military according to written scripts for our political actors today.

"Bad Trump!"

[Razblo]

Also, by the way, the press does NOT lie from time to time.

Amended

People are entitled to dream.

[Sy Borg]

How many of these Trumpian statements were even remotely true? There is a difference between the strategic trickery of politicians and corporate strategists and outright blatant nonsense. It would be good if people were more capable of seeing the difference:

[Socrateaze]

As an American, I am greatly concerned about the Trump presidency. One of the concerns I have is with regard to Trump's repeated calls for people to be "loyal" to him, personally. This request for "loyalty" is completely inconsistent with how a free society functions, and is fascist in nature. In a free society, any citizen who disagrees with a sitting president, is free to voice their disagreement, and even engage in outright ridicule of a president they disagree with. This has been a long American tradition going back to Washington, our first president. In fact, Washington did not wish to run for a third term because he was tired of being ridiculed so much by the press.

If Trump is successful in pursuing a policy agenda, then people will support him, based on his success. If Trump fails in a policy agenda, then it is our right, as Americans, to criticize the president for his failure. The demand for "loyalty" should have no applicability during those times when Trump is successful, because most rationally-minded people will support his success. Therefore, the calls he makes for "loyalty" are cries for people not to criticize him when he screws up. Why should anyone not hold the president responsible for his failures? How can a society remain free where the citizens are told to be silent, to express their "loyalty," precisely when they should be speaking out against a sitting president for his failures?

Fascist societies call for loyalty oaths. Dictators also often surround themselves with family members, whom they consider to be "loyal" to them as opposed to people who do not share their DNA. The fact that Trump demands loyalty, the fact he surrounds himself with family members, the fact he is outspoken against free-speech, including a free press, shows that he has the hallmarks of a fascist mindset. For that reason alone, he is unfit to be president of the USA -- a nation of laws, not of men.

A government does not change its mind, only its president, the same is true for America. Presidents take the fall for the whims of their governments, but watch this president, I think he might just solve a few things. Why should we be so conceited to think we can cry out against our governments that protect us from things we do not even know exist? I like Trump, might not agree with all he does, but then, who am I to question those who face dangers for us, declared top secret, to save us from more stress or more ignorant comment?

Leave our presidents alone.

If they ask for loyalty and seem engaged in disinformation, let us abide by it. The government will change its mind/president again, don't sweat it.

[Razblo]

How many of these Trumpian statements were even remotely true? There is a difference between the strategic trickery of politicians and corporate strategists and outright blatant nonsense. It would be good if people were more capable of seeing the difference:

It's trivial. What is important is policy and enacting policy. What us important is security and correcting what has made the world unstable prior. Don't be distracted by personality traits, I suggest. None of us have to share tea and cookies with Trump. We will never get intimate with any of these characters. Even whatever degree of presumed misogynist proclivity will not find its way into policy. He will not, for example, make executive orders on policy for pussycat grabbing. One's own ego is offended only when one is distracted by another's ego. Meanwhile, actual business of government should be what is scrutinized. If distracted away from that one may as well rely on Woman's Day standard research.

[Steve3007]

Fan Of Science:

That's part of what is wrong with Trump --- he is so crazed that he never takes responsibility for his attacks against the First Amendment, the press, the truth...

Obviously it's true that he lies and exaggerates. But, in endlessly and now quite boringly whining about the "fake mainstream media" he's not really attacking the First Amendment is he? He's not banning newspapers, is he? He's just using his right to free speech to express his opinion about them. What's wrong with that? Surely the main thing that's wrong with it is just that it's getting a bit repetitive isn't it? I would have thought that by now most of America must have long since tuned it out and ignored it. One of the most basic properties of human perception is that repetition is quickly ignored.

Razbio:

Are you synonymous in opinion with this "we" whom generally does not like openly religious politicians? Are they grating to you personally? Do you personally find them intolerable?

Instinctively, and perhaps unfairly, I'm not particularly keen on overtly religious politicians. It often seems to involve them praying to God for guidance and, by an amazing stroke of luck, God always seems to endorse whatever it is they wanted to do anyway ("What was that you said God? Invade? OK. You're the boss. I'm just doing your will."). If they're convinced that the invasion that they're about to order is underwritten by unquestionable absolute divine moral authority it's always a bit of a worry.

None of us have to share tea and cookies with Trump. We will never get intimate with any of these characters. Even whatever degree of presumed misogynist proclivity will not find its way into policy. He will not, for example, make executive orders on policy for pussycat grabbing. One's own ego is offended only when one is distracted by another's ego. Meanwhile, actual business of government should be what is scrutinized.

This is a good point about political pragmatism. But even if it is good advice, I note that as voters we often don't follow it. We often seem to want to like the personality of our elected representatives - to feel some kind of empathy with them. Hence the tradition of politicians making schmaltzy political commercials showing them as cuddly pullover-wearing, child-kissing human beings walking along beaches in soft-focus with their family and the dog, all laughing their heads off while they casually skim stones across the sea and show off their perfect teeth.

Perhaps if anything good has come out of Trump's win it is that a large section of the US population has succeeded in putting to one side their personal feelings about the leader. His personal traits don't matter so long as he lives up to the promise to fill America with rich coal miners.

[Razblo]

Razbio:

Are you synonymous in opinion with this "we" whom generally does not like openly religious politicians? Are they grating to you personally? Do you personally find them intolerable?

Instinctively, and perhaps unfairly, I'm not particularly keen on overtly religious politicians. It often seems to involve them praying to God for guidance and, by an amazing stroke of luck, God always seems to endorse whatever it is they wanted to do anyway ("What was that you said God? Invade? OK. You're the boss. I'm just doing your will."). If they're convinced that the invasion that they're about to order is underwritten by unquestionable absolute divine moral authority it's always a bit of a worry.

In the UK we generally don't like openly religious politicians. It grates.

Would it be accurate for me to presume that you feel this way about the mayor of London? It would appear he was elected by a London ("we"?) majority with public knowledge of his openly religious beliefs.

[Steve3007]

To be honest, I'm not sure of how overt Sadiq Khan's religious beliefs are. I'll have to look into it. If they are quite overt then, yes, I'd be instinctively wary of a political leader with strong Muslim beliefs. Again, perhaps unfairly.

[Razblo]

To be honest, I'm not sure of how overt Sadiq Khan's religious beliefs are. I'll have to look into it. If they are quite overt then, yes, I'd be instinctively wary of a political leader with strong Muslim beliefs. Again, perhaps unfairly.

Quite strong, it would appear. In 2009 he was shamed into apologizing for calling a moderate Muslim spokesperson an Uncle Tom.