TakeYouToTasker

I believe it's beginning to rotate, yes.

According to him, America just wasn't enlightened enough to be ready for his monarchy.

It's hard to imagine a less moral person holding the office of President than 44.

This is the real Obama legacy. This is who he is as a man.

It will kill the left's claims to a "living Constitution" which allows them to impose law without legislating. IE. it will make it harder for them to rule by fiat decree. It's the same argument we've always had: republicans vs. monarchists.

That is an absolutely horrifying attempt at a gross miscarriage of justice. Whomever advanced the decision to prosecute, and everyone who signed off, should have a mob with pitchforks and torches on their front lawn.

When left leaning outlets are coming to terms with this, it's not a good look for Woodward, and those advancing his fiction as justification for President Trump's removal, and speaks, once again, to the existence of a very real deep state.

And, completely unsurprisingly, the recycled "we must remove President Trump via the 25th Amendment" nonsense has begun to recirculate. They know what's coming, and it's all they have left.

If I had to make a guess, I'd venture that he's hoping to be bounced from his seat so he can portray himself as a hero of civil rights, run out of the Senate because he's a black man standing against racists. I suspect, given that he knows what's coming, he was going to be forced to resign anyway, and this gives him the cover he needs.

I disagree. If such a person existed, their entire purpose would now be subverted by coming forward. There would be no logical reason to publish such a piece. The only purpose this serves is to propagandize. It's a fiction, just as Woodward's book is. It's agree it was coordinated to release with the book, but posit that it's easy to coordinate when there's only two actors involved (Woodward and the Times) and there are no real sources.

The story is an outright fabrication seeking to do damage to the President as indictments are about to begin to flow. There is no source. It is outright fiction.

A reasonable opinion, and you're entitled to it. I'm unconvinced, however. The lingo he's pumped out could be recalled by anyone who's read a fair amount of military history, spent time listening to veterans tell their stories, and has read the diaries of servicemen. I believe he has more in common with this man: than this man:

I don't believe he served, but rather is a classic case of stolen valor. The men and women I know who have served have never once wrapped intellectual cowardice in the flag in order to deflect criticisms of their poorly thought out positions. Many of us have argued deeply and dearly held positions here: you and I for example. Many of PPPs denizens have served: you for example. Those exchanges have been heated at times. But never once have you refused to defend and intellectual position, whether you were right or wrong, by wrapping yourself in the flag and making aspersions about the character of others based on yours, or others decision to serve. That is the mark of a coward, not the mark of a soldier; and The_Dude, henceforth known as Captain Stolen Valor (I grant him the rank of Captain in the fake military), is a coward.

He can't answer the questions. His entire claim, namely that "willful genocide isn't economics", is a special pleading fallacy. It's an indefensible point, which is why Captain Stolen Valor has wrapped himself in the flag, and fled.

Given the rest of your post, I'd have gone with this:

Not even close. You don't respond because you've been backed into a corner over and over again trying to defend untenable positions, and as always, you take the cowards way out. Whether you're wrapping your poor arguments in the flag, or simply running away, it's always the cowards way out with you.

That's because you're a coward. Keep running away, coward.

Actually, I don't know if I'd like you on a personal level or not. I think the persona you choose to project here is laughable, and I have very little tolerance for people who reject new and pertanent formation in favor of state sanctioned dogma and propaganda. That's not why I question your claims to service, however. I question your claims to service because you frequently wrap your claims in the flag, attempting to use it as armor, deflecting away criticism and counter-evidence against your positions by stating things similar to: "How dare you. I'm a decorated war hero. What have you ever done to justify you critiquing my positions." I find that to be vile, hollow, and beneath the dignity of someone who has actually served this country. A man of character, who actually served, would never seek to insulate his own intellectual frailties behind a badge of service. A man who served on the front lines, as you claim to have, would not take the approach of a coward as you routinely do.

This President is fighting an internal war with bad actors within our intelligence services and prior administrations (note: plural) over gross violations of the rights of American citizens they conducted under cover of the PATRIOT Act. He hasn't doubled down, he's trying to undo it.

He thanked the guys who served. That's not you. Stolen valor.

Run away like the stolen valor coward you are.

Check out this guy over here, attempting to assert understanding Stalin's economic policies, but getting stuck on the term "collectivization". You're adorable. And you never served. Classic case of stolen valor.

Any muppet can regurgitate things he's read in journals, and repeat first hand accounts he's heard. That's you. Stolen valor. No one here should have any respect for you. It's one thing to make a personal decision to not serve. That's perfectly respectable, and the hallmark of a free society. It's very much another thing to choose not to serve, but then to claim to be a decorated combat veteran, stealing the valor of those who did choose to place themselves in harms way. You're the lowest form of low.

You are so far out of your depth here that it's not even funny. It's on you to explain how the process of achieving the forced collectivization of the bread basket of Europe was not economic policy.