Donald Trump's supporters reject concerns about 'dictator' comments

He's like a guy with a laser pointer and the left is a cat

Truer words were never spoken and it is hilarious..........to watch and listen and read right here.

He’s not the problem.  The problem is the absolute morons that make up his base and fanboy over his dictator commentary.  The country should be rightfully concerned about where the problem actually is.

I think the problem is the incredible intolerance of the left.

Intolerant of referring to entire demographics as vermin?  Guilty as charged.  

Lovely of you to admit it, thanks!

[Deleted]

It's almost like calling them deplorable or something..............................

240 years of presidents speaking and acting with dignity were made totally irrelevant by trump in just four years, and very few people care. his fans certainly don't. i dont want to hear any more about the Founding Fathers from these people.

240 years of presidents speaking and acting with dignity were made totally irrelevant by trump in just four years

Trump can't make past presidents irrelevant.

The funny thing is that Hillary didn’t identify all Trump supporters as deplorable, but she did say a portion of them were in the basket of deplorables, which was obviously a true statement.  Since then nearly all of Trump supporters have slithered into the basket.

Oh, I don't know, what with all the imaginary powers they think Trump has

Hillary and her stupid comment are irrelevant.

but she did say a portion of them were in the basket of deplorables,

“Just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. 

That might have cost her WI, MI and PA and the election.

It might have cost her, but she has supplied a long list of excuses as to why she blew a sure thing.

Deplorables act indignant and get on their high horse. its fucking hilarious.

Hillary's EGO cost her the election.

“Trump can't make past presidents irrelevant.”

Indeed. Harkening back to Jackson and Grant and their policies of eradication. Trump invokes the same solution against half our population for christsake. 

Do we take him at his word or let his apologists interpret for him?

So tired of the ‘you don’t get sarcasm’, it must be ‘TDS’, what about the whatever, whomever, wherever canard.  

Words matter, especially when they spout nonsense…and worse when they foment intolerance and hatred. 

Hillary and her stupid comment are irrelevant.

And yet you jump at every chance to talk about her.  Your head is like a rent free housing project.

Its probably human nature that when caught saying something stupid or offensive to say "I was just joking", but its not funny at all when the ignorant fool wants to be president of the United States. 

We live in a degraded nation. 

Its probably human nature that when caught saying something stupid or offensive to say "I was just joking",

Sometimes you have to tell folks without a sense of humor that you are joking.

We live in a country where too many people are looking for things to be offended about.

Harkening back to Jackson and Grant and their policies of eradication

Grant rejected the wholesale extermination of Indians that was advocated by other generals, such as William T. Sherman and Philip Sheridan, and much of the public. His assimilationist polices were however, rooted in destroying Native American culture and lifeways.  

Trump invokes the same solution against half our population for christsake. 

I don't know what you mean.

o Jackson and Grant and their policies of eradication.

Nor did Jackson have  a policy of eradication. 

“His assimilationist polices were however, rooted in destroying Native American culture and lifeways.”

Oh, that’s better.

Does not trumpism seek to achieve the same goal? Be a believer in ‘make America great again’ or find yourself on the outside looking in. An exclusionary mindset, void of definition, but full of self-gratification, that is in direct contradiction to true American principles. 

Is there a logical reason you are opposed to making America great?

Was it not Jackson who famously said, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian"?

Many on Trail of Tears were eradicated. 

as it not Jackson who famously said, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian"?

No. More misinformation.  Jackson actually adopted an Indian who'd been left to die by his tribe and raised him as his son. 

on Trail of Tears were eradicated.

Fist, the Cherokee removal happened under Van Buren, not Jackson. Second, think.  If Jackson wanted to eradicate Indians, he would have, you know, eradicated them. Instead, the US government spent significant amounts of money to move them.  Words have meaning. 

“Instead, the US government spent significant amounts of money to move them.”

Forced relocation from their homelands. Thousands perished in the process.

Money well spent? How proud we should be…

An exclusionary mindset, void of definition, but full of self-gratification, that is in direct contradiction to true American principles. 

That's nothing like Grant.

Grant also appointed a native American as head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and helped establish a Board of Indian Commissioners to oversee the BIA. 

Instead, the US government spent significant amounts of money to move them.  

You have become quite the apologist for all this shit.  Yes Jackson was recently out of office before the Cherokee were moved, but to say he had nothing to do with it is preposterous. 

Trail of Tears | Facts, Map, & Significance | Britannica

The roots of forced relocation lay in greed. The British   Proclamation of 1763   designated the region between the   Appalachian Mountains   and the Mississippi River as Indian Territory. Although that region was to be protected for the   exclusive   use of indigenous peoples, large numbers of Euro-American land speculators and settlers soon entered. For the most part, the British and, later, U.S. governments ignored these acts of trespass.

In 1829 a  gold rush  occurred on Cherokee land in Georgia. Vast amounts of wealth were at stake: at their peak, Georgia mines produced approximately 300 ounces of gold a day. Land speculators soon demanded that the U.S. Congress devolve to the states the control of all  real property  owned by tribes and their members. That position was supported by Pres.  Andrew Jackson , who was himself an  avid  speculator. Congress complied by passing the  Indian Removal Act  (1830). The act entitled the president to negotiate with the eastern nations to effect their removal to tracts of land west of the  Mississippi  and provided some $500,000 for transportation and for compensation to native landowners. Jackson  reiterated  his support for the act in various messages to Congress, notably “On  Indian  Removal” (1830) and “A Permanent Habitation for the American Indians” (1835), which  illuminated  his political justifications for removal and described some of the outcomes he expected would derive from the relocation process.

Movement of Native Americans after the U.S. Indian Removal Act

Map showing the movement of some 100,000 Native Americans forcibly relocated to the trans-Mississippi West under the terms of the U.S. Indian Removal Act (1830). (more)

Indigenous reactions to the Indian Removal Act varied. The Southeast Indians were for the most part tightly organized and heavily invested in agriculture. The farms of the most populous tribes—the   Choctaw , Creek, Chickasaw, Seminole, and Cherokee—were particularly coveted by outsiders because they were located in prime agricultural areas and were very well developed. This meant that speculators who purchased such properties could immediately turn a profit: fields had already been cleared, pastures fenced, barns and houses built, and the like. Thus, the Southeast tribes approached federal negotiations with the goal of either reimbursement for or protection of their members’ investments.

The Choctaw were the first polity to finalize negotiations: in 1830 they agreed to cede their real property for western land, transportation for themselves and their goods, and logistical support during and after the journey. However, the federal government had no experience in transporting large numbers of civilians, let alone their household effects, farming equipment, and livestock.   Bureaucratic   ineptitude   and corruption caused many Choctaw to die from exposure, malnutrition, exhaustion, and disease while traveling.

The   Chickasaw   signed an initial removal agreement as early as 1830, but negotiations were not finalized until 1832. Skeptical of federal   assurances   regarding reimbursement for their property, members of the Chickasaw nation sold their landholdings at a profit and financed their own transportation. As a result, their journey, which took place in 1837, had fewer problems than did those of the other Southeast tribes.

The   Creek   also finalized a removal agreement in 1832. However, Euro-American settlers and speculators moved into the planned Creek cessions prematurely, causing conflicts, delays, and fraudulent land sales that delayed the Creek journey until 1836. Federal authorities once again proved incompetent and corrupt, and many Creek people died, often from the same preventable causes that had killed Choctaw travelers.

A small group of   Seminole   leaders negotiated a removal agreement in 1832, but a majority of the tribe protested that the   signatories   had no authority to represent them. The United States insisted that the agreement should hold, instigating such fierce resistance to removal that the ensuing conflict became known as the Second   Seminole War   (1835–42). Although many were eventually captured and removed to the west, a substantial number of Seminole people managed to elude the authorities and remain in Florida.

The Cherokee chose to use legal action to resist removal. Their lawsuits, notably   Cherokee Nation   v.   Georgia   (1831) and   Worcester   v.   Georgia   (1832), reached the U.S. Supreme Court but ultimately provided no relief. As with the Seminole, a few Cherokee leaders negotiated a removal agreement that was subsequently rejected by the people as a whole. Although several families moved west in the mid-1830s, most believed that their   property rights   would ultimately be respected. This was not to be the case, and in 1838 the U.S. military began to force Cherokee people from their homes, often at gunpoint. Held in miserable internment camps for days or weeks before their journeys began, many became ill, and most were very poorly equipped for the   arduous   trip. Those who took the river route were loaded onto boats in which they traveled parts of the   Tennessee , Ohio, Mississippi, and Arkansas rivers, eventually arriving at Fort Gibson in Indian Territory. Not until then did the survivors receive much-needed food and supplies. Perhaps 4,000 of the estimated 15,000 Cherokee died on the journey, while some 1,000 avoided internment and built   communities   in North Carolina.

I imagine some do but it's not restricted to Trump supporters.

Andrew Jackson - Jacksonian Democracy, 7th President, War of 1812 | Britannica

..he was remarkably   complacent   when   Georgia   defied the federal government. In 1829 Georgia extended its jurisdiction to about 9,000,000 acres (4,000,000 hectares) of land that lay within its boundaries but was still occupied by the   Cherokee   Indians. The Cherokees’ title to the land, on which gold had been discovered, having been guaranteed by a treaty with the United States, the Indians appealed to the federal courts. In two separate cases, the   Supreme Court   ruled against Georgia, but Georgia ignored those decisions and continued to   enforce   its jurisdiction within the territory claimed by the Cherokees. In contrast to his strong reaction against South Carolina’s defiance of federal authority, Jackson made no effort to restrain Georgia, and those close to him felt certain that he sympathized with the position taken by that state. He is said to have declared privately, “ John Marshall   [the   chief   justice] has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” Jackson’s failure to support the Supreme Court remains an indelible stain on his record.

Robert Lindneux:   The Trail of Tears

The Trail of Tears , oil on canvas by Robert Lindneux, 1942.

The Cherokee, left without a choice, signed another treaty in 1835 giving up their land in exchange for land in the   Indian Territory   west of   Arkansas . Three years later, having been rounded up by   Gen. Winfield Scott , some 15,000 Cherokees were forced to wend their way westward, mostly on foot, on a journey that became known as the   Trail of Tears . On the way, during the cold and wet of winter, nearly a quarter of them died of starvation, illness, and exposure.

Trail of Tears

Routes, statistics, and notable events of the Trail of Tears.

The plight of the Cherokee was a consequence of the Jackson government’s policy toward the  Native American  peoples who lived east of the  Mississippi  (especially in the Southeast) on lands that were desired for white settlement. The  Indian Removal Act of 1830  authorized Jackson to grant these  Indian  tribes unsettled western prairie land in exchange for their homelands. When members of the so-called  Five Civilized Tribes , including the Cherokees, refused to relocate,  military  coercion was employed to force  compliance . Even more reluctant to leave their Florida home were the Seminoles, who would resist resettlement in the  Second Seminole War  (1835–42)..

How proud we should be…

But that's not what you claimed is it? You falsely claimed Jackson wanted to eradicate Indians.  In fact, he wanted to try and save them, and thought removal was the best option for Indians to flourish as a separate civilization, rather than remain and be subject to state and federal laws. 

Again, that's not eradication, 

Funny how definitions change on a whim.

ut to say he had nothing to do with it is preposterous.

Good thing I didn't. I said, accurately, Jackson did not have a policy of eradication of Indians. 

e is said to have declared privately, “  John Marshall    [the    chief    justice] has made his decision, now let him enforce it!

Except there's no evidence that he actually said it. It was attributed to him decades later.

It also misstates what was happening.  There was no order for Jackson to enforce. Jackson actually said the decision was stillborn and did not order Jackson, or the federal government to do anything.   This was understood by all parties involved.  

Robert remini, in his Pulitzer Prize winning biography, summarized "both the problem of Georgia and the fate of the two missionaries were quietly resolved without injurious consequences to the rest of the nation. It was one of Jackson's finest actions as a statesman." 

“  John Marshall    [the    chief    justice] has made his decision, now let him enforce it!

What Jackson actually said was that "the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." Jackson's opponents criticized him for failing to act against Georgia, but even if he had wanted to intervene—and he did not—he had no legal authority to do so.

faculty.weber

There are signs designating the Trail of Tears here in Arkansas

t even if he had wanted to intervene—and he did not—he had no legal authority to do so.

Yep. 

During Grant's adulthood, many in the press and public advocated for the extermination of Native Americans.  Grant believed every Indian from every tribe should be made a citizen of the United States.  The policy that US Grant outlined in his Inaugural Address expressed a desire to include Indigenous people into the American Citizenry.  Grant hoped to save the Indians from extermination by moving them to reservations, where they would be guarded by the U.S. Army, and ultimately be made US citizens.  

It was a different time and he was a very different man than Trump.

Yes,   President Andrew Jackson   indeed played a significant role in the forced removal of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands. On   May 28, 1830 , he signed the   Indian Removal Act   into law, which empowered the federal government to negotiate with southeastern Native American tribes in states like   Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee . The purpose was to acquire their lands and relocate them westward to what became known as   “Indian Territory”   (present-day Oklahoma). This mass migration, tragically known as the   Trail of Tears , resulted in the forced relocation of approximately   60,000 Native Americans , leading to over   4,000 deaths   during the journey.   By the end of Jackson’s presidency in   1837 , nearly   50,000 eastern Native Americans   had been moved to the Indian Territory, freeing up   25 million acres   of land for white settlement in the east and contributing to the expansion of slavery ¹ .

The Indian Removal Act was a deeply controversial and devastating policy that had profound consequences for Native American communities. Some tribes, such as the Cherokees, resisted leaving their homes but were eventually forced out by the U.S. military between   1838 and 1839 .   The legacy of this forced removal continues to shape the history and memory of Native American communities in the United States ^{1 2} .

history

Jackson actually adopted an Indian who'd been left to die by his tribe and raised him as his son. 

More misinformation by you, Sean. The child he adopted was named Lyncota and he was found on the battlefield in his dead mother's arms in the Creek War at the Battle of Tallushatchee. He died in  his mid teens of TB,

Fist, the Cherokee removal happened under Van Buren, not Jackson. Second, think.  If Jackson wanted to eradicate Indians, he would have, you know, eradicated them. Instead, the US government spent significant amounts of money to move them.  Words have meaning. 

Jackson signed the ''Indian Removal Act'' in 1830, in case you're not aware the Cherokee were only one of the five tribes removed. The Choctaw were removed in 1830, the Creek were removed by force in 1836 following Negotiations that started in 1832. The Seminole removal started a seven year war that ended in 1843. The Cherokee were removed in 1838. Andrew Jackson was president from March 1829 to March 1837. So not only did he sign the ''Indians Removal Act'' he was president during four of the five tribes being removed from their homeland and totally responsible for the fifth, the Cherokee.

As far as your comment of ''if he wanted to eradicate them he would have. Which flies in the face of history. Jackson's war against the Seminole was at best for the US a draw, perhaps you're familiar with the fact that the Seminole never signed a peace treaty with the US, the reason is Jackson could not defeat them after three separate wars. In the first Seminole War 1817/18 it was General Jackson. The Second Seminole War in was President Jackson 

The most infamous was the Second Seminole War, from 1835 to 1842. It killed 1,500 U.S. soldiers and countless Seminoles. It was the longest and most expensive war the white man ever waged against Native Americans — and draws many parallels to Vietnam. TheMicos Jumper, Alligator, Micanopy and Osceola, leading less than 3,000 warriors, were pitted against four U.S. generals and more than 30,000 troops.

BTW, we have streets, parks, counties and statues of Osceola all over Florida.

The Third Seminole war was fought from 1855 to 1858. With little bloodshed. 

Words do have meaning, Sean you should try and get them right.

he child he adopted was named Lyncota and he was found on the battlefield in his dead mother's arms in the Creek War at the Battle of Tallushatchee.

Lol.  The tribe left him to die. Now let's correct your misinformation.   Jackson asked some of the  Indian women at the scene  to take care of him and they refused. They to told him "No, his family's dead. Leave him to die."  Jackson, much more of a humanitarian than those women, couldn't let that happen so he adopted him. 

Again, if Jackson actually wanted to eradicate Indians, he would have killed the Indian women who refused to care for the helpless child and the child itself.

. kson signed the ''Indian Removal Act'' in 1830, in case you're not aware the Cherokee were only one of the five tribes removed.\

Thanks for proving me correct, again. 

Which flies in the face of history

Lol. Then provide evidence of Jackson's intent to eradicate the Indians.  Because you aren't even on the topic, yet. 

 we have streets, parks, counties and statues of Osceola all over Florida.

I'd say good for you, but you must be protesting to take those down.

Lol.  The tribe left him to die. Now let's correct your misinformation.   Jackson asked some of the  Indian women at the scene  to take care of him and they refused. They to told him "No, his family's dead. Leave him to die."  Jackson, much more of a humanitarian than those women, couldn't let that happen so he adopted him. 

Jackson a humanitarian, what a load of BS that is.

Again, if Jackson actually wanted to eradicate Indians, he would have killed the Indian women who refused to care for the helpless child and the child itself.

Of course, you skip the factual part that Jackson led two wars against the Seminole and didn't win either. I posted the information for you, try reading it.

Lol. Then provide evidence of Jackson's intent to eradicate the Indians.  Because you aren't even on the topic, yet. 

I guess that his two wars against the Seminoles were not an indication that he wanted to exterminate them I guess he just wanted to hold a Pow Wow..LMAO

I'd say good for you, but you must be protesting to take those down.

Why in the world would I want to take those statues of Oceola down? Now your hero like Confederate General  Robert E. Lee oh hell yes, don't want to see traitors honored.

It was Col. Eli Parker who served as Grant ass't in the Civil war and wrote most of the papers for the surrender by Lee.

At the time of the surrender,  is said to have mistaken Parker for a black man, but apologized saying, "I am glad to see one real American here,"

Ok.

ackson a humanitarian, what a load of BS that is

As I said, compared to the Indian women who were happy to let an Indian  child die because he was an orphan. 

rse, you skip the factual part that Jackson led two wars against the Seminole and didn't win either.

Because it's irrelevant to what I wrote. 

wo wars against the Seminoles were not an indication that he wanted to exterminate them

No, going to war is not in and of itself an indication of an intent to exterminate. Do you imagine all wars are fought with the intent to extent to exterminate the enemy? I guess America's been fighting its wars wrong since it's inception. 

Why in the world would I want to take those statues of Oceola down

Why in the world do you whine about football teams being named after Indians?  Silly to think one is acceptable and the other isn't. 

As I said, compared to the Indian women who were happy to let an Indian  child die because he was an orphan.

Or compared to US Milita that crushed Indian infants skulls to save bullets.

Because it's irrelevant to what I wrote. 

In your opinion it is but in the real world it's quite relevent.

No, going to war is not in and of itself an indication of an intent to exterminate. Do you imagine all wars are fought with the intent to extent to exterminate the enemy? I guess America's been fighting its wars wrong since it's inception. 

When the express opinion of the US government is to take all the land and minerals from us and if you had to kill us all so be it. They came close but as you know ''we are still here''

I don't know how you would know that America been fighting its wars all wrong since you never served.

Why in the world do you whine about football teams being named after Indians?  Silly to think one is acceptable and the other isn't. 

Ahhhhh, poor little Sean can't use a derogatory/racist name towards Indians...especially towards me, or you could man up and give it a try. In fact, as I told you before you are free to walk up to a Indian, call him a REDSKIN, and tell him you're honoring him....But that would take some balls.

t Jackson led two wars against the Seminole and didn't win either.

Lol. Almost missed that. The idea that Jackson didn't win those wars is dishonest.

Wow, you calling a comment dishonest is the height of hypocrisy.

pared to US Milita that crushed Indian infants skulls to save bullets.

It must get tiring to keep moving the goalposts.  I think you need another' game plan other than "get proved wrong, pivot to another irrelevant claim" 

pinion of the US government is to take all the land and minerals from us and if you had to kill us all so be it

Now we've moved from Jackson to the US government.  

 can't use a derogatory/racist name towards Indians

Indians is derogatory? You just used it...

all him a REDSKIN, and tell him you're honoring him..

Right, because football teams pick things they believe are weak and  cowardly symbols to represent them.   Do you get the point of team nicknames? 

Right, because football teams pick things they believe are weak and  cowardly symbols to represent them.   Do you get the point of team nicknames? 

First of all, it was not the team's nickname, but the team's name. Second, it was pure ignorance to use it, even if the claim was that it was an honor. You would never call a team the "White Skins" or the "Black Skins", right? Never mind it actually means scalps. 

Sean gravitates toward diminishing American Indians, why that is the case is not entirely clear but I suspect it is connected to the perfection of manifest destiny. 

It must get tiring to keep moving the goalposts.  I think you need another' game plan other than "get proved wrong, pivot to another irrelevant claim" 

Didn't move the goalposts at all. Just pointed out to you that the government/militia crushed Indian infant's skulls to save bullets. I have a difficult time thinking that killing Indian Inants was irrelevant, man that is right out of ''manifest destiny'' or worse.

Indians is derogatory? You just used it...

Is English a second language for you? I never said anything close to that.

Now we've moved from Jackson to the US government.  

Man, what an ignorant comment. Jackson was a general in the US Army and President of the US which makes him a part and parcel of the US government.

Right, because football teams pick things they believe are weak and  cowardly symbols to represent them.   Do you get the point of team nicknames? 

George Preston Marshall, dyed in the wool racist chose the name to differentiate them from the Boston Braves and to honor the coach ''Lone Star Dietz'' who claimed to be Indian but was found out to be full blood German born in Wisconsin land of the cheeseheads and liars.

Later he was arrested for impersonating an Indian to escape the draft.

LMAO, keep swinging Sean you may hit something other than a foul ball.

When are you going to tell an Indian that he is a Redskin and you're honoring him?

You would never call a team the "White Skins" or the "Black Skins", right?

Very simple but persuasive argument. 

And yet you jump at every chance to talk about her.

That is pretty funny coming from the person who FIRST mentioned Hillary. Post 2.1.9

Your head is like a rent free housing project.

I would tell you to work on your insult game some, but I know it won't do any good, you'll still type the same old lame things.

Donald Trump's Supporters Reject Concerns About 'Dictator' Comments

...because it's something they are comfortable with and support.

because they don't go Chicken Little over it.

Of course, some reactionary propagandists want to spread the lie that Biden is a traitor and there are plenty of imbecilic right wingers who believe them.

No more reactionary than propagandists calling Trump one.

It isn't a lie that Biden is a traitor unless you are going to change the definition of what one is.

trump says, he'll be a dictator for a day and the left flips out. Biden issues flagrantly illegal orders like usurping the power from Congress to discharge hundreds of billions of debt and the left doesn't bat an eye. 

Learn the definition of "reactionary".  You obviously do not understand what it means.

Denying the reality of the Trump menace while calling Biden a traitor.  Your comment is the height of stupidity.

Learn the definition of "reactionary".  You obviously do not understand what it means.

I do. Sorry to have to correct you.

Denying the reality of the Trump menace while calling Biden a traitor.

I sure wish you would not invent out of thin air things you "think" I might have said.

Since you seem convinced I said it, why not QUOTE me?

Your comment is the height of stupidity.

Your comment is meaningless and very ignorant.

I do

You don't, which is clear from your misuse of the word.  If you actually do, then your intentional misuse is a feeble propagandistic effort and laughable.

Your comment is pathetically ignorant.