Neither is blind loyalty to an out-of-touch White House a "suitable substitute for reason".
One sounds just like a lefty Democrat when one uses name-calling as a debating tactic.
"I would do the same if it were my choice. I don't associate with people who impugn my character and motives.
The loss of one of our few allies in that region, one who lets us use their country to house and stage our troops, is a big blow to our logistical and intelligence capabilities. For avoiding a minimum security risk we have lost real assets in our war with Islamic terrorists.
I wish facts mattered enough to people that they would spend the time to find them. And I wish some would learn that xenophobia is not a suitable substitute for reason.
Common sense and logic loses to politics and knee-jerk behavior again."
I am not :blindly loyal" to the President, just blindly loyal to facts, logic, and perspective.
And I don't I don't see any name-calling,,,,,except may be the "knee-jerk" thing. But with so many Americans that cannot name a single sitting Supreme Court Justice, why should anyone believe otherwise.
Be gald to debate any point you want to make as to why we should single out UAE for this treatment. Do you want to debate or just call me "blindly loyal" as a "substitute for a debate tactic"?
PresidentFelon