TPP - And Trump Idiocy

[carpedm9587]

So sort of how the Russians moved in to fill the vacuum in the Mid East when Obama pulled us out?

Another example of "what aboutism."

What is it with you guys? Instead of dealing with the issue related to Trump, you almost regularly yank out, "but what about Obama, huh?"

As I have said before, when I catch my son lying to me, his defense of "but Michael (his brother) does it too!" doesn't get him anywhere. It doesn't get you anywhere either.

[carpedm9587]

This is a commentator paraphrasing and summarizing Trump. Got any direct video evidence of Trump saying any of that stuff about "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians," etc?

Presumably, since part of this was apparently a Fox and Friends interview, there is footage.

[Mountain Man]

Another example of "what aboutism."

What is it with you guys? Instead of dealing with the issue related to Trump, you almost regularly yank out, "but what about Obama, huh?"

As I have said before, when I catch my son lying to me, his defense of "but Michael (his brother) does it too!" doesn't get him anywhere. It doesn't get you anywhere either.

Not exactly. In this case it's more using a similar situation in the past to predict what will likely happen in the future.

As for your other example, that would be applicable only if you punished one son for lying while repeatedly excusing or praising your other son for the same behavior, which is what liberals do when they try to criticize Trump for doing something that a liberal politician was excused or even lauded for doing in the past (for example, harvesting Facebook data during a campaign: Obama was praised for his technical savvy while Trump was vilified).

[Roy]

As for your other example, that would be applicable only if you punished one son for lying while repeatedly excusing or praising your other son for the same behavior, which is what liberals do when they try to criticize Trump for doing something that a liberal politician was excused or even lauded for doing in the past (for example, harvesting Facebook data during a campaign: Obama was praised for his technical savvy while Trump was vilified).

Also what conservatives do when they excuse Trump for infidelity while they criticised Clinton for it.

Also what MM is doing when he objects to liberals who have double standards while completely ignoring conservatives that have them.

[Mountain Man]

Also what conservatives do when they excuse Trump for infidelity while they criticised Clinton for it.

Who is excusing Trump for his infidelity? I certainly haven't, and I haven't seen anybody do it outside the context of ironically chiding liberals with the "But it's just sex!" defense which they (liberals) used to excuse Slick Willy's philandering ways.

[Mountain Man]

Screen Shot 2018-04-13 at 10.20.13 AM.jpg
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

Of course the media is trying to spin this as Trump "walking back" his original remark when the reality is that the context and intent with which that remark was originally made was misreported by the news media, including by a number of conservative sites. At the very least, rejoining TPP wasn't the "done deal" that many were implying.

[Sparko]

Presumably, since part of this was apparently a Fox and Friends interview, there is footage.

I would like to see it. In context.

I did a google search for the phrase "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians" and the only hit was this thread.

[TheWall]

Have you watched Kyle Kulinski much, or is this just your way of saying "I like Philip DeFranco. He's better than everyone else."?

I have watched some Kyle. Personally I think he is smart but caustic.

[carpedm9587]

Not exactly. In this case it's more using a similar situation in the past to predict what will likely happen in the future.

As for your other example, that would be applicable only if you punished one son for lying while repeatedly excusing or praising your other son for the same behavior, which is what liberals do when they try to criticize Trump for doing something that a liberal politician was excused or even lauded for doing in the past (for example, harvesting Facebook data during a campaign: Obama was praised for his technical savvy while Trump was vilified).

Since I have not engaged in that, to my knowledge, I stand by the "what aboutism" nature of the post.

[carpedm9587]

I would like to see it. In context.

I did a google search for the phrase "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians" and the only hit was this thread.

The "families" quote is reported here - and was from a Fox & Friends interview. The civilians one was apparently reported about Trump from a closed-door meeting.

There is a list of other Trump classics here, and the sources are documented.

[Sparko]

The "families" quote is reported here - and was from a Fox & Friends interview. The civilians one was apparently reported about Trump from a closed-door meeting.

There is a list of other Trump classics here, and the sources are documented.

So in other words there is no evidence that he said "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians"

Terrorist's families are not "civilians" and are probably just as culpable and supportive of the terrorism, but it was a reckless statement.

[demi-conservative]

So this just flew across my transom. After pulling us out of the TPP, Trump is now apparently reconsidering in light of the (almost obvious) inevitable outcome: China would begin to move into areas formerly occupied by the U.S.

Situation sounds familiar!!!!

Go for it, libs!!!

[carpedm9587]

So in other words there is no evidence that he said "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians"

Umm, no. It was reported by several outlets. Here's one. So there is not "no evidence." However, the evidence is from anonymous sources and was from a private meeting, so there is no recording. Ergo, I suspect the available evidence will convince the left, and not convince the right. For myself, I think the position is perfectly in keeping with his campaign statements, his military choices since in office, and his person. I do not know, however, that he actually said those words. If more definitive evidence surfaced, I would not be surprised.

Terrorist's families are not "civilians" and are probably just as culpable and supportive of the terrorism, but it was a reckless statement.

I do not know that definitively. I'm sure it is sometimes the case. I am reasonably sure it is not always the case.

[demi-conservative]

1. THE WORLD ISN'T A GLOBAL CHESS BOARD FOR YOU GUYS TO PLAY ON. The very notion of you guys being "players" against China where you exercise "dominance" over other nations and treat the world as board where you expand your influence over is absolutely infuriating for everyone in those nations you're dominating, and is morally disgusting. I'm not allowed to swear on this board, but insert your own paragraph of swear words here directed at the concept of imperialism and the cold-war idiocy of American imperialism, global domination, and the arrogance and selfishness of those who though they ought to control the world and dominate the lives and affairs of others. Our countries are neither chess pieces nor squares on a board for your convenience. You don't get to decide how we're going to live, we do. Those ideas were awful and outdated 50 years ago during the cold war and haven't got any better since. Urgh.

' '

No one likes country of his to be pawn of another, but pretense that this is 'outdated' is just childish like usual. It happened for thousands of years, will continue to happen!

[Sparko]

Umm, no. It was reported by several outlets. Here's one. So there is not "no evidence." However, the evidence is from anonymous sources and was from a private meeting, so there is no recording. Ergo, I suspect the available evidence will convince the left, and not convince the right. For myself, I think the position is perfectly in keeping with his campaign statements, his military choices since in office, and his person. I do not know, however, that he actually said those words. If more definitive evidence surfaced, I would not be surprised.



I do not know that definitively. I'm sure it is sometimes the case. I am reasonably sure it is not always the case.

wow Carpe. Salon? and it is reporting a rumor that was reported in the Washington Post? From a secret meeting that wasn't recorded?

Really? I am amazed how gullible you are on negative news about Trump while being highly skeptical in other matters.

and here is what the WP reported:



so he didn't say "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians"

He merely asked why they hesitated. That doesn't mean he didn't care. It could just mean that he didn't know why they hesitated. AND the reporter did not even witness it, it was "according to one participant" who is anonymous.