Meme & Quote Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
"****hole countries" wasn't corroborated? Why, because Tom Cotton denied it? This is basically the Roy Moore/Trump "well, he denied it" shtick again.
I don't lend much credence to the reports about Trump's state of mind, language, et al, in the oval. Not because I disbelieve then, necessarily, but because they're a sideshow, and unnecessary...his shortcomings are apparent when he speaks extemporaneously and when the entire WH and half the Republican Party regularly twists into pretzels to try to paper over his shambolic decision-making.
57Brave
Well-known member
the same way we were supposed to see his mocking a disabled person as something other than --- mocking a disabled person ?
Beyond policy and tax cuts and deregulation and even the decision whether to or not to go to war is a basic sense of decency. that is a test this man over and over fails .
This is who he is.
I personally feel like that should be rubbed in the face of everyone that voted for him. That picture was out even before the nomination
By condoning and excusing away his actions are they not too that person ?
Deplorable
I admit, if the 2 previous Sec of States told me to keep a separate server in my basement --- guilty as charged.
And what does that say ? To me it says I (she) was willing to listen and consider the advise of predecessors.
As far as Barbara Bush? Ray Wiley Hubbard speak's for me
Beyond policy and tax cuts and deregulation and even the decision whether to or not to go to war is a basic sense of decency. that is a test this man over and over fails .
This is who he is.
I personally feel like that should be rubbed in the face of everyone that voted for him. That picture was out even before the nomination
By condoning and excusing away his actions are they not too that person ?
Deplorable
I admit, if the 2 previous Sec of States told me to keep a separate server in my basement --- guilty as charged.
And what does that say ? To me it says I (she) was willing to listen and consider the advise of predecessors.
As far as Barbara Bush? Ray Wiley Hubbard speak's for me
Last edited:
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I think the president should have at least a LCD grasp on policy, basic governance, etc...and in the case that he doesn't, a really plastic mind. This one doesn't, and that's made clear when he speaks off the cuff or does press.
I mean, my opinion about it is irrelevant, but I don't see how the underlying issue can be described that way.
Um, ok ... and you are going to use your extemporaneous/off the cuff-speech-o-meter to gauge that?
Kinda ludicrous.
Also, kinda ludicrous that your comments in this thread, after consistent backpedaling and sidestepping over real issues, have arrived at 'Well, Trump is an idiot because of the way he talks.'
Back to Hannity.
Unanswered:
1. What single "unnamed sources" Trump-themed story has been corroborated with verifiable, fact-based reporting?
2. How the story at hand does not involve Trump
3. How Jim Mattis could advocate going to Congress before bombing Syria when he publicly and vocally supported renewing the AUMF, just a few months ago, for the precise reasoning the administration used to justify ... bombing Syria.
4. Why extemporaneous speech is a useful barometer to gauge ... anything?
1. What single "unnamed sources" Trump-themed story has been corroborated with verifiable, fact-based reporting?
2. How the story at hand does not involve Trump
3. How Jim Mattis could advocate going to Congress before bombing Syria when he publicly and vocally supported renewing the AUMF, just a few months ago, for the precise reasoning the administration used to justify ... bombing Syria.
4. Why extemporaneous speech is a useful barometer to gauge ... anything?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
So what you're saying is that you cannot get a feel for Trump's grasp of a given issue based on his actual words about said issue?
I'd first posit: actions speak louder
I'd secondly assert: no, not about complex political/legislative issues
I'd thirdly comment: What do stutters indicate to you? While we're on the subject of pseudoscience and slapdash formulations.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
1. How about "****hole countries"? Reported with attribution to unnamed sources. Confirmed by Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham via Tim Scott.
How about--going way back here--his phone call with Malcolm Turnbull. Reported out using anonymous sources, denied by Trump, months later confirm by a transcript. How about the Flynn story, or many of the other stories previously referenced about firings/resignations?
2. That seems to be an important feature to you, and I'm not really sure why. Mattis was the focus of the discussion.
3. I'm not sure why Mattis's support for renewing the AUMF is a point in support of his not preferring Congressional approval for the Syria strikes. He's advocated for a new or expanded AUMF, while maintaining that it is not legally necessary. What's difficult about the proposition that one might prefer congressional approval but be prepared to act without it? I stipulate that Mattis knocked down the Congressional approval story, while also underscoring that there's no upside in him putting public, on-record daylight between himself and the president. That's hardly an unprecedented situation.
4. Heh, well, I'm not sure how we're supposed to form opinions except through observation. I'm comfortable in my belief that Trump is a soft-headed buffoon.
Whatever disagreement you had with 57 are not applicable as a template to my point of view, which is that I find the media reports suggesting that Mattis was a voice for moderation in the Syria response to be credible, and quite possibly sourced close to Mattis. It's possible that they're all wet, but I still tend to credit NYT, if they dig in on a story, over the WH press office.
1. Confirmed by Dick Durbin. Yeah, ok. A true fact-based perspective.
1a) How did Trump "deny" the Turnbull story? I find this in a Washington Post article: "A White House spokesman declined to comment. A senior administration official acknowledged that the conversation with Turnbull had been hostile and charged [...]".
Trump said this about the conversation, specifically: "When you hear about the tough phone calls I'm having, don't worry about it. Just don't worry about it. They're tough. We have to be tough. It's time we're going to be a little tough, folks. We're taken advantage of by every nation in the world, virtually. It's not going to happen anymore. It's not going to happen anymore."
1b) What about the Flynn story?
1c) What about these "many other stories" - that you can't/won't source?
See, this is my problem. The continual bread-crumbing that doesn't actually lead to anything substantive, truthful, or even half-accurate.
2. The discourse here is clearly being framed around the idea that Trump, personally, butted heads with Mattis. That Trump, personally, went against the advice of a senior cabinet member. It is most decidedly not being framed around Mattis suddenly and inexplicably carrying the torch of narrowly interpreted democratic procedure.
3. Look at it this way: what was the logic used by the administration when they bombed Syria last year? Who spearheaded that operation rationale campaign initially and in the proceeding months. Why would that have changed?
4. You are free to form whatever opinion you want - using whatever methodology you want - but don't be surprised when its challenged because it's a bit ... primitive.
Last edited:
