-
@gary said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
The recent storm in a teacup over Trump and the families of dead soldiers is an example of how Trump behaves in a nutshell (and why many think he is unfit for the office he holds).
There was absolutely no need for him to try and claim he is better than his predecessors when asked a question. Once again he made a grand claim that he couldn't support and gave the media yet another opening to have a crack at him so he could then claim that the media are out to undermine him. His staff then waste valuable time working on a petty issue that didn't even need to happen rather than actually working on the big things. At this rate he will spend his entire time in the WH picking scraps with everybody then claiming that it is their fault that he cant get things done.
FFS man, you undermine yourself all the time with stupid grand claims because you can't stand not looking like the biggest man in the room.
Maybe it is all done on purpose as a diversion tactic, I don't know, but weight of evidence points to it simply being an ego issue.Except yet again this has been spun, he did have support for his claim, he said it because Kelly, his chief of staff, who lost a son in combat, did not get a call from Obama.
Remember when Obama got all that grief for not calling one of his generals when he lost a son in combat? Nah me neither.
Trump was responding to criticism that he hadn't called the families within a few days. He rightly pointed out that Obama NEVER called some of the families of killed soldiers. And in fact Trump has called all of them so far.
Yet this was spun and Kelly who actually los a son, got rightly pissed off at the medias double standards and polticking.
Why the fuck did it even come up when and how Trump called families? Oh yeah... the left wing media looked yet again for a scandal.
Where the fuck where they when Obama didnt call? Up his ass lauding his Nobel peace prize.Tump was not criticised for failing to call the families the question asked was
"Why haven't we heard anything from you so far about soldiers that were killed in Niger? And what do you have to say about that?"Pretty fair question since in the 12 days he had tweeted about everything else under the sun.
Trump then brought up Gold Star Families and that he was going to send them letters and phone calls. He then made this statement
"So, the traditional way - if you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn't make calls, a lot didn't make calls. I like to call when its appropriate, when I think I'm able to do it. They have made the ultimate sacrifice"
That's pretty clear that he is stating that most previous presidents didn't make calls not at all. Not just Obama but Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan.
He backed down a bit when challenged and what's he making this pretty scathing criticism of all past president assumption on - one Gold Star Parent of what must be several hundred. Kelly must have also forgotten to mention that while Obama didn't call he did go to lunch at the Whitehouse with other Goldstar families.
Yes we didn't hear about Obama not calling Kelly at the time because he never talked about what a shitty job Bush did regarding gold star families or claimed to have call all Goldstar families.
That is your (and the left wing media) interpretation of the quote, I don't take it as Obama never called. I take it as Obama didn't call. He didn't call Kelly did he? Therefore Obama didn't call.
And families did complain abut Obama not calling. Just got very little coverage in the media.
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/military/2010/12/30/his-name-was-sean-and-he-died-for-his-country/
-
The point was more about how Trump says things and his ability to constantly feed the media ammo to fire back at him.
Most of the time the things are minor and there is no reason for them to even be said except for big noting himself.
You are right in saying that the media then swarm all over it (hence my comment of 'storm in a teacup')
Kelly made the comment in a clear and correct way, saying exactly what was meant but Trump has to make it sound like he is the best, the only, the greatest....feeding the media just what they want.Even CNNs coverage on this incident is quite even handed, giving good air to both sides of the argument, They even comment that it was all unnecessary.
I was highlighting it as an example of the whole dynamic. You simply cannot argue with a straight face that he is a totally innocent party in the daily rubbish he deals with (and gets distracted by).
One recent article pointed out how in his interview with Hannity he made such a large number of exaggerated claims or claims not backed by fact that even if you dismiss half of then as being picky the remainder provide a weeks worth of ammo to write about.
What surprises me is that those that argue in his defence can't even acknowledge how his own behaviour helps fuel the very stuff they complain about.
-
Well, beyond Trump being Trump, I am intrigued to learn that Obana didn’t call a four star general who lost a son. That doesn’t sound right at all, so there are definitely some questions I’d like answered by Obama.
I don’t Kelly did himself much good by standing up to make unsubstantiated claims about the Dem congress women either. His claims about her speech were miles away, which was a bit of a sad surprise.
-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
Well, beyond Trump being Trump, I am intrigued to learn that Obana didn’t call a four star general who lost a son. That doesn’t sound right at all, so there are definitely some questions I’d like answered by Obama.
I don’t Kelly did himself much good by standing up to make unsubstantiated claims about the Dem congress women either. His claims about her speech were miles away, which was a bit of a sad surprise.
How do you know they were miles away? I haven't seen anything to counter his claim. There is a video pf part of her interaction, but that isnt proof she didnt say what he said at other times during the day? But either way, I dont think Kelly should have gone that far anyway, and should have been more sure of his ground. I am guessing his emotions got the better of him, understandable on this topic, it is very personal.
I am amused that calling someone an empty barrel is now racist.
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
The point was more about how Trump says things and his ability to constantly feed the media ammo to fire back at him.
Most of the time the things are minor and there is no reason for them to even be said except for big noting himself.
You are right in saying that the media then swarm all over it (hence my comment of 'storm in a teacup')
Kelly made the comment in a clear and correct way, saying exactly what was meant but Trump has to make it sound like he is the best, the only, the greatest....feeding the media just what they want.Even CNNs coverage on this incident is quite even handed, giving good air to both sides of the argument, They even comment that it was all unnecessary.
I was highlighting it as an example of the whole dynamic. You simply cannot argue with a straight face that he is a totally innocent party in the daily rubbish he deals with (and gets distracted by).
One recent article pointed out how in his interview with Hannity he made such a large number of exaggerated claims or claims not backed by fact that even if you dismiss half of then as being picky the remainder provide a weeks worth of ammo to write about.
What surprises me is that those that argue in his defence can't even acknowledge how his own behaviour helps fuel the very stuff they complain about.
Just to be clear I would not argue that he is a totally innocent party in the rubbish he has to deal with. Or that he is distracted to easily by the mud.
As for the Hannity interview and half the things being wrong.. yeah nah. Who exactly judges that? The supposed fact checking organisations are proven to have a left bias. The media has a bias, obviously Trump supporters have a bias, as do the left wing opposition.
I discount pretty much any claim like the amount of lies in the Hannity interview as bullshit. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
The point was more about how Trump says things and his ability to constantly feed the media ammo to fire back at him.
Most of the time the things are minor and there is no reason for them to even be said except for big noting himself.
You are right in saying that the media then swarm all over it (hence my comment of 'storm in a teacup')
Kelly made the comment in a clear and correct way, saying exactly what was meant but Trump has to make it sound like he is the best, the only, the greatest....feeding the media just what they want.Even CNNs coverage on this incident is quite even handed, giving good air to both sides of the argument, They even comment that it was all unnecessary.
I was highlighting it as an example of the whole dynamic. You simply cannot argue with a straight face that he is a totally innocent party in the daily rubbish he deals with (and gets distracted by).
One recent article pointed out how in his interview with Hannity he made such a large number of exaggerated claims or claims not backed by fact that even if you dismiss half of then as being picky the remainder provide a weeks worth of ammo to write about.
What surprises me is that those that argue in his defence can't even acknowledge how his own behaviour helps fuel the very stuff they complain about.
Just to be clear I would not argue that he is a totally innocent party in the rubbish he has to deal with. Or that he is distracted to easily by the mud.
As for the Hannity interview and half the things being wrong.. yeah nah. Who exactly judges that? The supposed fact checking organisations are proven to have a left bias. The media has a bias, obviously Trump supporters have a bias, as do the left wing opposition.
I discount pretty much any claim like the amount of lies in the Hannity interview as bullshit.come on. this is such shit, it is the whole trump argument in a nutshell - discredit everyone and pretend everyone is equally unreliable so nobody knows what to believe and trump's nonsense is just as credible as anything else.
there is bias everywhere, yes. but there is a hell of a big range running from 'showing some bias' to 'blatant falsehood'. facts do still exist, and trump lets his mouth run away from him and flat out makes shit up. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
Well, beyond Trump being Trump, I am intrigued to learn that Obana didn’t call a four star general who lost a son. That doesn’t sound right at all, so there are definitely some questions I’d like answered by Obama.
I don’t Kelly did himself much good by standing up to make unsubstantiated claims about the Dem congress women either. His claims about her speech were miles away, which was a bit of a sad surprise.
> How do you know they were miles away? I haven't seen anything to counter his claim. There is a video pf part of her interaction, but that 2* isnt proof she didnt say what he said at other times during the day? But either way, I dont think Kelly should have gone that far anyway, and should have been more sure of his ground. I am guessing his emotions got the better of him, understandable on this topic, it is very personal.
I am amused that calling someone an empty barrel is now racist.
From watching the video of the speech and comparing his claims to her words. She seems to take credit for getting the building named, but there is nothing in there about her claiming credit for getting funding. In fact, as we now know, she wasn't even elected at the time it was funded.
I totally agree that her reaction to his speech - going to the racism card - is ridiculous. However, what pisses me off about the Kelly speech is that I agree with almost every word of it, until he makes a false claim about Wilson. I don't get why he doesn't just leave the speech at "the selfless devotion that brings a man or woman to die on the battlefield, I just thought that that might be sacred"
If he had, I don't think anyone couldn't consider and agree with his point. It's a good one.
Regarding, 2 isnt proof she didnt say what he said at other times during the day?
That's very Sarah Huckabee Sanders of you. An excellent goal post shift.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
The point was more about how Trump says things and his ability to constantly feed the media ammo to fire back at him.
Most of the time the things are minor and there is no reason for them to even be said except for big noting himself.
You are right in saying that the media then swarm all over it (hence my comment of 'storm in a teacup')
Kelly made the comment in a clear and correct way, saying exactly what was meant but Trump has to make it sound like he is the best, the only, the greatest....feeding the media just what they want.Even CNNs coverage on this incident is quite even handed, giving good air to both sides of the argument, They even comment that it was all unnecessary.
I was highlighting it as an example of the whole dynamic. You simply cannot argue with a straight face that he is a totally innocent party in the daily rubbish he deals with (and gets distracted by).
One recent article pointed out how in his interview with Hannity he made such a large number of exaggerated claims or claims not backed by fact that even if you dismiss half of then as being picky the remainder provide a weeks worth of ammo to write about.
What surprises me is that those that argue in his defence can't even acknowledge how his own behaviour helps fuel the very stuff they complain about.
Just to be clear I would not argue that he is a totally innocent party in the rubbish he has to deal with. Or that he is distracted to easily by the mud.
As for the Hannity interview and half the things being wrong.. yeah nah. Who exactly judges that? The supposed fact checking organisations are proven to have a left bias. The media has a bias, obviously Trump supporters have a bias, as do the left wing opposition.
I discount pretty much any claim like the amount of lies in the Hannity interview as bullshit.come on. this is such shit, it is the whole trump argument in a nutshell - discredit everyone and pretend everyone is equally unreliable so nobody knows what to believe and trump's nonsense is just as credible as anything else.
there is bias everywhere, yes. but there is a hell of a big range running from 'showing some bias' to 'blatant falsehood'. facts do still exist, and trump lets his mouth run away from him and flat out makes shit up.come on. this is such shit,
Because I have seen just as much (in fact more) bullshit and outright dishonesty from the long term Trump Derangement sufferers on the left and in the media. -
This post is deleted!
-
The Obama Administration’s Uranium One Scandal
Let's put the Uranium One scandal in perspective: The cool half-million bucks the Putin regime funneled to Bill Clinton was five times the amount it spent on those Facebook ads — the ones the media-Democrat complex ludicrously suggests swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.
[...] -
This post is deleted!
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
The point was more about how Trump says things and his ability to constantly feed the media ammo to fire back at him.
Most of the time the things are minor and there is no reason for them to even be said except for big noting himself.
You are right in saying that the media then swarm all over it (hence my comment of 'storm in a teacup')
Kelly made the comment in a clear and correct way, saying exactly what was meant but Trump has to make it sound like he is the best, the only, the greatest....feeding the media just what they want.Even CNNs coverage on this incident is quite even handed, giving good air to both sides of the argument, They even comment that it was all unnecessary.
I was highlighting it as an example of the whole dynamic. You simply cannot argue with a straight face that he is a totally innocent party in the daily rubbish he deals with (and gets distracted by).
One recent article pointed out how in his interview with Hannity he made such a large number of exaggerated claims or claims not backed by fact that even if you dismiss half of then as being picky the remainder provide a weeks worth of ammo to write about.
What surprises me is that those that argue in his defence can't even acknowledge how his own behaviour helps fuel the very stuff they complain about.
Just to be clear I would not argue that he is a totally innocent party in the rubbish he has to deal with. Or that he is distracted to easily by the mud.
As for the Hannity interview and half the things being wrong.. yeah nah. Who exactly judges that? The supposed fact checking organisations are proven to have a left bias. The media has a bias, obviously Trump supporters have a bias, as do the left wing opposition.
I discount pretty much any claim like the amount of lies in the Hannity interview as bullshit.come on. this is such shit, it is the whole trump argument in a nutshell - discredit everyone and pretend everyone is equally unreliable so nobody knows what to believe and trump's nonsense is just as credible as anything else.
there is bias everywhere, yes. but there is a hell of a big range running from 'showing some bias' to 'blatant falsehood'. facts do still exist, and trump lets his mouth run away from him and flat out makes shit up.come on. this is such shit,
Because I have seen just as much (in fact more) bullshit and outright dishonesty from the long term Trump Derangement sufferers on the left and in the media.yes, i'm sure that no person in history has seen as much bullshit. the greatest at seeing bullshit. never before etc etc.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
The point was more about how Trump says things and his ability to constantly feed the media ammo to fire back at him.
Most of the time the things are minor and there is no reason for them to even be said except for big noting himself.
You are right in saying that the media then swarm all over it (hence my comment of 'storm in a teacup')
Kelly made the comment in a clear and correct way, saying exactly what was meant but Trump has to make it sound like he is the best, the only, the greatest....feeding the media just what they want.Even CNNs coverage on this incident is quite even handed, giving good air to both sides of the argument, They even comment that it was all unnecessary.
I was highlighting it as an example of the whole dynamic. You simply cannot argue with a straight face that he is a totally innocent party in the daily rubbish he deals with (and gets distracted by).
One recent article pointed out how in his interview with Hannity he made such a large number of exaggerated claims or claims not backed by fact that even if you dismiss half of then as being picky the remainder provide a weeks worth of ammo to write about.
What surprises me is that those that argue in his defence can't even acknowledge how his own behaviour helps fuel the very stuff they complain about.
Just to be clear I would not argue that he is a totally innocent party in the rubbish he has to deal with. Or that he is distracted to easily by the mud.
As for the Hannity interview and half the things being wrong.. yeah nah. Who exactly judges that? The supposed fact checking organisations are proven to have a left bias. The media has a bias, obviously Trump supporters have a bias, as do the left wing opposition.
I discount pretty much any claim like the amount of lies in the Hannity interview as bullshit.come on. this is such shit, it is the whole trump argument in a nutshell - discredit everyone and pretend everyone is equally unreliable so nobody knows what to believe and trump's nonsense is just as credible as anything else.
there is bias everywhere, yes. but there is a hell of a big range running from 'showing some bias' to 'blatant falsehood'. facts do still exist, and trump lets his mouth run away from him and flat out makes shit up.come on. this is such shit,
Because I have seen just as much (in fact more) bullshit and outright dishonesty from the long term Trump Derangement sufferers on the left and in the media.yes, i'm sure that no person in history has seen as much bullshit. the greatest at seeing bullshit. never before etc etc.
What?
-
I was thinking today about the importance of third party options, and how it relates to the US.
From my (fairly distant) perspective, the US is now locked in perpetual cycle of he said/she said politics. 'You think we're corrupt? Well YOU are WAY more corrupt than us.' or 'You think our President is bad? Well YOURS was way worse'.
And they are both kind of right - both sides of politics in the US are pretty rooted.
But it seems like the state of play there is resulting in people becoming even more entrenched in their views and voting intentions.
In Australia (not sure about NZ), it's almost the opposite - that sort of behaviour has seen primary votes for the two major parties slip to historic lows, and thousands of disaffected voters flocking to third party candidates on all points of the spectrum.
Now you can debate if that's a good thing for the running of the country until the cows come home, but I'd argue it has forced the hand of the two major parties to get back to basics, and focus on their core constituencies.
I just wonder if there was any avenue for 3rd party candidates to actually compete in the US (the current system IMO does not allow that), then you might see a different landscape.
-
Except the arrogant establisment are stupid or dishonest enough to think that this division is new or is Trumps fault. The left has been trying to shift the centre for quite awhile.
The current tantrums from the left is Just a bad reaction to the other side finally fighting back. Obama was an incredibly devisive president. He was loathed by the right, andhe didn't care and did nothing to close the divide. -
I don't doubt that Baron, and I'm not suggesting this is a particularly new phenomenon.
The situation now seems to be to be the same as it was 6-8 years ago - one side furiously pointing out the failures of the President (perceived or actual), while the other points back with equal fury, and argues the other side are hypocrites and have committed the exact same sins or worse. Just the roles are now reversed.
The difference now is obviously the media, and the angle from which they view events (though I'm not sure there's an angle where a President playing 70+ rounds of golf in 9 months looks good, but that's hardly relevant. Just something I read today).
-
You can't underestimate the role of the neo-Marxists and all of the useful idiots on the left pushing their political ideology for them. That has shifted the centre without a doubt, where even traditional liberal ideas are now seen as "controversial" or worse by many. It's become increasingly difficult to reason with these people and someone like Trump getting elected is, to some extent, a result of that.
Without a doubt Obama played the Identity Politcs game, and so did Hilary. Very divisive stuff.
I get what you mean @barbarian, and no doubt the lack of other options has led to their shockingly low voter turnout, and those that did vote appear very entrenched in their positions.
I really don't like the idea of following a political ideology. I think ideologies in general are parastic on society, as they remove the need for many to actually think critically about anything. People just blindly follow their side and wilfully block out any views or even facts that don't fit in with it. I'm sure other people would label me but I would never call myself "left" or "right", as that implies I have a particular view on a wide range of unrelated issues.
Basically anything that encourages a 'group think' mentality is counter to everything that has made western countries the most successful in human history.
I'm rambling a bit now but I guess my main point is that, as @Baron-Silas-Greenback points out, the centre has been shifting left recently and that has had a big impact on the political landscape in the States and also the west, to our own detriment.
-
@no-quarter said in US Politics:
I'm rambling a bit now but I guess my main point is that, as @Baron-Silas-Greenback points out, the centre has been shifting left recently and that has had a big impact on the political landscape in the States and also the west, to our own detriment.
not forgetting of course that 'the centre' used to condone slavery, homosexuality was illegal etc etc...
i understand (and share) your disdain for the awful shrieking members of the far left - particularly i despise any and all attacks on free speech - but i don't see those people in government anywhere. i see a republican us government, i see our election result, the uk etc etc. the centre right is doing just fine electorally. -
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@no-quarter said in US Politics:
I'm rambling a bit now but I guess my main point is that, as @Baron-Silas-Greenback points out, the centre has been shifting left recently and that has had a big impact on the political landscape in the States and also the west, to our own detriment.
not forgetting of course that 'the centre' used to condone slavery, homosexuality was illegal etc etc...
i understand (and share) your disdain for the awful shrieking members of the far left - particularly i despise any and all attacks on free speech - but i don't see those people in government anywhere. i see a republican us government, i see our election result, the uk etc etc. the centre right is doing just fine electorally.The identity politics that the left is pushing is closer to the thinking of slavery than anything on yhe right. As for homosexuality... the left have decided Muslims are higher up the victim ladder than gays.
US Politics