Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...

[*PhilHos*]

(07-18-2018, 02:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yep.  made up nicknames like Trump uses versus me explaining what he does what he looks like make me a hypocrite.
Trump supporters will say anything to protect him.

Got it.

Indeed you did!  Admitting you have a problem is the first step!

Bye!

GMDino Wrote:Trump supporters will say anything to protect him.

Probably. Doesn't make you any less a hypocrite.


BTW, not a Trump supporter, soooooooooooooooooooooooo ...

[jj22]

(07-19-2018, 11:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would agree with that.  There is a difference between statements like that and him proposing a course of action.



While I agree that Trump's words were ill advised I think the outrage over them has been a bit hyperbolic.  No, he should not have intimated that he believes Putin over our own intelligence services.  I was listening to Howard Stern yesterday and he made a very good point, IMO.  He pointed out that Trump seems to feel that acknowledging Russian interference somehow diminishes his electoral victory and thus his authority.  hence his reluctance to flat out admit the obvious.  


I'll take your word for it.

So we allow him to sell America out for his personal gain? I agree this is why he won't admit Russia attacked America, and why he won't speak ill of Putin,  but it should disgust (not shock) all of us that he's more worried about himself then National Security.

Excusing it (not saying you specifically, but Trump supporters) just seems inexcusable given he is the POTUS and it's not about him but about this Nation.

But we are seeing Trump supporters don't really care much if at all about America. Just Trump. Which is why he isn't held accountable like any other POTUS would be, and he's allowed to personally make millions off of Tax Payers and benefit personally (financially) from any deal made on behalf of America.

[GMDino]

(07-19-2018, 11:52 AM)PhilHos Wrote:



Probably. Doesn't make you any less a hypocrite.


BTW, not a Trump supporter, soooooooooooooooooooooooo ...

That's what they all say while they are defending him from anything negative.  It's fun to watch.

There's a word for people who claim to be one thing while doing another....can't remember it.  Starts with an "H".  I'll look around the board and see if anyone uses it a lot to talk about other posters.   

[Dill]

(07-19-2018, 11:10 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah then you learned something strange. I for one still think it's concerning when he calls the media the real enemy of the people, even if he doesn't follow through with it.

Regarding the matter at hand, I don't think he'll follow through with that and let Russians do the investigations on themselves and on US citizens. Yeah, that won't happen. That doesn't mean that what he said is irrelevant and not worth a mention. An US president embarrassing himself and the country matters.
If you don't think he embarrassed himself and the country, because he just said words or for whatever reason, there's only half a country in the whole world seeing it like that.

As for your gun fight with Dino, I don't want to get into that. I believe you when you say you were right in said thread.

It is very concerning.  And concerning that it is not concerning to so many voters.

Not clear how "follow through with it" distinguishes mere words from action when we are talking about presidential speech, which has more "performative" power than that of any other human being on the planet.

If Trump just threatens a trade war with Great Britain, that can affect stock markets worldwide, even if he does not "act" to start the war. If he promises to hold to the Iran Treaty one day and blows it up the next, then foreign powers factor that into US credibility and future negotiations on any subject. (Trump defenders, not known for their foreign policy acumen, see this as good. Keeping the freeloaders on their toes.) Foreign intel services create psychological profiles of every US president for use by their diplomats. Trump's profile advantages US adversaries and disconcerts friends--because of his verbal performances AS MUCH as his actions: the numerous factual errors, lies, and ignorance of how his own government functions. E.G. Praising Putin's suggestion that his people work with our intel services (and learn their methods) or that we submit a former ambassador to their interrogation--the worst possible judgment in a job which, it is globally agreed, requires exceptional judgment. So bad, terrible, even if we don't turn over the ambassador.

The problem would be oh so clear if people could just translate this into a football analogy. Suppose Marvin announced a new era of cooperation with the Steelers, and held a press conference with Tomlin, acknowledging how Tomlin had some good ideas on how to restructure the Bengals' defense, even offered to send some of his coaching staff over to help shore up the secondary during the coming season. All this while praising Tomlin's strength.  This might sound very pleasant and reasonable to people who know nothing about football and these teams' rivalry. People should get along, right? 

Football fans of all teams, however, would recognize how disqualifying such judgment would be in a professional coach. Not an accident, a one off mistake any coach could make, but profound incompetence, fundamental inability to grasp the nature of the game. What Bengals fan would think everything was still fine because the Bengals organization would not allow Marvin to make good on Tomlin's offer? Still, Steelers fans, possibly even Ravens and Browns, would cheer Marvin's willingness to reach out. A historic first for Bengals' coaching history.

In the case of Trump's attacks on the free press, that does signal an authoritarian and anti-democratic instinct in someone who governs by "instinct."  He doesn't hold real press conferences. That is a kind of action. He strives publicly to discredit the free press, while standing shoulder to shoulder with Putin, who kills journalists. That is a kind of action too. Not just words. His followers dismiss the "fake news" of responsible news organization at his say so. One can think of many statements that are patently lies outside the Trump bubble, but affect the political decisions  of his base as "alternative facts" and truth--even though they are only words. (How many illegal voters gave Hillary the popular vote?) "Only words" keep the bubble together, with help from some less reputable news organizations.

[jj22]

Media: Lying

Comey: Lying

Obama: Lying

Clinton: Lying

Stormy: Lying

Strozk: Lying

Mueller: Lying

Judges: Lying

19 Sexual assault accusers: Lying

Climate change scientists: Lying

17 Intelligence agencies: Lying

Putin: “He means it, I believe him”

[hollodero]

(07-19-2018, 11:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would agree with that.  There is a difference between statements like that and him proposing a course of action.

Sure. I think it's a difference that doesn't matter that much though.
If he makes an outrageous proposition, it might be a relief to know he won't follow through - it really doesn't make his words any better though.
To follow up on that, also I do think words matter and no country can afford a president for whom that is not the case.

(07-19-2018, 11:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: While I agree that Trump's words were ill advised I think the outrage over them has been a bit hyperbolic.

Yeah, maybe. I see it as having different perspectives though. I haven't really seen an unreasonably argued outrage. Maybe Brennans tweet, but I actually think he's not that far off either.
Trumps words were worse than any possible hyperbolic reaction to his words. Is my perspective.

(07-19-2018, 11:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   No, he should not have intimated that he believes Putin over our own intelligence services.  I was listening to Howard Stern yesterday and he made a very good point, IMO.  He pointed out that Trump seems to feel that acknowledging Russian interference somehow diminishes his electoral victory and thus his authority.  hence his reluctance to flat out admit the obvious.  

Yeah I already was aware of that explanation. It sure does make some sense. My problem with it is, it only could explain half of it (I don't expand on that). Also, if that were his concern, wouldn't his best move be being more hostile to Putin. Instead of constantly reinvoking the "He's in Putin's pocket" chatter by being super-obsequious.

[Dill]

(07-19-2018, 12:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I already was aware of that explanation. It sure does make some sense. My problem with it is, it only could explain half of it (I don't expand on that). Also, if that were his concern, wouldn't his best move be being more hostile to Putin. Instead of constantly reinvoking the "He's in Putin's pocket" chatter by being super-obsequious.

I'd say his best move would be to put US security above his personal brand. That he cannot see or do this, along with all the rest of what he cannot seem to see or do, is extremely disconcerting.

It is not ok or "understandable" because he wanted an unambiguous victory over Hillary. How you gonna get that after publicly inviting the Russians to go for her emails?

And you are right; the personal insecurity about his "big victory" hardly explains the full range of un-presidential behavior, why he must repeatedly and publicly admire a dictator's "strength" and strive so publicly to get his approval. He didn't need to call for a summit with Putin. He didn't need to diss US allies, single out Montenegro, the thorn in Putin's side.

[Dill]

(07-19-2018, 09:59 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/18/opinions/donald-trump-wrong-nato-montenegro-cristol/index.html

President Donald Trump implicitly questioned why Americans should die for Montenegrins, saying they were "very aggressive people" who may trigger World War III.

LMFAO. It's as big as Rhode Island. What is wrong with that guy ?

The idea might not actually be his.  Putin attempted to prevent Montenegro from joining NATO.

http://time.com/5341790/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-montenegro-nato/
http://thehill.com/policy/international/397653-mccain-trump-plays-right-into-putins-hands-by-attacking-montenegro

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-trump-montenegro-20180718-story.html#

“Russians were unhappy when Montenegro joined NATO,” Dobbins said. “Russia has criticized NATO and said it’s unnecessary, outdated and a legacy of the Cold War.”

In 2016, Russia was accused of trying to stage a coup in Montenegro in order to replace its government with one that was pro-Kremlin.

Richard Anderson, a political scientist at UCLA, said Montenegro’s vulnerability to Russian aggression illustrates the importance of including smaller countries in NATO.
“Montenegro has a coastline so Russians have a way to get to them,” Anderson said. “But what makes them vulnerable is that they are next to Serbia” — a Russian ally.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-19-2018, 12:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's what they all say while they are defending him from anything negative.  It's fun to watch.

Please show me where I defended Trump in this thread. 

(07-19-2018, 12:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: There's a word for people who claim to be one thing while doing another....can't remember it.  Starts with an "H".  I'll look around the board and see if anyone uses it a lot to talk about other posters.   

Ummmmm, that's not what a 'hypocrite' is. 

Also, are you honestly saying that anyone that does not criticize Trump at all times for all things is a Trump supporter? Really? Please explain why I should ever take anything you say seriously again.

[GMDino]

[*bfine32*]

(07-19-2018, 01:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Please show me where I defended Trump in this thread. 


Ummmmm, that's not what a 'hypocrite' is. 

Also, are you honestly saying that anyone that does not criticize Trump at all times for all things is a Trump supporter? Really? Please explain why I should ever take anything you say seriously again.

If you do not jump on every bandwagon criticizing everything Trump does: you are defending him. 

If you point out the irrational behavior in those that criticize everything he does: you are defending him

If you agree with even one move he has made sense he has became POTUS: You are defending him

If you point out that Hillary was an equally flawed candidate: You are defending him

If you disagree with any point made by the left: You are defending him

[hollodero]

(07-19-2018, 10:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you point out that Hillary was an equally flawed candidate: You are defending him.

That one I agree with, that is defending him.

[GMDino]

(07-19-2018, 10:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you do not jump on every bandwagon criticizing everything Trump does: you are defending him. 

If you point out the irrational behavior in those that criticize everything he does: you are defending him

If you agree with even one move he has made sense he has became POTUS: You are defending him

If you point out that Hillary was an equally flawed candidate: You are defending him

If you disagree with any point made by the left: You are defending him

If you never agree he did something wrong or dumb: You are defending him.

If you have to bring up something Hillary Clinton did: You are defending him.

If you say "I've spoken out many times against Trump" but it always comes after ten pages of trying to spin his own words/actions into something they are/were not: You are defending him.

It's not a hard concept really.  I post something the President did, like, say, siding with Putin one day, saying his misspoke the next and all the while still casting doubt on US intelligence..  I propose it is wrong/stupid.  If rather than use sources or information as to why it is not someone uses snark and whataboutism then they are simply having a knee jerk reaction and defending Trump at all costs.

Like when someone might say we should not make fun of a person's looks and claim they have called others out for such behavior and then they don't do it when someone is making fun of someone they don't like.  They might think they are being morally superior but really they are just hypocrites. In this case when they defend Trump about absolutely everything (even when they say it is indefensible) and then complain that people say they are always defending Trump so they must support him they are equally confused.

I know too many people who defend Trump...at least they admit to it.  They like him.  They will vote for him again.  He can do no wrong.  Everything bad about him is fake and the media is out to get him.  But, again, they admit it.  They don't say "I'm not supporting him...I just need to make sure you know the truth!"  They are Trump supporters.  Just like all defenders are.

[Benton]

(07-19-2018, 10:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you point out that Hillary was an equally flawed candidate: You are defending him

That one generally is. HRC — even though she's had fewer illegitimate children, bankruptcies, Russian business deals, distances of sexual assault and paid off fewer porn stars — is irrelevant. Republicans had several candidates to chose. They picked Trump. Saying Trump was better because he was less flawed ignores the fact that there were 72 other Republican candidates for POTUS. Republicans picked Trump.

Saying after the fact that Trump was the only choice because of HRC's emails is like saying you have to rob a bank because starvation is horrible while walking by a half dozen help wanted signs. 

And there was still Gary Johnson for those of us who didn't like either of the two major party candidates.

[Belsnickel]

(07-20-2018, 10:54 AM)Benton Wrote: And there was still Gary Johnson for those of us who didn't like either of the two major party candidates.

And Evan McMullin.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2018, 01:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Please show me where I defended Trump in this thread. 

He can't and he won't even try.  He won't even respond because of these facts.

(07-19-2018, 10:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you do not jump on every bandwagon criticizing everything Trump does: you are defending him. 

If you point out the irrational behavior in those that criticize everything he does: you are defending him

If you agree with even one move he has made sense he has became POTUS: You are defending him

If you point out that Hillary was an equally flawed candidate: You are defending him

If you disagree with any point made by the left: You are defending him

100% correct.

(07-20-2018, 08:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: If you never agree he did something wrong or dumb: You are defending him.

I don't think that's a claim that can be truthfully made about any poster on this board outside of maybe Lucie.  You sling a lot of mud, you never back it up with examples.

[Benton]

(07-20-2018, 11:04 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: And Evan McMullin.

Who?







But yeah, there were options. The last two presidential elections have been a good chance for the 45% that don't identify with either party to make their voice heard. Not that they all would have any one candidate in common. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen as long as the two major parties push the notion that if you don't vote for their candidate, ARMAGEDDON! DOOM! And higher taxes.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2018, 12:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure. I think it's a difference that doesn't matter that much though.
If he makes an outrageous proposition, it might be a relief to know he won't follow through - it really doesn't make his words any better though.
To follow up on that, also I do think words matter and no country can afford a president for whom that is not the case.

I agree with this.  I'd also point out that Trump didn't undergo a radical personality shift once he was elected.  he's been this way from the beginning, he's what people voted for.  Disagree with the people who voted for him all day, it doesn't change the fact that Trump didn't pull some kind of bait and switch routine.  He's giving us what we asked for when we elected him. 

Quote:Yeah, maybe. I see it as having different perspectives though. I haven't really seen an unreasonably argued outrage. Maybe Brennans tweet, but I actually think he's not that far off either.
Trumps words were worse than any possible hyperbolic reaction to his words. Is my perspective.

There are Dem members of Congress calling this "treason".  This is an enormous accusation to make.  Treason is a capital offense.  Throwing around the accusation because of one statement, ill advised as it may have been, is the height of hyperbolic bullshit.  The problem for Trump's opponents, and their supporters, is that the overreact to his extreme statements.  In so doing they actually come off looking worse than Trump in many, if not most cases.  It's why you see so many Trump voters sticking with Trump and the uncommitted aren't joining "La Resistance".  If the Dems advanced a more cogent and coherent counter to Trump they would probably be able to win over voters like myself.  Instead they appear to be going in the far opposite direction with calls to abolish ICE, have open borders, calls for socialism and other far left proposals that are going to turn moderates of all stripes off in droves.

Quote:Yeah I already was aware of that explanation. It sure does make some sense. My problem with it is, it only could explain half of it (I don't expand on that). Also, if that were his concern, wouldn't his best move be being more hostile to Putin. Instead of constantly reinvoking the "He's in Putin's pocket" chatter by being super-obsequious.

Yes, it absolutely would, which makes me think there's less credibility to these accusations.  If Trump was in Putin's pocket then they're both playing this badly.  Putin is a bad person in many ways, but he is not stupid.  If Trump really was his puppet then he's pulling the strings in a horribly ill advised manner.  But it all gets back to one of our previous discussions, how do we deal with Russia from this point forward?  Do we further isolate them, push them further towards China, punish them with more sanctions or do we seek some form of rapprochement?  (Lots of French in this reply!) 

[*bfine32*]

(07-20-2018, 10:54 AM)Benton Wrote: That one generally is. HRC — even though she's had fewer illegitimate children, bankruptcies, Russian business deals, distances of sexual assault and paid off fewer porn stars — is irrelevant. Republicans had several candidates to chose. They picked Trump. Saying Trump was better because he was less flawed ignores the fact that there were 72 other Republican candidates for POTUS. Republicans picked Trump.

Saying after the fact that Trump was the only choice because of HRC's emails is like saying you have to rob a bank because starvation is horrible while walking by a half dozen help wanted signs. 

And there was still Gary Johnson for those of us who didn't like either of the two major party candidates.

I have been told in the forum: If you didn't vote for Hillary in a state Trump won then you voted for Trump. So welcome to the world of the Trump supporter.

[GMDino]

(07-19-2018, 01:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Please show me where I defended Trump in this thread. 


Ummmmm, that's not what a 'hypocrite' is. 

Also, are you honestly saying that anyone that does not criticize Trump at all times for all things is a Trump supporter? Really? Please explain why I should ever take anything you say seriously again.

Nope.  I'm saying every time someone, anyone post a negative story about post the usual suspects jump in to defend him.  

Rarely they will say "Not that I think what he did/said was right...but we need to stop focusing on everything the POTUS does."

VERY rarely will one of those people agree that the act/words were wrong/dumb and not try to twist it or say we have to ignore it because...reasons.

No one (other than me ) has to criticize Trump all the time.  But to see how rarely those on the right can even admit he made a mistake?  Those can't deny their support for him, even if they say they didn't vote for him.

(07-20-2018, 11:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think that's a claim that can be truthfully made about any poster on this board outside of maybe Lucie.  You sling a lot of mud, you never back it up with examples.

So you'll just ignore every time I've quoted and highlighted something?  Okie dokie.

I mean I know you ALWAYS cite your opinions sources so it will be hard for me to live up to your standards.  But "I'll take your word" on your opinion about this matter.

Oh...and I said this to clarify for people who felt personally attacked by being called a "Trump supporter".

(07-20-2018, 08:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: If you never agree he did something wrong or dumb: You are defending him.

If you have to bring up something Hillary Clinton did: You are defending him.

If you say "I've spoken out many times against Trump" but it always comes after ten pages of trying to spin his own words/actions into something they are/were not: You are defending him.

It's not a hard concept really.  I post something the President did, like, say, siding with Putin one day, saying his misspoke the next and all the while still casting doubt on US intelligence..  I propose it is wrong/stupid.  If rather than use sources or information as to why it is not someone uses snark and whataboutism then they are simply having a knee jerk reaction and defending Trump at all costs.

Like when someone might say we should not make fun of a person's looks and claim they have called others out for such behavior and then they don't do it when someone is making fun of someone they don't like.  They might think they are being morally superior but really they are just hypocrites. In this case when they defend Trump about absolutely everything (even when they say it is indefensible) and then complain that people say they are always defending Trump so they must support him they are equally confused.

I know too many people who defend Trump...at least they admit to it.  They like him.  They will vote for him again.  He can do no wrong.  Everything bad about him is fake and the media is out to get him.  But, again, they admit it.  They don't say "I'm not supporting him...I just need to make sure you know the truth!"  They are Trump supporters.  Just like all defenders are.