President chickens out in front of his daddy

[TitanTiger 20,482]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

As I’ve said, you don’t dictate intent nor arbitrarily have to right to dissect and isolate phrases, and in doing so, treat them as some sort of summation of an event to which they apply.

Again, I have no idea what you're saying or why it's apparently of such importance to you.

 

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I wasn’t asked what I ultimately thought occurred. I expressed one simple thought, among other thoughts, while engaging with another poster. I’ve not shrugged my shoulders. I have expressed no other comments about Trump to favor your assertions of error towards me. Your tactics might work with others, but I’m going to hold you to a higher standard. What you’ve purported so far as it relates to your dispute with my rhetoric simply won’t cut it. That’s not how this cookie is going to crumble.

Now you sit on it, and think. Heading to the Fifth Circuit, buddy. Catch ya on the flip side later.

It's not a tactic, it's a simple conversation.  Words, phrases, idioms - they have meanings.  They hold these meanings even if you didn't intent to convey that meaning.  If you meant to convey a different idea than what your chosen phrasing imparts, then the solution is simple - explain what you mean with different words.

[aubiefifty 16,793]

WHEN YOU LOSE FOX...

Fox News Hosts Bash Trump’s ‘Disgusting’ Putin Presser

Neil Cavuto, Abby Huntsman, Trish Regan, and Stuart Varney—all normally friendly to Trump—found themselves among Fox hosts bashing the president’s deferential Putin summit.

Maxwell Tani

Several prominent Fox News hosts could not believe what they saw Monday in President Trump’s overtly deferential presser with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The joint conference in Helsinki took a turn for the shocking when, after being asked by Reuters whether he held Russia responsible for meddling in the 2016 election, Trump said he holds “both sides responsible.” The president also directly contradicted his own intelligence officials, saying he believes Putin when he says Russia did not intervene in the election.

Advertisement

Following the presser, Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto—appearing on the Fox Business Network—called it a “disgusting” display.

Trump was “essentially letting the guy get away with this, not even offering a mild, a mild criticism,” Cavuto said. “That’s what made his performance disgusting. Only way I feel. Not a right or left thing to me. It is wrong.”

Fellow Fox host Stuart Varney, who routinely boosts Trump’s policies, bashed the president for what was “not a very forceful presentation.” Two of the conservative host’s guests joined in, saying Putin came out ahead.

“He outmaneuvered our president,” FBN business reporter Ashley Webster said. “I was very surprised. I thought Trump was going to push hard.”

Fox Business Network anchor Trish Regan, normally an enthusiastic Trump booster, described the press conference as “horrible.”

 

Fox Host Breaks With Trump on ‘Ridiculous’ Russia Tweet

Fox News Suddenly Questions Michael Cohen’s ‘Credibility’

Fox News Suspends Ex-Trump Aide for ‘Cotton-Picking’ Remark

“From what I saw, I did not like that our president was not defending us and honoring his intelligence community,” she said during her Monday show.

ADVERTISING

Fox & Friends Weekend host Abby Huntsman—daughter of Jon Huntsman, Trump’s ambassador to Russia—also minced no words in criticizing the president whom she regularly defends.

“No negotiation is worth throwing your own people and country under the bus,” she wrote in a forceful tweet following the presser. Her comment appeared to be pushing back on an emerging pro-Trump argument that the president’s deference to Putin was a means to making diplomatic in-roads with Russia.

Some of the network’s political correspondents seemingly agreed that Trump had failed.

White House correspondent Kevin Corke, who has previously flirted with alt-right politics, conceded on-air that Trump “did miss an opportunity,” while national correspondent Ed Henry said the president’s refusal to side with U.S. intelligence agencies was “really going to backfire on him.”

[McLoofus 35,182]

No, @aubiefifty, we're not supposed to quote Fox now that it's inconvenient for the "winners". 

Of course, nobody who considered Fox garbage before has changed their mind and it's painfully obvious that we're just pointing out that even typically insane people can see straight on this one.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

33 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Again, I have no idea what you're saying or why it's apparently of such importance to you.

 

It's not a tactic, it's a simple conversation.  Words, phrases, idioms - they have meanings.  They hold these meanings even if you didn't intent to convey that meaning.  If you meant to convey a different idea than what your chosen phrasing imparts, then the solution is simple - explain what you mean with different words.

Have you ever wondered why the Supreme Court hears oral arguments, instead of just always leaving it to the brief that respective attorneys have filed? No we’re not in court, but it’s symbolic of the inherent limitations of written words. You and Dub aren’t dumb guys - I would think y’all know better than to put so much weight and spur forth such conclusions from written words, or at least from such a minor phrase.

We can’t verbally communicate on here, Titan. I think this is a fair assessment when I say, lighten up. I offered no summation of my thoughts and it’s premature to derive intent from one simple phrase. You’re being overly combative towards something so minor.

I suppose you will argue that becuase we are in fact restricted, one must choose their words more carefully. I maintain my position, he spoke poorly. I hold as error, any comprehension that would hold that one phrase (among many) as my summation of the entire ordeal.

The bottom line is, what Trump did is indefensible - as I’ve said before. If I’ve made an overarching point, let that be it. 

Fair enough? 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Have you ever wondered why the Supreme Court hears oral arguments, instead of just always leaving it to the brief that respective attorneys have filed? No we’re not in court, but it’s symbolic of the inherent limitations of written words. You and Dub aren’t dumb guys - I would think y’all know better than to put so much weight and spur forth such conclusions from written words, or at least from such a minor phrase.

We can’t verbally communicate on here, Titan. I think this is a fair assessment when I say, lighten up. I offered no summation of my thoughts and it’s premature to derive intent from one simple phrase. You’re being overly combative towards something so minor.

I suppose you will argue that becuase we are in fact restricted, one must choose their words more carefully. I maintain my position, he spoke poorly. I hold as error, any comprehension that would hold that one phrase (among many) as my summation of the entire ordeal.

The bottom line is, what Trump did is indefensible - as I’ve said before. If I’ve made an overarching point, let that be it. 

Fair enough? 

Nola, no one's being combative.  We're just trying to explain to you why your description of Trump's actions yesterday weren't really accurate.  I'm not really sure why you're hellbent on sticking to your chosen phrasing rather than opting for something that better conveys your intent, but I give up trying to explain its insufficiency any further.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Nola, no one's being combative.  We're just trying to explain to you why your description of Trump's actions yesterday weren't really accurate.  I'm not really sure why you're hellbent on sticking to your chosen phrasing rather than opting for something that better conveys your intent, but I give up trying to explain its insufficiency any further.

I think it’s silly. But ok. No harm no foul

[Elephant Tipper 430]

52 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I think it’s silly. But ok. No harm no foul

fowl.  fify

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

No, @aubiefifty, we're not supposed to quote Fox now that it's inconvenient for the "winners". 

Of course, nobody who considered Fox garbage before has changed their mind and it's painfully obvious that we're just pointing out that even typically insane people can see straight on this one.

Good thing you got long arms so you can pat yourself on the back.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Since so many are finding someone to quote who agrees with them I throw one out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/17/rand-paul-sides-with-trump-on-russia-says-critics-motivated-by-dislike-president.html

[TitanTiger 20,482]

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Pres. Obama said in 2016 they had Russian meddling under control until Trump was elected. Therefore, according to him, there was no Russian meddling BEFORE the election.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obamas-team-said-it-had-russian-meddling-under-control-until-trump-won-says-gop-senator

[homersapien 11,374]

22 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Who knew a loudmouthed blowhard would turn out to be such a beta?

Putin made Trump wait for one hour before showing up, then was the first to speak.  You have to believe Putin has some serious goods on Trump the way he's rubbing it in. 

"Who's your daddy?"  

 

[homersapien 11,374]

21 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I wish President Trump had handled it differently. Accepting our intelligence and taking accolades for it, had he not won the election Russia would have never been an issue. Same meddling would have occurred but the Russia narrative and investigation would have not been important. Never would have  happened as far as are concerned.

 He is letting the ego get in the way a bit over an election that he legitimately won. Tired of it per most us I suppose.     

That's just pure, unadulterated BS.

There's a reason why the Russians helped Trump.  Putin hates Hillary. She publicly called out Putin's thuggish and corrupt "campaigning" for what it was.  And I am sure Hillary reciprocates that feeling.

To suggest Hillary would have simply ignored the clandestine Russian efforts to defeat her is absurd.  And to suggest the intelligence community would have just simply ignored it is yet another insult to them.

The investigation might not have had the prominence it has today, but that is largely due to the activities and reaction of the Trump campaign and Trump himself - see the comments by Trump Jr. in the "Tower meeting" and the constant "he doth protest too much" nature of Trumps denials of "collusion".

What we don't know yet, is if Trump and friends behavior means they actually are guilty or just supremely stupid and incompetent.  I have an open mind regarding that.

[homersapien 11,374]

20 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

 

 

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000;  and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

« Prev

 

Next »

 

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2381.html

"Crooked Hillary"?  Who ever runs against Trump in 2020 needs to trademark "Treasonous Trump".

[homersapien 11,374]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I wouldn’t have put it past him. It is not the first time he has chosen his words poorly. With that said, many others who “follow his story” come off as people who aren’t objective. What I mean is this: their positions don’t change - If Trump does it, it’s automatically condemnable. 

"chosen his words poorly"?

This episode was yet another window into what passes for his mind.   It wasn't just an unfortunate "choice of words".

But I am glad to see that you - for one - at least place an ultimate limit regarding his behavior.  I suppose that's a start.

[homersapien 11,374]

15 hours ago, AU64 said:

Not withstanding that liar Brennan's comments, I expect DT does not have much respect for many in the intelligence community after they set him up with the Steele dossier. The leadership of the FBI and intelligence community lost my respect a long time ago...not that it matters of course....but some are wondering who DT is working for but you might also want to consider who the intelligence community is loyal too also.   JMO

 

PS..my distrust in the intelligence community is not about the rank and file...but the top leadership is up their a** in political malfeasance and have repeatedly lied to congress and the American people. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

But I am glad to see that you - for one - at least place an ultimate limit regarding his behavior.  I suppose that's a start.

“That’s a start.” Seriously?

I’m consistent in my approach. You on the other hand, always sway to the left, no matter the context. 

If anything, this reveals that I am flexible, my feet aren’t simply glued to one side, and I exercise integrity. The same cannot be said of you, unfortunately. 

So no, do not speak to me as one who “has it together and is hoping I start to see the light.” Wisdom and honesty can come late. I truly hope you can attain it.

You should be more like Tex. He was honest.

[homersapien 11,374]

15 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Elle, I genuinely like you, but this is type of thing that hurts, not helps, the left's case.  It's far too hyperbolic to say he's a traitor at this time.  That simply hasn't been proven and is reckless speak that tends to give Trump supporters more reason to bunker down behind him.  When those folks say "you guys can't have a rational conversation", this is what they mean.  And by sharing/posting things like this instead of engaging in dialogue, you're less likely to change minds.

Seriously? 

This is about "changing minds". 

It's about confronting publicly confronting public mindlessness, which, as unfortunate as that may be,  is just as legitimate.

[homersapien 11,374]

15 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Here's where I see this.  Trump's loyalties lie with Trump.  No one or nothing else.  If flattering/cozying up to Putin benefits Trump, he'll do it.  If it's acting like a common man during the campaign that understands the plight of someone in Mobile, AL, he'll do it.  Go back and read things from people who have worked for him through the years.  It's all about what's best for DJT.

  Agreed.  This is right on.   And our country - and everyone else in it -  be damned. 

Now, one can quibble about whether or not such an attitude by the POTUS technically amounts to treason, but it's certainly enough to remove him from the office.

[homersapien 11,374]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Trump spoke poorly.

But then again, you say Trump is a racist too. It’s a shame that you’ve become so predictable in your posts. Objectivity would do you well.

Speaking of objectivity, there is a very strong case for Trump being racist.  Look it up.

[homersapien 11,374]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m not defending Trump, I’m just in disagreement with the collateral conclusion being spawned left and right.

Classic switch and bait strategy.   

That's exactly why Trump keeps hammering on it - to establish (possibly) unrealistic or unattainable objectives for the investigation.

If Mueller cannot provide conclusive evidence (tapes or documents) of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, then anything he does find is false or merely incidental - no helping of the Trump campaign by Russia; no other business connections with Trump and Russian, such as money-laundering loans.  The investigation was a failure, end of story.

[homersapien 11,374]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The fact that you're trying to call me out for not satisfying an arbitrary threshold of disdain-rhetoric is pure childish. Grow up. I expect more from you than this. 

You need to refocus on yourself instead of others. 

(And for a 20-something to tell anyone to "grow up" and "they expected more from them" is hilarious, ipso facto.  You don't seem to learn at all.)

Dub was absolutely correct.  Characterizing this episode as a poor choice of words on Trump's part is most certainly trying to minimize what he did, which was to give Putin the benefit of doubt at the expense of every extant US intelligence organization.

That's not a "poor choice of words".  It's a position that was clearly inferred and at least in part, expressed.

[homersapien 11,374]

15 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Was Trump wrong today? Absolutely. But I still see a rationale for why he said what he said........ Trump; like the media, always conflates the Russian meddling with the Mueller investigation of collusion.

Trump is willing to go so far as to still not fully admit that Russia meddled in our election because then the media can then turn it into "well Trump admitted that Russia meddled then that should also give validity to Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia". Anyone with an ounce of intellectually honesty should be able to admit that the media hate Trump so much that they would absolutely take Trump finally acknowledging Russia meddling and then run with it to validate Mueller's investigation which Trump  has always maintained is a witch hunt. The media love to take Trump's words and use them against him, even if he says something they agree with.

Trump knows if he gives an inch on the Russia stuff, then they'll try to take a mile from him and connect it to Russian collusion. That's why he's willing to shoot himself in the foot on a world stage in order to not give any credibility to the Mueller investigation. 

The reason he cannot admit Russia meddled in our election is because they did so on his behalf.

It doesn't matter if (some) of the media conflate the meddling/"collusion" issues as a result. In fact, most of the media I access make a clear distinction.  If anyone, it's the right wing media - and Trump himself - who are responsible for the conflating.   The last best example is the announcement of the indictment of 12 Russians.  Who kept pointing out no Americans (i.e.: anyone in the Trump organization) were indicted?   Trump and his apologists, that's who.  The media I use simply treated it as an outcome of investigation of Russian meddling, not an indicator of conspiracy.

Regardless, such an excuse you propose of the media misrepresenting it, in  no way justifies denying it happened. 

It's the same as saying Trump can't recognize the truth because it might hurt him somewhat politically, from a few partisan media sources, even though it clearly hurts our country to deny it. In other words, just another indicator of his unfitness for the office.

[homersapien 11,374]

15 hours ago, AUDub said:

Yeah yeah yeah, 91. I’m ready for your incoming wall of nonsense ad hominems about Dub being mean and hurting your fee fees, but before you post, consider this: THIS SUMMIT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. He put himself in that position, glorified an honest to God autocrat over his own IC. 

 

For crying out loud, the best you can do is “THE MEDIA WOULD HAVE TWISTED HIS WORDS!” Well, guess what. They don’t need to be twisted. What happened today was shameful. 

I ran out of "likes" somewhere on p. 4.

It is totally fascinating to watch these deniers rationalize what is so plainly evident. 

I feel like a "stranger in a strange land".

[homersapien 11,374]

14 hours ago, AUDub said:

*sigh*

He truly could. From what I’ve seen, he is pretty sharp when he wants to be. Can only imagine he’s obfuscating.

Titan isn’t wrong, Nola. There’s a lot of potential in you to be so much better.

Well, on the positive side, he's only 20-something so he's got his entire adult life left to develop.  That's no guarantee - as PT so aptly proves - but it at least it offers some hope.

In the meantime, it would be nice to see him drop this ridiculous arrogance.