Not a mumbling word about Trump's "America not so innocent" comment

[Hank]

I'm shocked! :lol: :lol:


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-05/asked-about-putin-trump-says-us-isn-t-so-innocent

[PaceAdvantage]

That's something mostpost might say...or hcap...or SteveR...or any of the other liberals who have posted here over the years.

Trump says a lot of things that liberal Democrats support wholeheartedly, yet you guys hate him with all your might and will not stop until he is impeached...

Odd....but not out of character for disingenuous liberals.

[TJDave]

Trump says a lot of things that liberal Democrats support wholeheartedly.

What things?

[PaceAdvantage]

What things?Google is your friend.

[barahona44]

Google is your friend.
It is the obligation of those who make an accusation to prove it.

[TJDave]

Google is your friend.

No. You made the statement. Back it up.

[PaceAdvantage]

The "America not so innocent" is a staple of the left...a hallmark of the Obama "apology tour" for starters.

Here's another one...Trump said "no more foreign 'nation-building' wars," which is another hallmark of the left...they completely opposed the "neo-con", nation-building wars of GWB.

I've given you two easy ones that did not require Google at all...you guys should know this by now.

Trump is as much Democrat as he is Republican, yet the Dems hate him with a passion heretofore unseen...nice job media and anti-Trumpers...you guys continue to amaze.

Just a shame you couldn't stop him from actually winning the election... :rolleyes: :lol: :jump:

[Greyfox]

The "America not so innocent" is a staple of the left...a hallmark of the Obama "apology tour" for starters.



Exactly! :ThmbUp:
Trump is more blunt. Obama hid his verbal knives for America in velvet sheaths.

[RunForTheRoses]

I'm under no allusions regarding American Foreign policy. We have done many harmful things. I wish we could scale back and not entangle with other people's business. We have become an Empire, a dysfunctional one at that. both within and without.

I would categorize my views as Paleo-Libertarian sometimes it groks with mainstream conservatives sometimes not.

[TJDave]

There is a significant difference between accepting violence and apologizing for it.

[PaceAdvantage]

I should change your name to "ConfuciusDave"

[TJDave]

Man who has last laugh, not get joke.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

That's something mostpost might say...or hcap...or SteveR...or any of the other liberals who have posted here over the years.

Trump says a lot of things that liberal Democrats support wholeheartedly, yet you guys hate him with all your might and will not stop until he is impeached...

Odd....but not out of character for disingenuous liberals.
There is certainly an element that hates Trump. My opinion is not so emotional. I believe whether Trump comes up with a good idea or a not so good one, his ability to sell the idea and implement it is clumsy. Take the "Muslim ban." He probably had the support of a majority of Americans, but he didn't take the time to dot the i's and cross the t's. He should have gotten a legal opinion from the White House staff to figure out where there might be legal problems. He didn't think through the obvious exceptions - e.g., flight attendants from foreign airlines overnighting. He didn't explain the flaws in the previous system that needed to be fixed and he didn't explain what things he was going to do to fix them. The whole good part of the idea got lost in the way it rolled out.

I thought his Supreme Court nominee was a good pick. The guy is totally qualified and deserves a hearing.

I'm not sure what he's done to merit impeachment talk at this point. Being ham-handed doesn't qualify under high crimes and misdemeanors.

As for the Putin apology, again, it wasn't so different in substance from the apologies Obama gave, it was again just clumsy.

"There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?"

Actually it was very New York and those of us from NY saw it as something two guys talking in Brooklyn might have said. Unfortunately, there is a large fraction of America that doesn't quite get the vernacular.

Trump will never be other than Trump. If you never learn how to read him, it's always going to be a problem. On the other hand, if he never learns how to say "We go a lot of killers" in a more sophisticated way, he's going to create some of his own problems.

[Tom]

There was chatter.

WE agreed Trump spoke the truth, as Obama murdered people illegally.
It's called the truth....you can't hide from it.

The left was adamant that Bush murdered millions of Iraqis....now you have a problem with this?


Sears all out of big boy pants?:lol::lol::lol:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There was chatter.

WE agreed Trump spoke the truth, as Obama murdered people illegally.
It's called the truth....you can't hide from it.

The left was adamant that Bush murdered millions of Iraqis....now you have a problem with this?


Sears all out of big boy pants?:lol::lol::lol:
Way to come totally off the wall. It's good to know that no attempt at reasonableness will avoid the pitchfork, axe handle response.

[boxcar]

I'm shocked! :lol: :lol:


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-05/asked-about-putin-trump-says-us-isn-t-so-innocent

I'm hard-pressed to understand all this current anti-Putin sentiment -- a sentiment that clearly was not present when Obama was at the helm. In fact, BO was praised by his lapdogs for helping to heal old wounds between Russia and the U.S. Do you remember this story, for example:

Barack Obama microphone gaffe: 'I'll have more flexibility after election'

President Barack Obama was caught on microphone telling Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more flexibility after November's election to deal with contentious issues such as missile defence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9167332/Barack-Obama-microphone-gaffe-Ill-have-more-flexibility-after-election.html

Sounds like Obama was pretty chummy with Putin and more than willing to work with him after the mid term elections, of course. And the fact that Obama wanted to wait until after those elections tells us immediately that he fully understood that his deal would not sit well with conservatives and independents, ego the postponement.

But now...Putin is the devil incarnate?

[Nitro]

There is certainly an element that hates Trump. My opinion is not so emotional. I believe whether Trump comes up with a good idea or a not so good one, his ability to sell the idea and implement it is clumsy. Take the "Muslim ban." He probably had the support of a majority of Americans, but he didn't take the time to dot the i's and cross the t's. He should have gotten a legal opinion from the White House staff to figure out where there might be legal problems. He didn't think through the obvious exceptions - e.g., flight attendants from foreign airlines overnighting. He didn't explain the flaws in the previous system that needed to be fixed and he didn't explain what things he was going to do to fix them. The whole good part of the idea got lost in the way it rolled out.
I think before anyone else spews out more fictional rhetoric about the Trump administration’s motives and justification for his “Temporary” executive order they should take a look at some factual information:

TRUMP VINDICATED AGAIN – ISLAMIC IMMIGRANTS VIOLATE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952!

https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/trump-vindicated-again-islamic-immigrants-violate-immigration-and-nationality-act-of-1952/
.
.

[Tom]

Way to come totally off the wall. It's good to know that no attempt at reasonableness will avoid the pitchfork, axe handle response.

It is exactly on point.
We, the US, through Obama, have murdered people.
Do you disagree with that?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It is exactly on point.
We, the US, through Obama, have murdered people.
Do you disagree with that?
Murdered is a legal term that doesn't apply to combatants. Killed, can't deny it. Collateral damage - well that's a little more complicated.

[davew]

Murdered is a legal term that doesn't apply to combatants. Killed, can't deny it. Collateral damage - well that's a little more complicated.

Don't you have to be at war to have combatants? or are the terrorists carrying around signs and blocking freeways in many US cities combatants?

[_______]

There is certainly an element that hates Trump. My opinion is not so emotional. I believe whether Trump comes up with a good idea or a not so good one, his ability to sell the idea and implement it is clumsy. Take the "Muslim ban." He probably had the support of a majority of Americans, but he didn't take the time to dot the i's and cross the t's. He should have gotten a legal opinion from the White House staff to figure out where there might be legal problems. He didn't think through the obvious exceptions - e.g., flight attendants from foreign airlines overnighting. He didn't explain the flaws in the previous system that needed to be fixed and he didn't explain what things he was going to do to fix them. The whole good part of the idea got lost in the way it rolled out.

I thought his Supreme Court nominee was a good pick. The guy is totally qualified and deserves a hearing.

I'm not sure what he's done to merit impeachment talk at this point. Being ham-handed doesn't qualify under high crimes and misdemeanors.

As for the Putin apology, again, it wasn't so different in substance from the apologies Obama gave, it was again just clumsy.

"There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?"

Actually it was very New York and those of us from NY saw it as something two guys talking in Brooklyn might have said. Unfortunately, there is a large fraction of America that doesn't quite get the vernacular.

Trump will never be other than Trump. If you never learn how to read him, it's always going to be a problem. On the other hand, if he never learns how to say "We go a lot of killers" in a more sophisticated way, he's going to create some of his own problems.

His 7 nation ban for "national security reasons" was mishandled because his White House left the Department of Homeland Security, all national intelligence agencies, and all segments of the Defense Department out of the loop.

Had they bothered to solicit input, I'm sure you would have seen a smoother implementation with less after the fact scrambling to explain what exactly it meant and how it was to be implemented.

I'd be more willing to attribute this to a rookie error were it not for his repeated "Muslim ban" rhetoric during the campaign. I guess we're supposed to believe that involving the actual national security apparatus in national security decisions is a waste of time. This White House knows better.

[AndyC]

There is certainly an element that hates Trump. My opinion is not so emotional. I believe whether Trump comes up with a good idea or a not so good one, his ability to sell the idea and implement it is clumsy. Take the "Muslim ban." He probably had the support of a majority of Americans, but he didn't take the time to dot the i's and cross the t's. He should have gotten a legal opinion from the White House staff to figure out where there might be legal problems. He didn't think through the obvious exceptions - e.g., flight attendants from foreign airlines overnighting. He didn't explain the flaws in the previous system that needed to be fixed and he didn't explain what things he was going to do to fix them. The whole good part of the idea got lost in the way it rolled out.

I thought his Supreme Court nominee was a good pick. The guy is totally qualified and deserves a hearing.

I'm not sure what he's done to merit impeachment talk at this point. Being ham-handed doesn't qualify under high crimes and misdemeanors.

As for the Putin apology, again, it wasn't so different in substance from the apologies Obama gave, it was again just clumsy.

"There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?"

Actually it was very New York and those of us from NY saw it as something two guys talking in Brooklyn might have said. Unfortunately, there is a large fraction of America that doesn't quite get the vernacular.

Trump will never be other than Trump. If you never learn how to read him, it's always going to be a problem. On the other hand, if he never learns how to say "We go a lot of killers" in a more sophisticated way, he's going to create some of his own problems.


On this we concur!

[Show Me the Wire]

I'd be more willing to attribute this to a rookie error were it not for his repeated "Muslim ban" rhetoric during the campaign. I guess we're supposed to believe that involving the actual national security apparatus in national security decisions is a waste of time. This White House knows better.

And here is the crux of the matter. People are conflating campaign rhetoric with an executive order pausing immigration of people from countries without functioning central governments.

[_______]

And here is the crux of the matter. People are conflating campaign rhetoric with an executive order pausing immigration of people from countries without functioning central governments.

How is cutting out national security agencies from an alleged national security decision supposed to be viewed?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I think before anyone else spews out more fictional rhetoric about the Trump administration’s motives and justification for his “Temporary” executive order they should take a look at some factual information:

TRUMP VINDICATED AGAIN – ISLAMIC IMMIGRANTS VIOLATE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952!

https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/trump-vindicated-again-islamic-immigrants-violate-immigration-and-nationality-act-of-1952/
.
.
I'd like to say something rational in response, but once you've dived off the deep end I'm pretty sure the connection to rationality has been broken.

First, I said nothing about Trump's motives. I didn't say the ban was either good or bad. I simply commented on his actions. I simply said he was clumsy in his implementation and I cited his failure to account for flight attendants overnighting as a demonstration that the implementation was not completely thought out. Whoever he was trying to keep out of the country, I don't think it was flight attendants who have already gone through "extreme vetting." This may shock you, but an airline has a really big motivation to make sure anyone that works on their airplanes is not a terrorist.

Second, the blog piece is a good example of diving off the deep end. The fact that nobody has given serious credence to the use of the 1952 act (it's been amended and replaced many times since 1952) should be your first clue. Even your hero hasn't tried to make that legal argument.

I've always said that the only way you know there are rational people is by the existence of irrational people.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Don't you have to be at war to have combatants? or are the terrorists carrying around signs and blocking freeways in many US cities combatants?
How did all those people wind up at Guantanamo? You know the answer to your second question.

[davew]

Not a mumbling word about Trump's "America not so innocent" comment


He was talking about what 0bama, Biden and Clinton did - not about the US civil war 150 years ago.

[Show Me the Wire]

How is cutting out national security agencies from an alleged national security decision supposed to be viewed?

Well according to Kelly they were not. Also, we did not have the information that the President had at the time. Maybe time was of the essence to prevent a pending attack.

[_______]

Well according to Kelly they were not. Also, we did not have the information that the President had at the time. Maybe time was of the essence to prevent a pending attack.

Sure. Kelly has proven herself a completely reliable source. I'll take her word over everyone else who didn't invent the term "alternate facts".

And while it's remotely possible there is a national security threat the President hasn't already tweeted about it does seems out of character.

If Kelly is right and everyone was consulted, why was there so much post EO clarification? The Departmet of Defense dropped the ball on Iraqi interpreters? Homeland Security (in charge of immigration) didn't think about current green card holders?

It was a rush job by a rookie administration. There should be no shame in admitting that. Pants down. Everyone sees it.

Learn from the mistake and do a better job in the future.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sure. Kelly has proven herself a completely reliable source. I'll take her word over everyone else who didn't invent the term "alternate facts".

And while it's remotely possible there is a national security threat the President hasn't already tweeted about it does seems out of character.

If Kelly is right and everyone was consulted, why was there so much post EO clarification? The Departmet of Defense dropped the ball on Iraqi interpreters? Homeland Security (in charge of immigration) didn't think about current green card holders?

It was a rush job by a rookie administration. There should be no shame in admitting that. Pants down. Everyone sees it.

Learn from the mistake and do a better job in the future.

My fault, I was referring to John Kelly, DHS. I agree there was miscommunication resulting by trying to keep the actual date of execution from being leaked.

Also, the President did not have any input from his AG due to political games, which, more than likely, impacted communications.

Of course it could be the result of a rookie administration. However, I stand by my point about people conflating campaign rhetoric with an order regarding immigration from countries with out a functioning central government.

[TJDave]

It is exactly on point.
We, the US, through Obama, have murdered people.
Do you disagree with that?

Every president had blood on their hands.

[_______]

My fault, I was referring to John Kelly, DHS. I agree there was miscommunication resulting by trying to keep the actual date of execution from being leaked.

Also, the President did not have any input from his AG due to political games, which, more than likely, impacted communications.

Of course it could be the result of a rookie administration. However, I stand by my point about people conflating campaign rhetoric with an order regarding immigration from countries with out a functioning central government.

Okay. I was mistaken also in assuming that you were referring to his spokesperson.

To your last point, I would say that we are getting used to clarifications from others about what the President actually meant when he clearly said or tweeted something else.

At some point, he is going to have to begin speaking and acting as the leader of the most powerful nation in human civilization if he wants that nation (and others) to assume his campaign rhetoric was just that. I still assume, as most of his supporters here do, that he meant what he said during the campaign. And weigh his actions in that context.

[dlivery]

T R U M P ON WORDS: We are going in and then we are going to put a Team Of Lawyers on it (TRUMP OWN "WORDS"):rolleyes:

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

What things?

Two things right off the bat.

"I was opposed to the war in Iraq."

"Planned Parenthood has done a lot of good things."

I, for one, promise not to support everything President Trump says, and probably not everything he does. But as long as he does the things he promised in the campaign, he will go down as the greatest President ever. EVER!

[Hank]

That's something mostpost might say...or hcap...or SteveR...or any of the other liberals who have posted here over the years.

Trump says a lot of things that liberal Democrats support wholeheartedly, yet you guys hate him with all your might and will not stop until he is impeached...

Odd....but not out of character for disingenuous liberals.


Whats important about an assertion, it's source or it's veracity?

[Tom]

Every president had blood on their hands.

Then Trump spoke the truth.
Why the uproar?

[Tom]

And here is the crux of the matter. People are conflating campaign rhetoric with an executive order pausing immigration of people from countries without functioning central governments.

Pretty much a no-brainer.

[boxcar]

Every president had blood on their hands.

Some more than others. Let's not forget all the blood shed by Americans here on U.S. soil who lost their lives at the murderous hands of illegal aliens whose acts were facilitated by presidents who refused to enforce immigration laws. All these presidents are accessories to murder!