Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump: Mattis is sort of a Democrat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    You do not remember things well. Obama did not call him any of these things! Here we are talking about the behavior of a political figure, and not the partisan press. This press has a history of viciously attacking politicians of the other side. I will remind you that before Romney the right wing lunatic press with the help of Trump was trying to depict the president as an illegitimate Muslim. In other words, Trump is the products of that cesspool which existed even before Romney!
    I don't normally defend Trump, but on this one specific point I'll make an exception. For years and years now, it usually wasn't the candidate who said the especially disparaging and nasty thing about his opponent, but a campaign staffer, or a volunteer, or an interested third party. To tell the truth, I think that tactic a bit phony. Barring an outright termination or some other dramatic act, we all end up believing that the candidate was behind the nasty remark, and is merely hiding behind those other parties only to shield himself/herself from criticism. Trump is doing away with that hypocrisy. He's acting as his own Spiro Agnew, so to speak. Now it's Trump himself saying those nasty things. It ain't pretty, but it's probably more honest that the more traditional tactic of saying it through someone else and then denying it after the fact.

    Back to the OP, if Trump wants to fire Gen Mattis -- which Rupert Murdoch's New York Post reported a month ago -- then this is a pretty slimy way to go about it. Typical for a politician, but slimy nonetheless.

    https://nypost.com/2018/09/15/trump-...ulls-his-fate/
    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
      I don't normally defend Trump, but on this one specific point I'll make an exception. For years and years now, it usually wasn't the candidate who said the especially disparaging and nasty thing about his opponent, but a campaign staffer, or a volunteer, or an interested third party. To tell the truth, I think that tactic a bit phony. Barring an outright termination or some other dramatic act, we all end up believing that the candidate was behind the nasty remark, and is merely hiding behind those other parties only to shield himself/herself from criticism. Trump is doing away with that hypocrisy. He's acting as his own Spiro Agnew, so to speak. Now it's Trump himself saying those nasty things. It ain't pretty, but it's probably more honest that the more traditional tactic of saying it through someone else and then denying it after the fact.

      Back to the OP, if Trump wants to fire Gen Mattis -- which Rupert Murdoch's New York Post reported a month ago -- then this is a pretty slimy way to go about it. Typical for a politician, but slimy nonetheless.


      https://nypost.com/2018/09/15/trump-...ulls-his-fate/

      I agree that it was usually the people around the politician who were tasked with the mudslide. But I also believe that the ability to deny an allegation published by the press or "anonymous" sources is what kept the glass intact. In a way], it is no different from your personal or professional life. It may be more honest if you say some nasty things to particular coworkers you really do not like, but this "fake" if you want politeness is still necessary for a functional workplace or social life in general.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

        I don't normally defend Trump, but on this one specific point I'll make an exception. For years and years now, it usually wasn't the candidate who said the especially disparaging and nasty thing about his opponent, but a campaign staffer, or a volunteer, or an interested third party. To tell the truth, I think that tactic a bit phony. Barring an outright termination or some other dramatic act, we all end up believing that the candidate was behind the nasty remark, and is merely hiding behind those other parties only to shield himself/herself from criticism. Trump is doing away with that hypocrisy. He's acting as his own Spiro Agnew, so to speak. Now it's Trump himself saying those nasty things. It ain't pretty, but it's probably more honest that the more traditional tactic of saying it through someone else and then denying it after the fact.

        Back to the OP, if Trump wants to fire Gen Mattis -- which Rupert Murdoch's New York Post reported a month ago -- then this is a pretty slimy way to go about it. Typical for a politician, but slimy nonetheless.

        https://nypost.com/2018/09/15/trump-...ulls-his-fate/
        Interesting point.
        You are right.
        Candidates have always had their designated "attack dogs".
        We all knew they were just speaking the candidate's words but went along with the fiction.

        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pamak View Post
          I agree that it was usually the people around the politician who were tasked with the mudslide. But I also believe that the ability to deny an allegation published by the press or "anonymous" sources is what kept the glass intact. In a way], it is no different from your personal or professional life. It may be more honest if you say some nasty things to particular coworkers you really do not like, but this "fake" if you want politeness is still necessary for a functional workplace or social life in general.
          I hear what you're saying, and don't necessarily disagree -- but you have to admit that that's a two-edged sword. Civility can't be a trait for one side alone. Indeed, the Counter-Culture and the anti-war movement of the 1960s relished incivility, and made it an end in and of itself. During the anti-Bush protests of this decade past, specifically during the 2004 Republican National Convention, six-foot tall pink foam rubber penises were considered the height of civility. This is not a "but they started it!" kind of argument. I'm saying that if one side is civil and the other is not, then you have on your hands a decided imbalance in the public square, and that will have to be addressed some way or another. Usually in the next electoral cycle.

          Here's two very interesting views on the subject:

          So where did bobos ["Bourgeois Bohemians"] come from? Brooks makes an historical point that conservatives would do well to grasp about the causes of the student revolt of the 60's, from which they of course did come and which conservatives frequently treat as an inexplicable social explosion. He shows that between about 1955 and 1965, the elite universities of this country went from admitting students on the basis of membership in the old genteel social elite to admitting them on the basis of brains and SAT scores. Naturally, these new students looked at the existing establishment and saw that it wasn't a meritocracy, so they bitterly turned on it. The fact that it was this very establishment that had set up the new meritocracy did not engender gratitude, or even mild skepticism about whether it could really be as evil as they thought. Other things that went out the window: self-control, moderation, civility, etc, were attacked because they were part of the old elite's way of doing things.

          Brooks points out that now that the new elite is secure, many of these things, like civility, are making a comeback. And why not? Civility is conservative because it limits how vigorously one can attack the status quo, and the bobos would very much like to conserve what they now have. If this implies that they are now the fuddy-duddies, then so what? Logical consistency is not a bohemian virtue.

          https://archive.li/JNENJ#selection-369.0-373.398
          The other I'll have to produce from memory, as I've not found it on-line, but it was from an interview with Anna Akhmatova, the late Soviet poetess and dissident. Allow me to paraphrase: When we were young, we laughed and ridiculed the old people for their genteel manners. We looked forward to the revolution doing away with all of those stuffy old manners. With the revolution, profanity was no longer looked down upon, but elevated as laudable. What we did not know was that once it became acceptable to curse people with words, it would become acceptable to curse them with bullets.
          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by pamak View Post
            Originally posted by Tsar View Post

            Well I guess your side should have shown some civility to past presidential candidates then. Romney was probably the most decent person to run since at least the 19th century. But instead of treating him that way you made him into an animal hating misogynist.
            Trump is a result of dirty fighting, you did it and now you are paying the price.
            Again the dems get back what they started.


            You do not remember things well. Obama did not call him any of these things! Here we are talking about the behavior of a political figure, and not the partisan press. This press has a history of viciously attacking politicians of the other side. I will remind you that before Romney the right wing lunatic press with the help of Trump was trying to depict the president as an illegitimate Muslim. In other words, Trump is the products of that cesspool which existed even before Romney!

            So tell me have you always had a problem with reading comprehension or has it developed lately?

            Point out to me where I said O’'Bama in my post, anywhere in it. I said your side. Later I referred to the dems meaning the party and the MSM which are 80% dems and 85% left wing nut cases.
            Next time you wish to misquote someone pick someone that won'’t notice.
            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
              He talks to much but says little. He should just keep the pie hole close, sometimes.
              Is that not par for the course for any politician?

              Tuebor

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Tsar View Post

                So tell me have you always had a problem with reading comprehension or has it developed lately?

                Point out to me where I said O’'Bama in my post, anywhere in it. I said your side. Later I referred to the dems meaning the party and the MSM which are 80% dems and 85% left wing nut cases.
                Next time you wish to misquote someone pick someone that won'’t notice.


                But if you want to make comparisons with Trump you have to pick Obama, not the liberal press! If you want to talk about the people who spread liberal propaganda then the proper comparison is with those on the lunatic right on radio or the TV or the press who spread conservative propaganda . So, my point that you did not comprehend was that your comparison was invalid
                Last edited by pamak; 17 Oct 18, 03:20.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  You do not remember things well. Obama did not call him any of these things!
                  Here we are talking about the behavior of a political figure, and not the partisan press. This press has a history of viciously attacking politicians of the other side. I will remind you that before Romney the right wing lunatic press with the help of Trump was trying to depict the president as an illegitimate Muslim.
                  1 Of course not : Romney was a RINO,who supported Obamacare, who preferred Hillary to Trump and who was funded by Soros ($ 17250 following Open Secrets ) and Soros said that there was not much difference between Obama and Romney
                  2 The first who started the birther story was the Hillary camp in 2008 .Besides, the birther story was used in the past by the Democrats against Romney ,McCain, Goldwater , Arthur.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                    1 Of course not : Romney was a RINO,who supported Obamacare, who preferred Hillary to Trump and who was funded by Soros ($ 17250 following Open Secrets ) and Soros said that there was not much difference between Obama and Romney
                    2 The first who started the birther story was the Hillary camp in 2008 .Besides, the birther story was used in the past by the Democrats against Romney ,McCain, Goldwater , Arthur.


                    Romney did not support Obamacare. Stop making comments about the US politics when you do not know the FACTS! Even though Romney's state had a system of state healthcare, he OPPOSED Obamacare because the latter was a FEDERAL program.

                    Also, saying that someone is a "RINO" implies that his views are at odds with the mainstream views of the "real republicans." This is NOT the case for somebody who won the republican nomination unless you try to make the silly claim that the majority of the republican voters are RINOs.

                    Also, I thought that you believed that Soros' views were at odds with those of the common Americans. Are you saying now that both Soros and the majority of the republican voters agreed to fund Romney? I guess this makes the majority of the republican common voters instruments of the "swamp."

                    Finally, as I explained here, I separated the issue of allegations coming from people around a politician from the issue of the politician himself making such allegations. In addition, regardless of the origin of the rumor regarding Obama's birth certificate, it was obvious that Hillary for some reason did not want to openly endorse or support the conspiracy theory. And I am saying that this stance is qualitatively different (less polarizing) from the stance of a person who openly wants to undermine the legitimacy of the opponent.
                    Last edited by pamak; 19 Oct 18, 18:09.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post
                      Originally posted by Tsar View Post

                      So tell me have you always had a problem with reading comprehension or has it developed lately?

                      Point out to me where I said O’'Bama in my post, anywhere in it. I said your side. Later I referred to the dems meaning the party and the MSM which are 80% dems and 85% left wing nut cases.
                      Next time you wish to misquote someone pick someone that won'’t notice.


                      But if you want to make comparisons with Trump you have to pick Obama, not the liberal press! If you want to talk about the people who spread liberal propaganda then the proper comparison is with those on the lunatic right on radio or the TV or the press who spread conservative propaganda . So, my point that you did not comprehend was that your comparison was invalid

                      If it had been only O'’Bama spreading the propaganda they could have been easily ignored as lies (much like his "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor") but it was the whole DNC/MSM machine that did it.

                      The right wing has nowhere near the reach of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, NYT or a thousand other media outlets.
                      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                      Comment


                      • #41


                        Originally posted by Tsar View Post

                        If it had been only O'’Bama spreading the propaganda they could have been easily ignored as lies (much like his "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor") but it was the whole DNC/MSM machine that did it.

                        The right wing has nowhere near the reach of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, NYT or a thousand other media outlets.


                        Of course they have the reach! It is in the local media and the church which also influence public opinion....
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post
                          Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                          1 Of course not : Romney was a RINO,who supported Obamacare, who preferred Hillary to Trump and who was funded by Soros ($ 17250 following Open Secrets ) and Soros said that there was not much difference between Obama and Romney
                          2 The first who started the birther story was the Hillary camp in 2008 .Besides, the birther story was used in the past by the Democrats against Romney ,McCain, Goldwater , Arthur.


                          Romney did not support Obamacare. Stop making comments about the US politics when you do not know the FACTS! Even though Romney's state had a system of state healthcare, he OPPOSED Obamacare because the latter was a FEDERAL program.

                          Also, saying that someone is a "RINO" implies that his views are at odds with the mainstream views of the "real republicans." This is NOT the case for somebody who won the republican nomination unless you try to make the silly claim that the majority of the republican voters are RINOs.

                          Also, I thought that you believed that Soros' views were at odds with those of the common Americans. Are you saying now that both Soros and the majority of the republican voters agreed to fund Romney? I guess this makes the majority of the republican common voters instruments of the "swamp."

                          Finally, as I explained here, I separated the issue of allegations coming from people around a politician from the issue of the politician himself making such allegations. In addition, regardless of the origin of the rumor regarding Obama's birth certificate, it was obvious that Hillary for some reason did not want to openly endorse or support the conspiracy theory. And I am saying that this stance is qualitatively different (less polarizing) from the stance of a person who openly wants to undermine the legitimacy of the opponent.
                          Politico October 23 2015 : Romney said : Without Romneycare, there would be no Obamacare .
                          Officially the GOP was hostile to Obamacare, in reality they supported Obamacare, that's why McCain and Romney lost : people will always chose the original ( Obama ) and not the copy ( McCain/Romney ).
                          Both McCain and Romney supported Obamacare ,the same for the swamp RINOS : when the GOP had the majority in Congress,they did nothing against Obamacare;the leftwing GOP Mainstreet Partnership ,with 70 members in Congress blocked all attempts to repeal Obamacare. Its Mainstreet Individual Fund receives money from Soros .

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                            Politico October 23 2015 : Romney said : Without Romneycare, there would be no Obamacare .
                            Officially the GOP was hostile to Obamacare, in reality they supported Obamacare, that's why McCain and Romney lost : people will always chose the original ( Obama ) and not the copy ( McCain/Romney ).
                            Both McCain and Romney supported Obamacare ,the same for the swamp RINOS : when the GOP had the majority in Congress,they did nothing against Obamacare;the leftwing GOP Mainstreet Partnership ,with 70 members in Congress blocked all attempts to repeal Obamacare. Its Mainstreet Individual Fund receives money from Soros .




                            As usual you are deceiving people by hiding the whole picture! This is why you did not want (as usual) to post the link

                            So, from the same link you use: Politico October 23 2015

                            https://www.politico.com/story/2015/...n-globe-215112

                            Romney has long argued that his Massachusetts plan was never meant to be expanded to the national level, and he pledged in 2012 to grant every state a waiver from the law on his first day as president. He’s long advocated the law’s repeal.

                            Officially, now most people, including republicans, support Obamacare. This is why it was so difficult for the republicans to repeal Obamacare. The reason people like you and some others here are so much against Obamacare is because all of you have some form of government insurance and have zero experience with the private US system! So, it is easy to BS us with your theories regarding the perils of government insurance.

                            And since you like to use Politico...

                            Politico September 2018

                            https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ections-774975

                            A POLITICO-Morning Consult poll released Sept. 12 found that registered voters of every age group overwhelming responded that they trust Democrats in Congress more than Republicans to protect people with pre-existing conditions.

                            Another Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that three-quarters of the public believe it’s “very important” to preserve the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including nearly 60 percent of Republicans.


                            I guess Politico also spreads Soros' propaganda....
                            Last edited by pamak; 20 Oct 18, 05:57.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X