EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7832
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
Trump says Comey's testimony also vindicated him from allegations that he colluded with Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. "James Comey confirmed a lot of what I said. And some of the things that he said just weren't true," Trump said at an event in the White House Rose Garden. USA-TRUMP/RUSSIA Former FBI Director James Comey testified before a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election on Thursday. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters) Asked by a reporter if he had told Comey to drop the investigation into former national security adviser Flynn, Trump said, "I didn't say that." The reporter then asked, "So he lied about that?" "Well, I didn't say that. I mean, I will tell you, I didn't say that," Trump replied. Well Comey's word vs. Trumps In the court of public opinion, I think most people would trust Comey over Trump, hopefully there are tapes, because they'll in all likelihood vindicate Comey. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 10 2017 11:22 Buckyman wrote: Explain? "Investigate the Clinton Foundation" seems like a reasonable suggestion.. I'm sure they can get blood from that stone. Meanwhile at 1600, the Justice argues Trump can accept money from foreign companies. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On June 10 2017 10:49 KwarK wrote: Are you struggling with the concept of 100%? Because he said he was committing to it 100%. Yeah, that statement is a objectively a lie though. He never said he's committing to it 100%. That's something Theresa May said, not "he". He didn't say anything in answer to that statement, neither confirmation nor declination. That's why it actually is a big deal that he confirmed to stand up for Article 5. It's the first time that he actually confirmed something. Regardless of Spicers "well he was at the summit, so that alone means that he's 100% with it" - that's objectively a false statement because Trump made it clear beforehand (early this year and last year) that mere attendance and being in the NATO doesn't mean jack shit. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44361 Posts
On June 10 2017 12:34 m4ini wrote: Yeah, that statement is a objectively a lie though. He never said he's committing to it 100%. That's something Theresa May said, not "he". He didn't say anything in answer to that statement, neither confirmation nor declination. That's why it actually is a big deal that he confirmed to stand up for Article 5. It's the first time that he actually confirmed something. Theresa May was quoting Trump. She announced that Trump confirmed he was 100% behind NATO in their talks while summing up their talks in the mutual press conference. It was somewhat of a coup at the time, before it turned out that literally every foreign leader can get Trump in a room and change his previously stated positions and that May's achievement was nothing more than being the first NATO leader to meet him. Since then he's bitched about paying fair shares and tried to give Merkel an invoice but there was no mention of any of the "maybe we won't defend them" campaign rhetoric, as far as I know at least. Trump was shaky on article 5 in the campaign but the first time any NATO leader pushed him he stopped rocking the boat. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On June 10 2017 12:39 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: did he leak anything before he was fired? I'm not sure what the timeline is here. No, he was fired then defamed. He then leaked to his friend to show that Trump was full of shit. Now it's a battle of credibility. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On June 10 2017 12:39 KwarK wrote: Theresa May was quoting Trump. She announced that Trump confirmed he was 100% behind NATO in their talks while summing up their talks in the mutual press conference. It was somewhat of a coup at the time, before it turned out that literally every foreign leader can get Trump in a room and change his previously stated positions and that May's achievement was nothing more than being the first NATO leader to meet him. Since then he's bitched about paying fair shares and tried to give Merkel an invoice but there was no mention of any of the "maybe we won't defend them" campaign rhetoric, as far as I know at least. Trump was shaky on article 5 in the campaign but the first time any NATO leader pushed him he stopped rocking the boat. First: again, he didn't say anything in January. He might've said something to May, who knows. Funny though, that when he was talking, he didn't mention any of it. I don't think you can state "well he made it clear he's 100% with the NATO" if you hear it from the president/PM of a different country. And yeah, he always bitched about fair shares (Obama did too, rightfully so), the Invoice was a hoax - german spokesman Stefan Seifert confirmed that there was no such thing (that being said, i wouldn't put it behind trump, that's why i had no trouble believing it). I can't really say when the last time was that he ranted about how he wouldn't defend certain members, fact of the matter is though that it was part of his campaign. He literally went out to get votes with it. Even if he never mentioned it again after the campaign, i don't think one could or should expect others to just accept that "he's with us now on that". Especially not with someone so erratic as trump. And in regards to Article 5 specifically, he wasn't just shaky. Again, until just now he never actually made it clear that the USA would be a dependable ally if shit hits the fan for a member. You only had "maybe, maybe not" from the campaign, and silence after that. Apart from maybe the quote from PM May, which i personally wouldn't count as reaffirmation. Even when he had the chance, and you bet that people asked him that question at the Summit (private and openly), he didn't make his position clear. He has been building this obstruction case since Trump ask him to "let it go". That memo was evidence he always planned to release. And he only released it after he was fired. Not to mention that they weren't classified documents in the first place. There's no "leaking" unclassified documents. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 10 2017 13:01 Wulfey_LA wrote: The word leak is being seriously abused here. Unclassified stuff is never leaking period. Further, anonymous reports to the press about stuff Trump says isn't leaks either. Snowden/Manning/Winner certainly are leaks though. At this point it's clear that Trump doesn't hold any regard for what words mean when he uses them, but instead uses them because of the reaction he gets from his base. And thus American ignorance is successfully propagated. Just because you don't like a news story doesn't make fake news, and just because you don't like someone's testimony doesn't make them a leaker. I don't even know if "fake news" has an established definition. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44361 Posts
On June 10 2017 13:05 m4ini wrote: First: again, he didn't say anything in January. He might've said something to May, who knows. Funny though, that when he was talking, he didn't mention any of it. I don't think you can state "well he made it clear he's 100% with the NATO" if you hear it from the president/PM of a different country. Can you imagine being skeptical if May had met with Obama, come out of the conference, stood alongside him talking to the press, and declared "Obama just told me that he is 100% behind NATO"? I'm just not seeing the problem here. But if that's not enough evidence for you then that's fine. If I were to answer the question of who got Trump to commit to NATO I'd say Theresa May because that was first. But if you want to go with another answer then more power to you (as long as it doesn't involve events in the month of May influencing the meeting he had four months previously). | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On June 10 2017 13:13 NewSunshine wrote: At this point it's clear that Trump doesn't hold any regard for what words mean when he uses them, but instead uses them because of the reaction he gets from his base. And thus American ignorance is successfully propagated. Just because you don't like a news story doesn't make fake news, and just because you don't like someone's testimony doesn't make them a leaker. I don't even know if "fake news" has an established definition. It is a rhetorical twist to tar Comey and lump him in with Snowden/Manning/Winner. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28904 Posts
On June 10 2017 13:14 KwarK wrote: Can you imagine being skeptical if May had met with Obama, come out of the conference, stood alongside him talking to the press, and declared "Obama just told me that he is 100% behind NATO"? I'm just not seeing the problem here. But if that's not enough evidence for you then that's fine. If I were to answer the question of who got Trump to commit to NATO I'd say Theresa May because that was first. But if you want to go with another answer then more power to you (as long as it doesn't involve events in the month of May influencing the meeting he had four months previously). I think the issue is that Trump saying he's 100% behind something doesn't necessarily mean he's 100% behind something, because he might have said he's 100% against that same thing when talking to other people. Even with the recent clarification, I wouldn't be surprised to see him be significantly vaguer within the next two months, having a rally for his base where he says it hinges on them paying back the money they owe, or whatever. | ||
| ||
