monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Walter Hinteler,

Correct.

Trump's skin is way too thin and he doesn't appear to have learned that a strategy of counter-punching that served him well in the real estate business might not work with the presidency. Still, people tend to fall to old habits when under stress.

Khan's initial criticism of Trump included personal insults. I don't think he's trying to play the victim here, be if he did he would be full of it.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

So what do you propose?

An international ban on a religion of which the majority of adherents are good people?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

It's not likely this guy has any ties whatsoever to Islamist extremism. These unfortunate acts do happen, but it's not irrational to think "Jihadi" when one learns of an act of mass murder these days.

Now if giujohn was calling for the arrest of all Muslims in the area of the attacks, because of the attack, his reaction might very well be considered irrational, but that wasn't the case.

If you prefer to not think "Jihadi" when you see news of one of these attacks, that's fine, but what essential good it serves is beyond me so your obvious sanctimony is hardly warranted.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

And what do you make of the Trump decision.

Not exactly in keeping with someone who wants to obstruct any investigation is it?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And what do you make of the Trump decision.

Not exactly in keeping with someone who wants to obstruct any investigation is it?

I think he came to the only possible decision that he could in this instance. His tweets and public pronouncement have made it impossible for him to win an executive privilege argument in court. It was the right decision, regardless of his motivations though.

To your second paragraph: it's perfectly keeping in line with someone who doesn't want to publicly obstruct an investigation any further.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Not surprised at all by your take.

Everything he does is sinister...right?

If he really has something to hide and he thinks Comey could reveal it, he wouldn't worry about court challenges down the line.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I think Sadiq Kahn is pretty straightforward, which means I agree with you that he is not playing personal victim.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Not surprised at all by your take.

Everything he does is sinister...right?

If he really has something to hide and he thinks Comey could reveal it, he wouldn't worry about court challenges down the line.

Not saying it's sinister. Just providing an alternative take from yours. You presented your option like there was only one possible take.

I've no special insight into his motivations. I'm waiting for things to play out.

Whether or not Comey has anything damaging to reveal, we'll find out on Thursday. Why speculate now?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Of course there are millions and millions of decent Muslims throughout the world and it truly is unfortunate for them that they get tarred by the brush deserved by a significant minority that are horrendous human beings.

The folks you malign are not even close to US presidents, administration, US military, US defense contractors, the people who fly the illegal/immoral drones, the people who have slaughtered the tens of millions, soldiers on the ground who take part in US war crimes, the people who murdered the half a million Iraqi children, the people who ordered the war crimes, the people who work in the factories producing US munitions, ... ALL HORRENDOUS HUMAN BEINGS.

Then there are the folks like you, Finn, who delight in US carnage. ALL HORRENDOUS HUMAN BEINGS.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Trump's tweet was really stupid (as most of them are) but I don't know that he's ever picked a fight with anyone who didn't throw the first punch.

Why do you make such lame excuses for things you don't have a clue about?

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Quote:
Of course there are millions and millions of decent Muslims throughout the world and it truly is unfortunate for them that they get tarred by the brush deserved by a significant minority that are horrendous human beings.

The folks you malign are not even close to US presidents, administration, US military, US defense contractors, the people who fly the illegal/immoral drones, the people who have slaughtered the tens of millions, soldiers on the ground who take part in US war crimes, the people who murdered the half a million Iraqi children, the people who ordered the war crimes, the people who work in the factories producing US munitions, ... ALL HORRENDOUS HUMAN BEINGS.

Then there are the folks like you, Finn, who delight in US carnage. ALL HORRENDOUS HUMAN BEINGS.

I'm not saying that I agree with your viewpoint on US citizens and actions Camlok, but I do agree that our actions taken around the world can be interpreted that way if one chooses to.

It's really not any different than how many people interpret the Muslim community.

I do find it funny when some (not calling out anyone on this board) can call out the whole Muslim religion for the atrocities of the few, yet to your point, fail to see how the US' actions can be interpreted the exact same way.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Quote:

It is the lunatics who are interpreting that religion correctly, that is, who are interpreting that religion as it is actually written and as 1400 years of history proclaim it to be, correctly.

You don't know of what you speak. You are a brainwashed American repeating right wing memes.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

Quote:

On the US front, Trump will not block Comey testifying.

That's called having nothing to hide...

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If he really has something to hide and he thinks Comey could reveal it, he wouldn't worry about court challenges down the line.

Or he thinks that what evidence exists right now is simply "he-said vs he-said". There might not be any actual proof. That may be enough to let Trump argue his way out of whatever trouble is possible.

To block testimony would give actual evidence of possible obstruction which could only exacerbate his problems. It might give the prosecution (if it comes to that) yet another example, this one public, of obstruction.

Again, I've got no idea what's going on here. I'm waiting it out and simply challenging your very favorable take on it.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

Quote:
It is the lunatics who are interpreting that religion correctly, that is, who are interpreting that religion as it is actually written and as 1400 years of history proclaim it to be, correctly.

You don't know of what you speak. You are a brainwashed American repeating right wing memes.

Some of the 1400 years...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMY2YV9WucY&t=17s

https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history

Jesus said we'd know false prophets by their fruits. The fruits of I-slam are writ large in the pages of history books and newspapers alike.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

but I do agree that our actions taken around the world can be interpreted that way if one chooses to.

I'm surprised at your honesty, maporsche.

Again, I'm not defending any violence against anyone.

However, this isn't a matter of opinion by any one individual. It is the historical record, covered up by US propaganda.

1. A decent country doesn't spend 90+% of its years warring. And if you look at those, it's wars of predation upon poor defenseless countries.
2. A decent country doesn't have all its presidents equal to WWII war criminals who were hung for their crimes.
3. A decent country doesn't have over 75 illegal invasions to their credit in 72 years.
4. A decent country doesn't murder tens of millions of people just to steal their wealth.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

"Very favorable?"

Try "logical"

1 Reply

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Then there are the folks like you, Finn, who delight in US carnage. ALL HORRENDOUS HUMAN BEINGS.

When you're right you're right JTT.

I do especially enjoy a bit of brutal, bloody carnage!

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

"Very favorable?"

Try "logical"

Your premises are not necessarily true, however. Therefore your logical conclusion isn't necessarily true either. In fact, it's unknown, and also very favorable to Trump.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Not surprised at all by your take.

Everything he does is sinister...right?

If he really has something to hide and he thinks Comey could reveal it, he wouldn't worry about court challenges down the line.

You presented your option like there was only one possible take.

Whether or not Comey has anything damaging to reveal, we'll find out on Thursday. Why speculate now?

No I opined that the decision wasn't in keeping with someone who has something to hide. For whatever your reasons you've decided it's important to offer a counter-intuitive explanation, and speculate on it's design.

I'm not speculating about anything but you certainly are...in the cause of challenging my very favorable assumption of course Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know