He’s 72. He said that when he was 69. It’s not like it’s a youthful mistake from his adolescence. I doubt his mind has changed much since then.
There’s no mind to change, he said that sentence in order to have all the media on a national level to show crime statistics that used to be absolutely haram.
If he mentioned the correct crime statistics, no one would have bothered. Since he made an hyperbolic claim, the media rushed to prove him wrong…only to serve his purpose.
He has done this over, and over, and over again…and the media keeps getting baited because they need the clicks.
Wait, so if I lie and exaggerate statistics and facts then I’m actually playing 4-dimensional chess! I think I’m starting to get it.
But his words have consequences. If the President says “these people are bad”, supporters of his are going to be influenced and act out on his words. There are better ways to get your point across than inciting hatred or suspicion.
He does, and it has worked for him. And I don’t think it’s fair to define his statements as lies, they’re hyperbolic.
I doubt Trump and the GOP are the ones inciting hatred or suspicion. I’ll not dig on twitter or 4chan to find all instances of members of the dems promoting hatred towards Trump voters, and the whole Russian nonsense is an easy fit for any claims of “inciting suspicion”.
GOP strategist? That means precisely nothing. And yes, she gets a failing grade for voting Hillary, and “purity” has nothing to do with it.
The key word here is “after.” Leading from behind and all that. And Obama’s feckless foreign policy is what encouraged Putin’s little adventure to begin with. And how did those sanctions work out? Oh yeah, Crimea annexation…
The big problem is that national newspapers, non-cable tv, and cable tv (other than FOX News and a handful of teacup news channels on the right) have been in the pocket of the Democrat party since Woodrow Wilson was pushing the US into WWI more than a hundred years ago.
Now nobody on the left can wrap their minds around Trump’s appeal. They don’t get it. That gets trumpeted in the news. Nothing happens. The Democrats find a bigger trumpet. Nothing happens. The Democrats scratch their heads and try again. Nothing happens. The Democrats find a new line of attack. Nothing happens. Repeat. Etc.
The Democrats can’t figure out why things that worked to move the dial for the last 100 years no longer work. It’s driven them batshit insane.
PS I don’t know what Ana Navarro is, but she’s not a Republican. Never heard of Joe Walsh.
Many of his statements are cute hyperbole, like him insisting that his inauguration had the largest attendance ever. These are cute hyperbole and can be forgiven(although as a European I find it weird, and this kind of excessive exaggerating would not be considered acceptable)
But, dude, some of his statements are not mere hyperbole but plain lies or at a very minimum untruthful.
I agree, sometimes he can cross the line. I even remember some public speeches or tweets during which he said things that were just wrong. More often than not though, people get all riled up about his hyperbolic statements that often contain inconvenient or problematic truths (illegal migrants crime stats, for example).
The international media didn’t care about the Russia-Germany pipeline, but as soon as Trump made an hyperbolic claim the media HAD to prove him wrong…showing everyone the existence of a Germany-Russia plan to build a gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea (not Nordic), against the will of other European countries and at a huge cost for Ukraine.
As I mentioned long time ago during the election period, this strategy is even written in his Art of the Deal book, he called it “truthful hyperbole”. It was working during his electoral campaign, but I’d have thought it would be possible for the same strategy to keep working nearly two years into his presidency. The cnn, salons, buzzfeeds etc etc of the world don’t seem to get it.
I’d really likely to know how “friendly” Trump and Putin’s talks were while far from cameras. Trump took a dump on Germany for a deal with Russia that will funnel nearly neverending amounts of Euro-shekels in Putin’s bank account, so I doubt Putin may have had a great opinion on that.
The nordic seas are north of Iceland. What you are referring to is called the Baltic Sea.
Dang, I confused the name. Yes, I meant that one.
The Nord Stream offshore pipeline is operated by the special purpose company—Nord Stream AG. Nord Stream AG was incorporated in Zug, Switzerland on 30 November 2005. Shareholders of the company are the Russian gas company Gazprom (51% of shares), German companies Wintershall and PEG Infrastruktur AG (Uniper) (both 15.5%), the Dutch gas company Gasunie (9%), and the French gas company Engie (9%). The Managing Director of Nord Stream AG is Matthias Warnig and the chairman of the shareholders’ committee is German ex-chancellor Gerhard Schröder.
If this is the pipeline you are referring to, then its built was initiated back in 1997, the ex chancellor Gerhard Schröder had his hands at play.
This has nothing to do with Merkel and I am the one who doesn’t even like her.
Anyhow, what is your suggestion? That we get our gas from the US (Trump)?
The EU and mostly Germany has its contracts with Russia, and why should we break our agreements. We are not Trump!
Also why should we put ourselves into a dependency for vital resources with Trump. After all Putin is more trustworthy than Trump!
Times have changed a lot since then. Germany has chosen this for Economic reasons, as is their right. But do not then complain about Ukraine and Russia at the same time , because you have thrown Ukraine under the bus. Their GDP is expected to take a 2-3% hit but more worryingly, is the risk that their pipeline will be destroyed in the future. Just giving more power to Putin in reality.
Nope, I’m talking about the second one.
This one will go through the Baltic sea, bypassing Ukraine and guaranteeing insane amounts of Euro-shekels for Putin.
I don’t know the geopolitical balances in place, just like no one on this forum does, so I can’t suggest anything. I just find the hypocrisy to be very interesting; if “Anonymous sources familiar with the matter” report some bullshit about Trump and Russia, it’s definitely true and deserves outrage because it shows that Putin is meddling with the American democracy. But if billions of euros are sent to Russia in exchange for gas…ah…that’s ok, making Germany and the Eu reliant on Russia for gas will clearly have no impact in politics. Nothing to see here, move along.
I am also talking about the second one and it’s effect on the Ukraine
Clickbait headline in a “respected” American newspaper yesterday. Who do they think will read this swill?
I know a few people on this forum will do!
[quote=“DrewCutz, post:2761, topic:159091, full:true”]
lol okay. What about labeling all undocumented immigrants from Mexico as “rapists.” [/quote]
San Francisco is a sanctuary city in the sanctuary state of California; if they like their illegal alien rapists, they can keep their illegal alien rapists! I do hope they keep them there, though.
Oh oops, sorry, he’s from Peru. My bad!
Well, it certainly doesn’t discourage it.
I was just talking with my friend the other day about this as well, how most people find is baffling and hard to comprehend Donalds appeal.
But one needs to keep in mind, the prior 8 years were not the norm but the exception.
The guy coming before Obama like literally believed people can fly, walk on water and turn water in to wine. Most people celebrate things like eastern and christmas out of tradition, but Bush was a grown up who actually believed in that stuff.