Donald Trump and US politics

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

What possible purpose is served by turning a question by a jewish reporter about rising antisemitism into an answer about how well he did in the election?

Deflection.

Honestly, I'd do the same in his shoes. My honest answer would be a stronger redpill than the media (or you) could swallow. I'll just leave it at
1. No, I'm not anti-Semitic
2. The ascension of Black Lives Matter
3. Newton's third law of motion

"

SarahAustin wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

>casually and vaguely mention Sweden
>the entire media gets baited into throwing a tantrum over literally nothing
>everyone starts talking about sweden
>people get redpilled as fuck on sweden

7D check mate

The president of the united states used Fox news as his source. Nice of you to forget that. Typical Trump supporter, no critique on your supreme leader but on those that critique him and his way of gathering resources.

I didn't criticize anyone. Everything played out as expected. Trump didn't even say anything, that's what's so hilarous about this. He just vaguely mentioned Sweden.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

That would make sense were it not for his representatives' previous comments about Bowling Green and Atlanta. At what point does "the President of the United States and members of his administration making up fake terrorist attacks" become disturbing? I'd say "one", personally, but that's just me.

But then again, maybe I'm just stuck in the past, where what a president had to say had any meaning whatsoever, and people speaking from a position of extreme power chose their words carefully, so as to let their allies and enemies know when they were serious and when they were not. Maybe we're in a new paradigm, where absolutely nothing the president of the United States of America says can be taken literally, and they cannot be trusted to choose their words carefully and honestly. I wouldn't call that a good thing in any context, mind you, but maybe I just read too many books. Like 1984.

Among all of those many, many books you've read, did you ever happen across a treatise of self-righteousness?

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

SarahAustin wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

>casually and vaguely mention Sweden
>the entire media gets baited into throwing a tantrum over literally nothing
>everyone starts talking about sweden
>people get redpilled as fuck on sweden

7D check mate

The president of the united states used Fox news as his source. Nice of you to forget that. Typical Trump supporter, no critique on your supreme leader but on those that critique him and his way of gathering resources.

I didn't criticize anyone. Everything played out as expected. Trump didn't even say anything, that's what's so hilarous about this. He just vaguely mentioned Sweden.

This situation remind me a lot of what's going on right now with pewdiepie

Meanwhile in Europe

"

SarahAustin wrote:

Vaguely? He said something that just isnt true. Wow, you Trumplets are really blind to whatever he does.

Feel free to quote the untrue thing he said.

"

SarahAustin wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/19/sweden-trump-cites-non-existent-terror-attack

Note the part where it says "non existent"?

did you had the same reaction when khillary lied about this sniper attack on her plane?

Note that I find Trump way to uninformed on this affair and it is a mistake on his team not to double check what he is writing.

But once again,

did you get the same reaction when Khillary lied about her E-mails?

"

Head_Less wrote:

did you had the same reaction when khillary lied about this sniper attack on her plane?

Note that I find Trump way to uninformed on this affair and it is a mistake on his team not to double check what he is writing.

But once again,

did you get the same reaction when Khillary lied about her E-mails?

Yeah. I did. However, the election is kinda... over. Your guy won. Deflecting blame back to Clinton, or trying to play up a Tu Quoque argument, doesn't actually help your case. The Trump administration keeps on referencing terrorist attacks or disasters that didn't happen. Even if we assume it was because of poor information, I find that disturbing. Do you?

"

diablofdb wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

long ass post "islamophobia"

Exactly that is why people complain about that bill because of that word. We all know what it mean. Everytime someon slightly disagree with liberals values there's not even a half way word to describe it, you call them fascist. Everytime someone disagree with Islam they run to fight and call them Islamophobe.


So let's be honest, this is a law to send to prison everyone who would slightly disagree with islam.

No wonder you complain about my posts being long, you obviously can't read for shit. Here, cliffs notes:

- It's not a bill
- It doesn't change the law in any way

"

So let's be honest, this is a law to send to prison everyone who would slightly disagree with islam.

-You either need more medication or less, and I'm not sure which.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

What possible purpose is served by turning a question by a jewish reporter about rising antisemitism into an answer about how well he did in the election?

Deflection.

Honestly, I'd do the same in his shoes.

Wait, what? Instead of showing solidarity and understanding towards a community that overwhelmingly supported you in the election, you'd go off on a wild-ass tangent and accuse a reporter who clearly is on your side of lying for asking what should be a fucking softball question? I didn't think Trump was antisemitic before the election. This gives me reason to question that belief. Why the fuck would he do that? It makes no sense from a rational perspective. There's no need to deflect. It's like if you're asked "Do you think racism is a bad thing?" and then say, "Well, um, hey, I won the election, also, you said you were going to ask a simple question, you're lying, look at the press lying again". The fact that Trump was unwilling to answer the question speaks volumes in its own right. It's not a hard question. How hard is it to say, "I think antisemitism is wrong, and we're taking steps against it."? He didn't do that. He had two opportunities when asked by friendly reporters in a non-accusatory manner to take any kind of stance against antisemitism... And he didn't.