Is Trump's credibility finally sunk?

[metis]

And Hillary was a saint? C'mon! (BTW Hillary was by far a bigger "hawk" than Trump ever thought about being. Why would the Donald want to Nuke a potential customer?)

One of the men who prepped Trump for the debates with Hillary said that Trump asked him that since we have nukes, why aren't we using them. He also said much the same to another man, but I can't remember who.

Also, Trump on more than one occasion mentioned about how he would use carpet bombing techniques against ISIS and that he would "bomb the hell out of them". He has also said he would be willing to use pre-emptive bombing against North Korea and has moved ships into that immediate vicinity.

Hillary never made any such charges.

 

[Kemosloby]

I assume you're referring to Fox, Limbaugh, and Breitbart, right?

All of it, two sides of the same coin.

 

[Revoltingest]

One of the men who prepped Trump for the debates with Hillary said that Trump asked him that since we have nukes, why aren't we using them. He also said much the same to another man, but I can't remember who.

Also, Trump on more than one occasion mentioned about how he would use carpet bombing techniques against ISIS and that he would "bomb the hell out of them". He has also said he would be willing to use pre-emptive bombing against North Korea and has moved ships into that immediate vicinity.

Hillary never made any such charges.

I like how your quotes entirely lack quotes & sources.

 

[Stevicus]

I assume you're referring to Fox, Limbaugh, and Breitbart, right?

Even with these examples, I wouldn't necessarily say that they're outright "untruthful." If Fox News said that "rain is wet," I would believe them.

The media's deceptive ways are more a matter of choosing which stories/issues they're going to cover, and which ones they're going to ignore. What facts and information do they choose to include in a story, and what do they omit?

Project Censored - The News that Didn't Make the News and Why

This is a good site which checks the media. It's not just Fox News; they're all basically on the same side.

 

[metis]

Even with these examples, I wouldn't necessarily say that they're outright "untruthful." If Fox News said that "rain is wet," I would believe them.

The media's deceptive ways are more a matter of choosing which stories/issues they're going to cover, and which ones they're going to ignore. What facts and information do they choose to include in a story, and what do they omit?

Project Censored - The News that Didn't Make the News and Why

This is a good site which checks the media. It's not just Fox News; they're all basically on the same side.

Yes, but we also have to be careful about falling victim to false equivalencies. Just because a grape and a bowling ball are round, I wouldn't recommend eating the latter, even if it is substantially higher in fiber.

 

[metis]

For anyone interested: Joe Scarborough: Donald Trump Asked Three Times Why 'U'S. Can't Use Nukes'

 

[BSM1]

One of the men who prepped Trump for the debates with Hillary said that Trump asked him that since we have nukes, why aren't we using them. He also said much the same to another man, but I can't remember who.

Also, Trump on more than one occasion mentioned about how he would use carpet bombing techniques against ISIS and that he would "bomb the hell out of them". He has also said he would be willing to use pre-emptive bombing against North Korea and has moved ships into that immediate vicinity.

Hillary never made any such charges.

Try to get the quote right. He said that he would "...bomb the Hell out of them and take their oil." Don't you think that would tend to stop ISIS in their tracks? If your son or daughter faced the possibility of a shooting conflict with an enemy wouldn't you want a President that would "bomb the Hell" out of that enemy before our soldiers had to go in?

 

[BSM1]

Do you even know what "the media" actually is?

There is no reason to suspect Hillary would use a nuke. Trump, on the other hand, thinks a TV-response is appropriate for the subject.

What is a 'TV-reponse'?

 

[Notanumber]

For anyone interested: Joe Scarborough: Donald Trump Asked Three Times Why 'U'S. Can't Use Nukes'

citing an unnamed source

 

[BSM1]

It's an interesting phenomenononenon. Because Hillary lost, & The Donald won,
it's easy for the determined partisan to see the worst in the latter's every action,
while imagining that the former would've embodied only the best case scenarios.
In short.....the grass is greener on the neighbor's lawn.

So true. The biggest problem now, as I see it, is keeping your goat on your side of the fence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What is a 'TV-reponse'?

"Keeping people in suspense" is appropriate for garnering TV ratings. However, it does not work for domestic or international policy. People's lives, especially as many that a nuke can destroy, are not issues to be kept waiting in suspense. Personally I'd rather a president go back to the ideas of "mutually assured destruction" because it is a policy of reason that acknowledges the lives of myriads of civilians could be ended overnight, with no real winner because the destruction and death is far beyond comprehension. Trump's "suspense" remark is more suitable for a tv executive or producer to say as they justify ending a season on a cliff hanger.

 

[BSM1]

"Keeping people in suspense" is appropriate for garnering TV ratings. However, it does not work for domestic or international policy. People's lives, especially as many that a nuke can destroy, are not issues to be kept waiting in suspense. Personally I'd rather a president go back to the ideas of "mutually assured destruction" because it is a policy of reason that acknowledges the lives of myriads of civilians could be ended overnight, with no real winner because the destruction and death is far beyond comprehension. Trump's "suspense" remark is more suitable for a tv executive or producer to say as they justify ending a season on a cliff hanger.

Hmmm...seems to be working. What, in your opinion, is one of the main reasons we don't take a harder stance against North Korea? Could it be that we believe Kim is just crazy enough to pull the trigger on a nuke?
Connect the dots.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, but we also have to be careful about falling victim to false equivalencies. Just because a grape and a bowling ball are round, I wouldn't recommend eating the latter, even if it is substantially higher in fiber.

Perhaps a better analogy might be a grape and a raisin. I don't see them as all that different from each other.

 

[leibowde84]

Well Obama and Hillary dillary have lol.

Is that the only defense you have for Trump? You just point to your own opinion about Obama and Hillary?

 

[leibowde84]

And Hillary was a saint? C'mon! (BTW Hillary was by far a bigger "hawk" than Trump ever thought about being. Why would the Donald want to Nuke a potential customer?)

I hear this a lot. What did Hillary do that Trump is unwilling to do politically that makes Hillary a bigger Hawk?

 

[Sapiens]

Seeing that the whole system seemed against our elected president Trump, it is no surprise to me that they are blind to any evidence which would support Trump and the media's "watchful eye" can perceive them as lies. Can Trump fire Comey or disband the FBI?

The president may remove a director for cause.

Congress can remove the FBI director by impeachment.

 

[Stevicus]

I hear this a lot. What did Hillary do that Trump is unwilling to do politically that makes Hillary a bigger Hawk?

Trump wants a peaceful relationship with Russia, while Hillary (and Obama) were trying to provoke Russia. That makes Hillary the bigger hawk.

 

[Akivah]

It actually isn't. It may well have been the case, but it was a real close shave and Hillary actually won the popular vote.

I amended my earlier post, by saying he won over half of the non-Californian vote.

Whatever motivated Trump voters is anything but self-evident.

I speculated that voters outside of CA, considered Hillary to be a worse liar than Trump. What do you think motivated more non-Californian people to vote for Trump (or against Hillary) than the other way around?

 

[BSM1]

I hear this a lot. What did Hillary do that Trump is unwilling to do politically that makes Hillary a bigger Hawk?

Let's see, Hillary voted for the Iraqi war and was a proponent of escalation as SecState, Trump has voted for on war. So as far as 'hawk' incidents go it's Hillary 1 (at least), Trump 0.

 

[metis]

Try to get the quote right.

I did even though I didn't complete the sentence. So, maybe it's best for you to get it right, although it seems you much prefer to nit-pick than to actually deal with what the general picture is, namely that Trump is no peacenik by any stretch of the imagination.