Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Well, if you don't accept someone's explanation of exactly what he meant, how do you have confidence that he meant anything else . . . or anything at all? Oh . . . that's right . . . Trump is a liar . . . so his explanation must be a lie. But, then, in that case, how can you have confidence that he even meant exactly what he said in the first place when he said what he said?
|
Just out of curiosity, are you defending Trump's statements here or just picking apart Paul's?
Because I'll let you guys duke it out if we can all agree that he is an idiot and shouldn't have lumped in a Fox News story while talking about refugee related violence.
Otherwise, I think we need to stop giving this clown a break for being ambiguous on such serious topics.
On one hand, politicians are famous for being general in their responses and full of crap, but typically they skillfully dodge questions or just give remarks that neither incriminate or say anything (see Devos's confirmation hearings.)
What Trump is doing is combining a lingering distrust of the media with lies and inciting false fear.
Let's be clear: his statement which included the reference to Sweden was covering violence and attacks by immigrants, he wasn't mincing words. To say that he innocently injected an op-ed from a Fox News story mentioning the fact that Sweden has a bunch of refugees is preposterous...
He either:
a) Knew what he was doing and was following the pattern of false references to attacks by his cabinet. (Which by the way is only working because the public has gotten so used to attacks now that when someone say "Sweden, can you believe it) half of us just assume someone attacked Sweden. A point the Trump administration is simultaneously using to their advantage and berating the media for...)
Or b) He didn't know that the Fox News story wasn't about an attack, and was only half paying attention... and as a citizen of this country I hope to effing god it was the former, because if this one is true, it means that not only does he not prepare for anything, but he also draws his own quick assumptions on topics he is ill informed about in a very power hungry way. And that's not a guy I want orchestrating American foreign policy.
He's already the laughing stock of the world... "From this point forward, it will be only America first"
"We stand behind Japan 100%"
"NATO, you have our 100% commitment"
World leaders know he doesn't know what he's doing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device