None of those things have anything to do with that.

Wow. They just flat out executed the man.

Immediate escalation first, too.

Isn't Shaq originally from Baton Rouge?

 

You'd think even more embarrassing (from a police PR standpoint) to have it happen in the state capital.

 

No. You are mistaking him with Neon Boudeaux

Trump praised Sadam hussein today for extrajudicial killings. He's going to push the Clinton non indictment but still not exactly good news off the lead quickly.

 

 

This is from December:

 

 

The Iraq-Iran war killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, and Saddam funded suicide bombers against Israel. But no strongman is too terrible for Donald Trump to admire.

imo Trump's "the system is rigged!" response to the non-indictment is the worst possible move. Rather than focusing on all of the negative things said about Clinton and making it about her and her competence, he's making it a broader attack on the FBI, Comey, "the system."

imo Trump's "the system is rigged!" response to the non-indictment is the worst possible move. Rather than focusing on all of the negative things said about Clinton and making it about her and her competence, he's making it a broader attack on the FBI, Comey, "the system."

 

The system is rigged yet he's the Republican nominee. He needs to ditch that claim. I don't totally disagree with it, but it doesn't apply.

The system is rigged yet he's the Republican nominee. He needs to ditch that claim. I don't totally disagree with it, but it doesn't apply.

 

He was still whining as recently as a week or two ago about how delegates in Louisiana are awarded.

The system is rigged yet he's the Republican nominee. He needs to ditch that claim. I don't totally disagree with it, but it doesn't apply.

 

It still applies. He's overcoming the rigged system because he's THE BEST

This is from December:

 

 

The Iraq-Iran war killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, and Saddam funded suicide bombers against Israel. But no strongman is too terrible for Donald Trump to admire.

 

I recall a lot of Democrats using that same logic when arguing about the Iraq War.

imo Trump's "the system is rigged!" response to the non-indictment is the worst possible move. Rather than focusing on all of the negative things said about Clinton and making it about her and her competence, he's making it a broader attack on the FBI, Comey, "the system."

 

Meh, that fits with his "i'm an outsider, they're all corrupt" mantra.

I recall a lot of Democrats using that same logic when arguing about the Iraq War.

 

Prove it then. Show me the dems applauding the sarin gas to stabilize the region.

Prove it then. Show me the dems applauding the sarin gas to stabilize the region.

 

He wasn't applauding sarin gas, first of all. The whole "at least the region was stabilized" argument has been around for a long time. Bill Maher was spouting that for a long time on his show.

 

God I hate defending Trump in any way, but sometimes you guys just see things that aren't there.

Edited July 6, 20169 yr by JenksIsMyHero

I recall a lot of Democrats using that same logic when arguing about the Iraq War.

 

Democrats did not praise Saddam for ethnic cleansing and did not try to downplay his use of chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.

 

Saying that Saddam was a total s***bag but that invading Iraq was a very dumb thing to do is not the same thing as praising Saddam for "taking care of" his enemies. Trump's also offered similar praise for Putin and for Kim Jong-Un

 

He wasn't applauding sarin gas, first of all. The whole "at least the region was stabilized" argument was been around for a long time. Bill Maher was spouting that for a long time on his show.

 

God I hate defending Trump in any way, but sometimes you guys just see things that aren't there.

 

 

He absolutely tried to downplay the use of gas when he said "throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy." Saddam violently and brutally stamped out Islamic radicalism within Iraq along with political opponents and various ethnic minorities, and he also funded anti-Israeli suicide bombers.

 

And of course, at the same time he's praising strongman dictators and heavily implying that President Obama is sympathetic with ISIS (something's going on!), Obama in actuality has been bombing the s*** out of ISIS for several years now and ISIS has been losing ground.

Edited July 6, 20169 yr by StrangeSox

He's not downplaying it, but he's also not "applauding" it either. That line can be read very neutrally. "Then they did this, then they did that..." You guys can't, but reasonable people can.

 

He's not downplaying it, but he's also not "applauding" it either. That line can be read very neutrally. "Then they did this, then they did that..." You guys can't, but reasonable people can.

 

"Throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, oh he used gas" is not a 'neutral' way to describe this:

 

 

The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians.[1][2] Thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which has been officially defined by Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal as a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.[5]

Edited July 6, 20169 yr by StrangeSox

Meh, that fits with his "i'm an outsider, they're all corrupt" mantra.

 

It works to rile up his base, but they're already voting for him. All he knows is throwing red meat, though.

imo Trump's "the system is rigged!" response to the non-indictment is the worst possible move. Rather than focusing on all of the negative things said about Clinton and making it about her and her competence, he's making it a broader attack on the FBI, Comey, "the system."

 

The system is rigged. But is rigged towards rich and powerful people like him.

The system is rigged. But is rigged towards rich and powerful people like him.

 

Sure I can agree with that generally, just don't think it's the best political campaign strategy.

"Throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, oh he used gas" is not a 'neutral' way to describe this:

 

 

Hey, it's good you see what an awful person Saddam was and why it was a good move to get rid of him.

 

Also, by your logic, the comment about moving 10 feet forward and 10 feet back also "applauds" the death of tens of thousands of soldiers on both sides. TRUMP SUPPORTS MURDER!

Edited July 6, 20169 yr by JenksIsMyHero

Trump says enough blatantly awful things, you guys really don't have to reach like that.

Hey, it's good you see what an awful person Saddam was and why it was a good move to get rid of him.

 

Saddam being an awful person and invading Iraq being an awful idea are not mutually exclusive.

 

Also, by your logic, the comment about moving 10 feet forward and 10 feet back also "applauds" the death of tens of thousands of soldiers on both sides. TRUMP SUPPORTS MURDER!

 

No. So often your arguments boil down to you making "so by your logic" statements that don't actually follow from any real arguments anyone else is making.

 

Trump supporting counterbalancing powers vis a vis Iraq/Iran isn't terrible. Trump downplaying Saddam's ethnic cleansing via chemical weapons, which is absolutely what he did in that December speech, and Trump lauding Saddam for "taking care of terrorists" when he actually funded terrorists are what are terrible. What's more, like so many of Trump's f***-ups, it was completely unprompted.

 

 

He's not downplaying it, but he's also not "applauding" it either. That line can be read very neutrally. "Then they did this, then they did that..." You guys can't, but reasonable people can.

 

Hey Mr. Literacy, analyze the gas part please. Would love the neutral reading of that.

Saddam being an awful person and invading Iraq being an awful idea are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

No. So often your arguments boil down to you making "so by your logic" statements that don't actually follow from any real arguments anyone else is making.

 

Trump supporting counterbalancing powers vis a vis Iraq/Iran isn't terrible. Trump downplaying Saddam's ethnic cleansing via chemical weapons, which is absolutely what he did in that December speech, and Trump lauding Saddam for "taking care of terrorists" when he actually funded terrorists are what are terrible. What's more, like so many of Trump's f***-ups, it was completely unprompted.

 

No that is exactly what you're doing. He just said what happened - Saddam dropped chemical weapons, the world reacted and nothing changed and they remained stabilized. That's all he said there. YOU are taking the next step to add that because he didn't downplay the use of chemical weapons or at least comment that they are awful, he's somehow SUPPORTING and APPLAUDING the use of those weapons.

 

The same logic you're using to deduce his meaning there applies to his other statements, including the 10 feet forward/10 feet back comment. Since he didn't downplay how awful it was that tens of thousands of soldiers died for no actual gain, he must therefore be SUPPORTING and APPLAUDING needless death and murder.

 

You're pulling together various pieces of past statements/actions to form a definitive conclusion about one specific statement. He may very well support the use of chemical weapons, I have no idea. But reading the quote you posted does not in anyway support that.

No that is exactly what you're doing. He just said what happened - Saddam dropped chemical weapons, the world reacted and nothing changed and they remained stabilized. That's all he said there. YOU are taking the next step to add that because he didn't downplay the use of chemical weapons or at least comment that they are awful, he's somehow SUPPORTING and APPLAUDING the use of those weapons.

 

The same logic you're using to deduce his meaning there applies to his other statements, including the 10 feet forward/10 feet back comment. Since he didn't downplay how awful it was that tens of thousands of soldiers died for no actual gain, he must therefore be SUPPORTING and APPLAUDING needless death and murder.

 

No, not really. He could have been making the same historically accurate comments regarding the Battle of the Somme in WWI or something, and it wouldn't be downplaying the horrors. eta what you said there doesn't even make sense. "IF =! downplay, he supports" doesn't make sense, if anything the opposite argument would be closer to what was I saying (he downplayed it, so he supports it).

 

You're pulling together various pieces of past statements/actions to form a definitive conclusion about one specific statement. He may very well support the use of chemical weapons, I have no idea. But reading the quote you posted does not in anyway support that.

 

He's a-okay with using nuclear weapons, so I imagine he'd be fine with chemical weapons too, but I didn't claim he was supporting the use there. I said he was downplaying Saddam's genocide, which he was. "Saddam Hussein throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, oh he used gas" is not a neutral description of a deliberate genocide of a city.

Edited July 6, 20169 yr by StrangeSox

Hey Mr. Literacy, analyze the gas part please. Would love the neutral reading of that.

 

You can read it as follows: he's saying both sides killed each other, the world was appalled but the region was stabilized. And no matter which side you tried to get rid of there would have been destabilization in the region.

 

Why else does he include "they go back, forth, it's the same?" He's using the gas as an example of the ways they killed each other (edit: to remain stabilized).

 

I mean Christ, guys, this is Trump. If he wanted to say that chemical weapons were a great thing, he would have said that. It's Trump. He could have said "everyone goes crazy, oh he's using gas. GOOD! It worked!" But he didn't.

Edited July 6, 20169 yr by JenksIsMyHero