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.

 

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.

 

Address this actual line Mr. Reasonable person. You keep deliberately avoiding the specific line in question:

 

"Saddam Hussein throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, oh he used gas"

 

And it was the worst case of civilians targeted by a chemical attack ever. It's recognized as a genocide. It's not an example of a tit-for-tat balance of regional powers. In what possible way is "throws a little gas" a neutral description of the worst civilian chemical attack ever? How is describing international condemnation of that attack as "go[ing] crazy" neutral?

 

 

eta More to the point, Trump's argument there isn't really supported by reality. The problems in the Middle East right now are not due to a regional hegemonic power, a world where Iran is now an unchecked ME power running roughshod over everyone else. The destabilization started in Syria, another strongman dictator government not afraid to gas its own civilians.

Edited July 6, 20169 yr by StrangeSox

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).

 

 

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.

 

I don't see anything there that indicates he's downplaying anything. That's you reading WAY too much into what he said. If you're going to say that he downplayed the use of chemical weapons, then just make a broader comment that he downplayed the terrible Iraq/Iran conflict. Neither are a fair reading of what he said in that quote given the point he was trying to convey, which is "i told you it was dumb to get involved in the middle east!

His overarching thesis is that the PC WORLD is soft on terrorists and continues to bring up these authoritarian governments that are great at it, so it's your footing to stand on that he is just a scholar telling everyone how the middle east works.

 

If entering an unstable conflict with a side to create stabilization is a shortsighted act, then he supports President Obama's plan on Syria. Which is wird because he's the worst president, just terrible, we're losing in Syria, it's so bad, it's terrible.

I don't see anything there that indicates he's downplaying anything. That's you reading WAY too much into what he said. If you're going to say that he downplayed the use of chemical weapons, then just make a broader comment that he downplayed the terrible Iraq/Iran conflict. Neither are a fair reading of what he said in that quote given the point he was trying to convey, which is "i told you it was dumb to get involved in the middle east!

 

I remember in English class all the brilliant kids saying we were reading too much into things. Those kids really got it.

Address this actual line Mr. Reasonable person. You keep deliberately avoiding the specific line in question:

 

"Saddam Hussein throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, oh he used gas"

 

And it was the worst case of civilians targeted by a chemical attack ever. It's recognized as a genocide. It's not an example of a tit-for-tat balance of regional powers. In what possible way is "throws a little gas" a neutral description of the worst civilian chemical attack ever? How is describing international condemnation of that attack as "go[ing] crazy" neutral?

 

Again, so he didn't put enough emphasis on how terrible it was, therefore, he's a supporter of chemical weapons. Gotcha.

K. I'm sure you are great at sarcasm too. "What, he said your cooking was great!"

His overarching thesis is that the PC WORLD is soft on terrorists and continues to bring up these authoritarian governments that are great at it, so it's your footing to stand on that he is just a scholar telling everyone how the middle east works.

 

If entering an unstable conflict with a side to create stabilization is a shortsighted act, then he supports President Obama's plan on Syria. Which is wird because he's the worst president, just terrible, we're losing in Syria, it's so bad, it's terrible.

 

No, I think his actual point here is, again, look at me! Look at how I was right about it being stupid to be involved over there!

 

I don't think he meant anything positive or negative about the gas comment. I think that's Trump being Trump, glossing over facts to make his "it's about me" point.

I don't see anything there that indicates he's downplaying anything.

 

He calls gassing thousands of people "a little gas" and says that everyone overreacted to it.

Again, so he didn't put enough emphasis on how terrible it was, therefore, he's a supporter of chemical weapons. Gotcha.

 

Again, actually support your argument that a "reasonable person" would find "throws a little gas" and "everyone goes crazy" to be neutral descriptions of a sarin gas genocide and the international condemnation of it.

 

I remember in English class all the brilliant kids saying we were reading too much into things. Those kids really got it.

 

Mm, k.

No, I think his actual point here is, again, look at me! Look at how I was right about it being stupid to be involved over there!

 

I don't think he meant anything positive or negative about the gas comment. I think that's Trump being Trump, glossing over facts to make his "it's about me" point.

 

He's had more than one speech in his life. Yesterday he praised Saddam for being tough on terror. He constantly says we aren't tough on terrorists. He praises Putin all the time. He praised Tiananmen Square. Those aren't all just isolated things you can't put together. So when in a speech in december he yada yadas the "oh he uses gas, they go crazy", it's not hard to figure out what the "they" is.

He's had more than one speech in his life. Yesterday he praised Saddam for being tough on terror. He constantly says we aren't tough on terrorists. He praises Putin all the time. He praised Tiananmen Square. Those aren't all just isolated things you can't put together. So when in a speech in december he yada yadas the "oh he uses gas, they go crazy", it's not hard to figure out what the "they" is.

 

But yada yada-ing doesn't necessarily mean he's a supporter of it or that he applauds it, which is what you are claiming.

 

The people of the City of Chicago yada yada away the 10 people shot on a nightly basis. That doesn't mean we SUPPORT and APPLAUD it.

Again, actually support your argument that a "reasonable person" would find "throws a little gas" and "everyone goes crazy" to be neutral descriptions of a sarin gas genocide and the international condemnation of it.

 

I've explained it. You have nothing but hate for the guy and everything he says so there's no point arguing with you about it.

I've explained it. You have nothing but hate for the guy and everything he says so there's no point arguing with you about it.

 

No, you haven't. You've made some unsupported assertions several times.

Don't whine about how we hate Trump and aren't "reasonable." Don't talk about his 10 ft line. Don't talk about regional power balances. Don't talk about "so by your logic." Don't try to say that I think this means he applauds Saddam's use, because I haven't. Address that specific line wherein he explicitly downplays genocide via sarin gas, and explain how "throws some gas" and "goes crazy" are neutral descriptions, or link to the posts where you already explained that.

 

But yada yada-ing doesn't necessarily mean he's a supporter of it or that he applauds it, which is what you are claiming.

 

The people of the City of Chicago yada yada away the 10 people shot on a nightly basis. That doesn't mean we SUPPORT and APPLAUD it.

 

No, that's not an analogy. Here's the analogy

 

Rahm Emanuel: This year we have a some turf wars in gangs, this gang comes at this gang, that gang goes back, some innocent people get shot, people say hey that's bad, a gang will win, and it goes back to normal levels.

No, you haven't. You've made some unsupported assertions several times.

Don't whine about how we hate Trump and aren't "reasonable." Don't talk about his 10 ft line. Don't talk about regional power balances. Don't talk about "so by your logic." Don't try to say that I think this means he applauds Saddam's use, because I haven't. Address that specific line wherein he explicitly downplays genocide via sarin gas, and explain how "throws some gas" and "goes crazy" are neutral descriptions, or link to the posts where you already explained that.

 

I'm not whining. I'm just saying you take innocuous comments and spin it to fit your narrative. I'm not saying Trump doesn't deserve that, i'm not even saying you're necessarily wrong about assuming what he thinks about chemical weapons. But him, at best, glossing over or pooh poohing Saddam's use of chemical weapons does not mean he applauded the use or that he supports that use. You're assumptions based on the quote you provided goes too far.

 

Believe what you want. I don't care. I'm just pointing out what I see.

No, that's not an analogy. Here's the analogy

 

Rahm Emanuel: This year we have a some turf wars in gangs, this gang comes at this gang, that gang goes back, some innocent people get shot, people say hey that's bad, a gang will win, and it goes back to normal levels.

 

Now put it in context with Trump's speaking style and his general insensitivity towards EVERYTHING and it becomes a much more neutral statement. He's not afraid of pissing people off or offending people. If his aim was to truly applaud Saddam for using chemical weapons he would have said so. The guy has no filter.

You are reading too much into it.

I'm not whining. I'm just saying you take innocuous comments and spin it to fit your narrative. I'm not saying Trump doesn't deserve that, i'm not even saying you're necessarily wrong about assuming what he thinks about chemical weapons. But him, at best, glossing over or pooh poohing Saddam's use of chemical weapons does not mean he applauded the use or that he supports that use. You're assumptions based on the quote you provided goes too far.

 

Believe what you want. I don't care. I'm just pointing out what I see.

 

Here's you saying a bunch of garbage I specifically said was not relevant and still failing to explain how 'throws some gas' and 'goes crazy' are neutral descriptions of genocide.

 

edit: I'll take "glossing over" as another way of saying "downplaying," thanks for agreeing with my argument.

Edited July 6, 20169 yr by StrangeSox

Now put it in context with Trump's speaking style and his general insensitivity towards EVERYTHING and it becomes a much more neutral statement.

 

lol what?

 

The crass statement isn't crass because the speaker is usually super crass, therefore you have to use a sliding scale.

Speaking of Iraq, Britain released their investigation of how they got involved in that boondoggle. It was not kind to proponents of the war.

 

Chilcot delivers crushing verdict on Blair and the Iraq war

 

From Carl Paladino, Trump's NY campaign chair, who was last known nationally for his own hilariously inept and racist campaign for governor.

 

You're reading too much into that.

Post Politics

Eric Trump: My father gives ‘millions and millions and millions’ to charity

 

quote:

In recent weeks, The Washington Post has written a series of stories examining Donald Trump's giving to charity -- seeking evidence that the mogul has lived up to promises he made, promising millions of dollars of his own money to charitable causes. As part of that reporting, The Post has reached out to more than 200 charities with ties to Donald Trump, asking whether they had received any personal donations from him. Over a period of more than seven years, between 2008 and this May, The Post found just one personal donation from Donald Trump, worth less than $10,000.

 

[Trump promised millions to charity. We found less than $10,000 over 7 years.]

 

As part of that reporting, The Post had made efforts to reach the Eric Trump Foundation, and Eric Trump, himself, via email and Twitter. On Wednesday, he called The Post. He denounced its reporting -- often in forceful, profane terms. "I’m just saying, Jesus Christ, why is this guy trying to f---ing kill us?" Eric Trump said at one point.

 

..

 

"My father has given me and my foundation hundreds of thousands of dollars. And he’s given other charities millions and millions and millions of dollars," Eric Trump said.

 

He did not, however, provide any details about when Donald Trump had given to the Eric Trump Foundation, or in what amounts. "I mean, I’m happy to ask the guys upstairs," Eric Trump said, meaning he would check whether that information could be released. "We typically don’t like to do that."

 

Eric Trump also did not provide any details about any of the other donations he said his father had given to other charities.

 

"My father likes to keep some anonymity. It’s who he is. It’s who he is as a person," Eric Trump said.

 

Not sure how believable that claim is given that Trump claims some sort of middle income tax deduction worth a couple hundred but would forego millions in deductions here.

 

eta well, aside from claiming that trump "likes to keep some anonymity" in the first place. That's the least believable deflection you could possibly come up with.

 

#202. The Nat'l Soc. of Arts & Letters made @realdonaldtrump the Honorary Chairman of its 2015 gala. He gave them $0

 

Trump's entire bulls*** image being destroyed in the process of his campaign really is the icing on the cake.

Edited July 6, 20169 yr by StrangeSox

Post Politics

Eric Trump: My father gives ‘millions and millions and millions’ to charity

 

 

 

Not sure how believable that claim is given that Trump claims some sort of middle income tax deduction worth a couple hundred but would forego millions in deductions here.

 

eta well, aside from claiming that trump "likes to keep some anonymity" in the first place. That's the least believable deflection you could possibly come up with.

 

 

 

Trump's entire bulls*** image being destroyed in the process of his campaign really is the icing on the cake.

 

He will have a profitable cult like Ben Carson to bleed dry.