2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Takhisis]

Personal use of pot has not been a viable campaign issue since the turn of the century.

Another thing the Clintons ruined for 'Murica.

 

[Takhisis]

Whoops!

'Do you regret all your lying?' White House reporter's question startles Trump
S.V. Dáte takes the president to task for repeated untruths but is quickly cut off

S.V. Dáte had waited five long years to ask Donald Trump one question: “Mr President, after three and a half years [of Trump’s presidency], do you regret at all, all the lying you’ve done to the American people?”

Confronted with Dáte’s question at Thursday’s White House briefing, Trump responded with a question of his own. “All the what?,” he said.

Dáte: “All the lying, all the dishonesties.”

Trump: “That who has done?”

“You have done,” said Dáte, who is the Huffington Post’s White House correspondent. “Tens of thousan–”, he began to say, before Trump cut him off and called on another journalist, who asked a question about payroll tax.

In July, the Washington Post reported that Trump had told more than 20,000 “false or misleading claims” over the course of his presidency.

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar)
Wow. A reporter (I'm not sure who he is) asks Trump, "after three and a half years, do you regret all the lying you've done to the American people?" Trump quickly moves on to the next question.
pic.twitter.com/DHn3UvXHnN

August 13, 2020​

Speaking to the Guardian, Dáte said that he asked the question because it was the first time that he had had the chance.

“I don’t know why he called on me, because I’ve tried to ask him before [in March] and he’s cut me off mid-question. Maybe he didn’t recognise me this time,” he said. “You know, he has this group of folks that he normally asks questions of.”

It was Dáte’s turn on White House in press pool, and so he had a prominent seat. “I had always thought that if he ever did call on me, this is the one thing that is really central to his presidency,” he said.

S.V. Dáte (@svdate)
For five years I've been wanting to ask him that.

August 13, 2020​

Trump’s lying was the “singular piece of his presidency that will be remembered in 10 years”.

Dáte wasn’t surprised by Trump’s response to the question – ignoring it was always going to be the most likely reaction, he thought.

Asked whether he thought he would be allowed in next time, Dáte said, “Yes, absolutely.”

With the burning question posed, what would he ask if he had another chance?

Given that Trump had failed to respond, it would be: “‘Mr President, you didn’t answer last time. Could you address why you’ve told …’ whatever the number will be by then,” said Dáte.​

 

[Gorbles]

Predictable but how much or what he's saying is factual incorrect?

Nevermind the fact that it's Carlson, who has a tenuous track record with the truth, the problem isn't events happening. It's shaming someone for them. It also happens far more against women than men.

I don't like Harris, but don't buy into stuff just because you don't like her. Especially from Tucker Carlson.

 

[stinkubus]

Truman got the cold war going, changing policy from FDR.

Nuked Japan, invaded Korea without any real provocation; the US just wanted to box in China and the USSR. Also stole the 44 Vice Presidential nomination from Henry Wallace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_Democratic_National_Convention#The_vice-presidential_nomination

We were *this* close to having an honest to goodness Socialist in the White House.

 

[Zardnaar]

North Korea invaded the South and the US defending is regarded as an invasion?

 

[stinkubus]

Never a declaration of War on the US's part, so yeah.

 

[Patine]

North Korea invaded the South and the US defending is regarded as an invasion?

Never a declaration of War on the US's part, so yeah.

And the military aggression by North Korea was not actually against the U.S., itself, so it wasn't an act of self-defense by the U.S., but an aggressive counter-invasion.

 

[Zardnaar]

And the military aggression by North Korea was not actually against the U.S., itself, so it wasn't an act of self-defense by the U.S., but an aggressive counter-invasion.

And how many South Koreans want to be ruled by the North?

USA has done plenty of stupid interventions occasionally they are morally right.

 

[Patine]

And how many South Koreans want to be ruled by the North?

USA has done plenty of stupid interventions occasionally they are morally right.

You lose the argument right there. It's an open-ended, but vapid and empty, non-response to justify every single Cold War and Post-Cold War interventions without giving any rational, real reasons.

Rhee Syngman, the President of South Korea at the time, was not a better leader than Kim Il-sung. He, too, was a brutal, authoritarian, bloody-handed, arrogant tyrant with a cult of personality. He was just Pro-American instead of Pro-Soviet. This was VERY often the ONLY meaningful difference between the two Third World leaders in a Cold War proxy war who desired to govern a nation.

 

[Zardnaar]

You lose the argument right there. It's an open-ended, but vapid and empty, non-response to justify every single Cold War and Post-Cold War interventions without giving any rational, real reasons.

Not really as I said the US did plenty of moronic interventions.

Korea, Kuwait and Balkans in 95 were morally justifiable IMHO.

 

[Patine]

Not really as I said the US did plenty of moronic interventions.

Korea, Kuwait and Balkans in 95 were morally justifiable IMHO.

Read, also, my additional edited sentence in the post above. It definitely applies to Korea and Kuwait, as well as arguably what Tudjman's government in Croatia was headed for in the '90's if he hadn't died prematurely, and what so many other proxy wars amounted to.

 

[Zardnaar]

Read, also, my additional edited sentence in the post above. It definitely applies to Korea and Kuwait, as well as arguably what Tudjman's government in Croatia was headed for in the '90's if he hadn't died prematurely, and what so many other proxy wars amounted to.

I just disagrees with you. They stopped ethnic cleansing, the North Koreans and Iraqis both invaded other nations.

 

[GenMarshall]

Never a declaration of War on the US's part, so yeah.

I recalled that it was a UN mission with a coalition lead by the US agents North Korean aggression against the south .

 

[Patine]

I just disagrees with you. They stopped ethnic cleansing, the North Koreans and Iraqis both invaded other nations.

Ethnic cleansing? North and South Korea are both vast majority ethnic Koreans. Iraq and Kuwait are both majority ethnic Arabs. Your statement is nonsensical.

I recalled that it was a UN mission with a coalition lead by the US agents North Korean aggression against the south .

That was the public story, yes. The fact that it was among the early salvos of the Cold War, and neither North nor South Korea were even UN members at the time, and they took advantage of a Soviet boycott of Security Council meetings over a different issue and the fact that Taiwan ridiculously voted as though being all of China complicated that narrative and it's believability GREATLY!

 

[EnglishEdward]

Nevertheless, it is incorrect to describe the Korean war as simply a US invasion.

The UK government led by the socialist PM Clement Attlee sent UK troops to fight,
neither labour Harold Wilson nor conservative Ted Heath PMs intervened in Vietnam.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ethnic cleansing? North and South Korea are both vast majority ethnic Koreans. Iraq and Kuwait are both majority ethnic Arabs. Your statement is nonsensical.



That was the public story, yes. The fact that it was among the early salvos of the Cold War, and neither North nor South Korea were even UN members at the time, and they took advantage of a Soviet boycott of Security Council meetings over a different issue and the fact that Taiwan ridiculously voted as though being all of China complicated that narrative and it's believability GREATLY!

I was referring to the Balkans where NATO stopped ethnic cleansing.

Problem being anti US all of the time is you start justifying some really crappy regimes crimes.

 

[Patine]

Nevertheless, it is incorrect to describe the Korean war as simply a US invasion.

The UK government led by the socialist PM Clement Attlee sent UK troops to fight,
neither labour Harold Wilson nor conservative Ted Heath PMs intervened in Vietnam.

Very well. It was a COUNTER-INVASION by the U.S. and some other West Bloc allies to counter an invasion against none of them claiming a wider mandate than was really there from a "UN mission," allowed by a politically compromised vote opportunistically taking advantage of an East Bloc boycott over a different issue that was made (the initial invasion) by one non-UN member against another non-UN member over the utter politicized screwing up and dropping the ball over Korean Independence by the Soviets and Americans post-WW2. How's that?

 

[Patine]

I was referring to the Balkans where NATO stopped ethnic cleansing.

Problem being anti US all of the time is you start justifying some really crappy regimes crimes.

I'm not Anti-U.S. all the time. I just highly disagree with a lot of the policies of their government and their big corporations, both against their own people and abroad. You don't really believe in the Arthurian "the King and his Land are one," or the Communist or Fascist, "the Party and State are the Nation and People," and you do see and understand that nation's government is separate from it's people and nation, and that criticizing the government is not "anti-the whole nation and it's people," right? Or do you?

And I am not "justifying," crappy regimes. I have never said that. I am just putting things into perspective and trying to dissipate a completely untrue "good vs. evil," narrative in the affair. But I have never "justified," these regimes. Quit putting words I have never said in my mouth. It's tantamount to lies and slander.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Very well. It was a COUNTER-INVASION by the U.S. and some other West Bloc allies to counter an invasion against none of them claiming a wider mandate than was really there from a "UN mission," allowed by a politically compromised vote opportunistically taking advantage of an East Bloc boycott over a different issue that was made (the initial invasion) by one non-UN member against another non-UN member over the utter politicized screwing up and dropping the ball over Korean Independence by the Soviets and Americans post-WW2. How's that?

Back then most of the world was divided into communists and non communist countries.

The communists tried to expand by force in Korea and non communists defended against that.

 

[Zardnaar]

Back then most of the world was divided into communists and non communist countries.

The communists tried to expand by force in Korea and non communists defended against that.

Generally whenever the Communists took over you had refugees or locked borders.