"He knew what he signed up for"
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
Considering how he dresses, that's like Trump ripping Un for being a wacko with crazy hair.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-reg-wilson-kelly-tape-of-speech-20171020-story.html
Kelly also told a misleading story about Wilson
Kelly also told a misleading story about Wilson
Sun Sentinel said:
I didn't understand that one either, since Trump himself is the one taking shots at the Khans at the convention. It took me quite awhile to realize Kelley was actually doing that to the Khans. Anyone around Trump for long is going to ruin their reputation.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Let’s play a game called “Why Trump got elected”
Close your eyes, walk into bathroom, orient your facade towards the mirror, hold up the phone displaying the post you sent me. Open your eyes and shout “Oh crap - it’s because of this!”
Who is complaining that he didn't openly critique his boss? Certainly not me. I'd never expect that of him. I'm angered by the critique he did choose to make. The fact that he doesn't see the log in the eye of the administration he leads is just what cements his critique of Wilson and the family of Sergeant Your Guy as desperately hollow and dissonant.
Let's play a game called "What got Trump elected"
Close your eyes, walk into the bathroom, orient your derriere directly above your toilet, take the biggest crap you've ever taken and shout, "I just shit on the U.S. of A!"
If you're going to keep your friends close and your enemies closer you first need to distinguish the two.
Can't agree. The implicit point of the question is "why don't you care about 4 dead Americans?" Confrontation and criticism was a part of that. The vague part is whether the question was about the families and loved ones of the 4 dead Americans, or did it call for a more general 30,000' answer.
You think he's a friend or an enemy? I think he hurts the causes I believe in with every post. I don't want his help on race relations or for Democratic policies. That's why I say no thanks.
Last edited:
It's obvious to me he's a friend to you. He's a truth teller, albeit a provocative one.
The usual liberal crowd here is hurting any cause you might advocate more than anyone else with all their straitjacketed, 17th-century, political-ideology-centric compulsions. That's a case of your "friends" living in glass houses if there ever was one.
Pragmatism is the only sensible way to disenfranchise the conservative powers-that-be.
No, he got elected because a bunch of rubes believed his lies.
And what does my post have to do with why he got elected? Refute one word that I said.
Do you really think he's capable of reading backwards?
So, Lara says she "read the transcript" even though the White House says there is none.
https://thinkprogress.org/there-is-...hnsons-widow-lara-trump-reveals-61faf4d76b95/
She also admitted Trump is a liar.
How long before she's out of the will?
https://thinkprogress.org/there-is-...hnsons-widow-lara-trump-reveals-61faf4d76b95/
She also admitted Trump is a liar.
How long before she's out of the will?
There was nothing vague about it. If you think it was a combative question, fine. But its simply not accurate to suggest it somehow invited this firestorm that was all Trump's own doing.
I hate when threads devolve into us, but this time I just have to get involved to ask a question. Are you suggesting Vegas is pragmatic?
I would suggest lurker doesn't even know what "pragmatic" means. It's just a buzzword that gave him an intellectual stiffy a few weeks ago, so now he has to insert it into every single thread, even when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Vegas also sometimes employs the "This topic doesn't matter, so long as you people don't realize I'm right about X" method of posting, so I'm guessing that's why lurker finds him attractive: he sees a kindred soul.
If this is accurate, then John Kelly has a major credibility issue. How dare someone besides the President and next of kin have access to these "sacred" calls. How on Earth does the Presidents daughter in law have access to these conversations?
I also take back what I wrote about the Congresswoman, since the facts have been clarified.
Your Savior vowed he was going to build his yuge wall on Day One.
5 minutes after he won, he told the Mexican Prez he didn't care about it at all and begged him to stop talking about it.
There's also video of her comments about that FBI building and Kelly lied his ass off about that too.
And the White House STILL stands behind his comments.
Trump and his gang are pathological liars.
I hear you, and I get that different people's sensibilities (including the sensibilities of such eminently sensible people as you and me) may be differently jangled by prickly events. Having said so, I think what John Kelly says and does is of much greater consequence than what Rep. Wilson says or does, and I'd think so even if Kelly wore silly hats.
[Edited: Second thoughts about noun-verb agreement.]
Last edited:
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
And I still agree with you on that point. But the fact is, we never knew - and still don't - whether she had the family's blessing to make this into a thing. All we could go on was gut feelings based on incomplete information, and the information that she was a genuine family friend - dating back to before she was even in Congress - changes my gut feeling a bit, simply because I expect most people would be less likely to take personal advantage of someone with whom they are genuinely close.
I think it's worth considering that both people disposed to attack Trump and people disposed to attack Wilson are reading into Kelly's words things that weren't there. I imagine Kelly is a careful man who chooses his words with some thought, and I noted that, while he was clearly trying to defend the president, he didn't actually dispute Wilson's account, focusing instead on defending Trump's intent*. Similarly, his reference to the Khans was, as you said, apparently gratuitous, but he was careful not to direct his ire at the Khans specifically. One could interpret his comment about them as attacking Hillary's use of the Khans, or even Trump's response, depending on how one is politically aligned. Kelly's words were sufficiently vague to come off as a defense of his boss, while still not committing him to any particular statement that might make him look bad or purposefully dishonest.
* Which, quite frankly, is reasonable. Trump may be a buffoon, but that doesn't mean he's actively going out of his way to hurt people every moment of the day. I have no problem believing he genuinely wanted to make Mrs. Johnson feel better, and just stepped all over his own dick while doing it, because he's simply incompetent on this kind of thing.
The chief of staff claimed the conversation is sacred between Trump and next of kin. He was outraged that Wilson listened. Now we come to find out that there is actually a transcript, which Trump's daughter in law has read. Wtf. He's the chief of staff. How did that happen?
Trump's daughter-in-law says there is a transcript. The WH says she's full of it. We haven't found out anything, other than that, once again, the Trump organization is dysfunctional.
I think that's valid, and think it's what most thinking people think ;-)
The fact remains that his (presumed) bungling of the call very well wouldn't have been made an issue had he not brought up the subject himself beforehand, in his compulsive need to politicize everything and make jabs at Obama.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I agree 100% with everything you say here. We need to stop being so binary and seeing only black and white. Life is shades of gray and the sooner we realize that, the sooner the red white and blue can sustain for another 100 yrs minimum.
The host asked her about the transcript, she confirmed and stated she has read it and it confirmed Wilson's account. I don't believe a word coming out of the WH spin room. Why would someone lie about reading a transcript?
Because she just pulled it out of her ass in order to protect hubby's dad? I don't know. People say stupid shit all the time, and recent history suggests a correlation between saying stupid shit and carrying the surname "Trump."
Entirely plausible. Equally plausible the WH press shop is lying. Their track record under Trump is shameful. I tend to believe the opposite of what's stated in their press conferences unless shown otherwise. They have as much credibility as the man leading the clown car.
Writing script for him won't work. He always finds a way of getting away from the script to insult the subjects. In fact, many if not most of his insults were made when he strays away from the prepared text. You can't take away Trumpism from Trump!
Last edited:
With more fact-checking on Kelly's presser today, it's getting harder and harder to defend the man. More of his comments about her have been found to be inaccurate.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...editorial-board-kelly-owes-dem-rep-an-apology
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...editorial-board-kelly-owes-dem-rep-an-apology
More Trump lying: After Trump claimed to call virtually every family of a lost servicemember, the WH scrambled to at least find out which servicemembers had even been lost.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/after-trump-claim-white-house-still-lacked-casualty-list
http://www.rollcall.com/news/after-trump-claim-white-house-still-lacked-casualty-list
His memory was incorrect about how her remarks were about herself, but her remarks were still about herself. Seems like a pretty trivial mistake to me.
Similar threads
