"We'll See"


Yes and no. The President enjoys the right of the first amendment as much as you and I do. The President is an action-oriented man (you can read all about in his semi-biography “The Art of the Deal”) amd not a wordy politician. “We’ll see” is an action-orientated phrase, short of “We’ll see [when I do it]”. I voted for Trump so he can do, not dance.

“I would rather not address that point at this time. Are there any other questions?”

How is this not imprecise and coy, a promise to an answer to the current question while hastily jumping onto the next? I have posted two videos comparing him with Justin Trudeu and Russel Brand, and I suggest you revisit them.


It is certainly not coy–in fact, it is quite straightforward–to declare that one would rather not address a certain point at the moment. On the other hand, “We’ll see” is both terse and meaningless. (Some might even say a bit rude.)

By the way, I voted for Trump also–as the old saying goes, he needed to be compared to the alternative, not to the Almighty–but I am not thereby foreclosed from criticizing his actions when they seem to merit criticism.


But then again he’s not a polished politician that has years of training in the way of saying something that means nothing.


The interesting thing, Did he say it?

Do you believe Dick Durban?

Do we know the context in which it may have been said?

I find it amazing how A democrat says he said it backed any a RINO and no one els in the room heard it. Yet it’s now gospel.


You have some objectivity.


That’s a good position to hold.


Now the White House will have to provide quiet rooms for Lil Dicky Durban and others traumatized by President Trumps “Alleged” use of Shithole.
I’m sure Lil Dicky and others have never heard this kind of talk before.Also they will have to have extensive psychological therapy that we’ll have to pay for .


Pretty amazing when Obama took office we had 5 million collecting disability today more than 11 million collect benefits.


You are correct. Somewhat, anyway.

There is, indeed, some dispute as to what was actually said. But if the distinction is between “s…house” (which the president says that he actually said) and “s…hole,” then it is a distinction without any meaningful difference.

Nonetheless, I seriously doubt that Donald Trump is the first president to use coarse language.

Was Harry Truman, for instance, likely to have been all that punctilious about the use of sanitized language? I strongly doubt it. (Oh, but wait! He was a Democrat. Different standard there.)


Why its it such an issue when Lindsay Graham used a similar comment for Mexico?

Lindsey Graham calls Mexico a hell hole which is different from what Trump said how?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR82fFdG49w

And this is different how?
President Obama used the term “shit show” in private to refer to the escalating violence in Libya following the death of Muammar Gaddafi.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Sunday reiterated that he didn’t hear President Trump call Haiti, El Salvador and African nations “shithole countries,” suggesting Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) misrepresented the president’s comments.

"I certainly didn’t hear what Sen. Durbin has said repeatedly. Sen. Durbin has a history of misrepresenting what happens in White House meetings, though, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by that,” Cotton said on CBS’s “Face The Nation.”

Pressed on whether he didn’t hear the comment or if it wasn’t said, Cotton said, “I didn’t hear it.”

“And I was sitting no farther away from Donald Trump than Dick Durbin was, and I know what Dick Durbin has said about the president’s repeated statements is incorrect,” Cotton added.

Trump during a meeting with lawmakers last week reportedly questioned why the U.S. accepted so many immigrants from “shithole countries” like Haiti, El Salvador and some African countries. He suggested the U.S. should instead should take in more immigrants from countries like Norway.

Cotton, Durbin, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) were among those present during the meeting.

Cotton and Perdue have said they did not hear the comment.

Yet are we are, a diversionary tacit to justify shutting down the government.

Here’s the real point. Trump holds a private meting and Durban runs to th media with his accusations and the media eats it up.

Could it be that he was angry about rump refusing their proposal???


[quote=“LouMan, post:26, topic:6419, full:true”]
Why its it such an issue when Lindsay Graham used a similar comment for Mexico?

Lindsey Graham calls Mexico a hell hole which is different from what Trump said how?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR82fFdG49w

And this is different how?
President Obama used the term “shit show” in private to refer to the escalating violence in Libya following the death of Muammar Gaddafi.[/quote]

It is “different” precisely because the media have different standards here: one for Republicans, and the other for Democrats.

Perhaps we should get a Victorian-era “fainting couch” for those who are so shocked–shocked!–by the use of coarse language. After all, some might just get the vapors.

Note: There is a logical fallacy known as the a priori fallacy. Basically, it works like this: If one holds to a particular view, then one will automatically embrace those things that seem to support it, while dismissing, out of hand, those things that are uncongenial to it.

The opposite, of course, is also true: If one strongly disagrees with a particular view, then one will automatically embrace those things that seem uncongenial to it, while dismissing, out of hand, those things that seem to support it.

Those who simply despise Donald Trump will therefore embrace any “evidence” to show that he is unpresidential, while dismissing any evidence to the contrary.


There’s probably some truth to that, while the same could be said of some haters of Obama. It depends on ones ability to check that within themselves and be subjective at all.


Or perhaps private meting should really be private.

Note to trump: Don’t allow Durban into the WH again.


Or Schumer… or Pelosi… or that little twerp Adam Schiff…


What is it with these people?

The total lack of integrity is beyond astounding.


The second clause of your first sentence is certainly true.

But to use that to (supposedly) disprove–or even weaken–the argument that I am making, would be to trip all over another logical fallacy: the tu quoque fallacy.


But I’m not doing that. I’m essentially agreeing with you, but adding that it’s what humans do, particularly those who are less inclined to be objective. And it’s not confined to liberals.


Which he helped along by showering the Libyan government with cruise missiles and promoting the arab spring revolutions.

Ah the Arab spring:

Most of this history has been carefully suppressed by the western media.The new book devotes much more attention to the personalities leading the 2011 uprisings. Some openly admitted to receiving CIA funding. Others had no idea because it was deliberately concealed from them. A few (in Egypt and Syria) were officially charged with espionage. In Egypt, seven sought refuge in the US embassy in Cairo and had to be evacuated by the State Department.

arabesque-Democracy: America’s Biggest Export

According to Bensaada, the MENA Arab Spring revolutions have four unique features in common:

None were spontaneous – all required careful and lengthy (5+ years) planning, by the State Department, CIA pass through foundations, George Soros, and the pro-Israel lobby.1
All focused exclusively on removing reviled despots without replacing the autocratic power structure that kept them in power.
No Arab Spring protests made any reference whatsoever to powerful anti-US sentiment over Palestine and Iraq.
All the instigators of Arab Spring uprisings were middle class, well educated youth who mysteriously vanished after 2011.

Nonviolent Regime Change

Bensaada begins by introducing non-violent guru Gene Sharp (see The CIA and Nonviolence), his links with the Pentagon and US intelligence, and his role, as director of the Albert Einstein Institution, in the “color” revolutions.2in Eastern Europe and the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002.))

The US goal in the Arab Spring revolutions was to replace unpopular despotic dictators while taking care to maintain the autocratic US-friendly infrastructure that had brought them to power. All initially followed the nonviolent precepts Sharp outlines in his 1994 book From Dictatorship to Democracy. In Libya, Syria and Yemen, the US and their allies were clearly prepared to introduce paid mercenaries when their Sharpian “revolutions” failed to produce regime change.

Follow the Money

Relying mainly on Wikileaks cables and the websites of key CIA pass through foundations (which he reproduces in the appendix), Bensaada methodically lists every State Department conference and workshop the Arab Spring heroes attended, the dollar amounts spent on them by the State Department and key “democracy” promoting foundations3, the specific involvement of Google, Facebook, Twitter and Obama’s 2008 Internet campaign team in training Arab Spring cyperactivists in encryption technologies and social media skills, US embassy visits, and direct encounters with Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, John McCain, Barack Obama and Serbian trainers from CANVAS (the CIA-backed organization that overthrew Slobodan Milosevic in 2000).

Bensaada focuses most heavily on the Tahrir Square uprising in Egypt. TheWashington Post has estimated approximately 10,000 Egyptians took part in NED and USAID training in social media and nonviolent organizing techniques. For me the most astonishing information in this chapter concerned the role of an Egyptian exile (a former Egyptian policeman named Omar Afifi Suleiman) in coordinating the Tahrir Square protests from his office in Washington DC. According to Wikileaks, NED paid Suleiman a yearly stipend of $200,000+ between 2008-2011.

When Nonviolence Fails

Arabesques$ devotes far more attention to Libya, Syria and Yemen than Bensaada’s first book.

In the section on Libya, Bensaada zeroes in on eleven key US assets who engineered the overthrow of Gaddafi. Some participated in the same State Department trainings as the Middle East opposition activists and instigated nonviolent Facebook and Twitter protests to coincide with the 2011 uprisings in Tunisian and Egypt. Others, in exile, underwent guerrilla training sponsored by the CIA, Mossad, Chad and Saudi Arabia. A few months after Gaddafi’s assassination, some of these same militants would lead Islamic militias attempting to overthrow Assad in Syria.

Between 2005 and 2010, the State Department funneled $12 million to opposition groups opposed to Assad. The US also financed Syrian exiles in Britain to start an anti-government cable TV channel they beamed into Syria.

In the section on Syria, Bensaada focuses on a handful of Syrian opposition activists who received free US training in cyberactivism and nonviolent resistance beginning in 2006. One, Ausama Monajed, is featured in the 2011 film How to Start a Revolution about a visit with Gene Sharp in 2006. Monajed and others worked closely with the US embassy, funded by the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI). This is a State Department program that operates in countries (such as Libya and Syria) where USAID is banned.

In February 2011, these groups posted a call on Twitter and Facebook for a Day of Rage. Nothing happened. When Sharpian techniques failed to produce a sizable nonviolent uprising, as in Libya, they and their allies (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Jordan) were all set up to introduce Islamic mercenaries (many directly from Libya) to declare war on the Assad regime.

And then the left complain about inference in our elections.


You are correct–sadly–that this tendency is not confined to liberals.

But I do believe that a slightly higher percentage of conservatives could be classified as objective (although I cannot prove that; it is just a matter of my own observation).

Even in the case of conservatives, however, it would probably be a minority.


Well said…