A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:

[D.W.]

If we are fortunate it won't ever happen again.

So... ummm opening comments of the debate tonight, Andrew Yang starts with turning things into a game show.   

[Seriati]

there were literal stories of Clinton using his police escorts to bring him women and multiple stories of assaults.

I don't really care if a president cannot keep it in their pants as long as it's consensual and not assault.  What Trump was describing was assault.

I don't understand your response, what Clinton was accused of was actual assault with a real person, what Trump described was at best a hypothetical that you could assume he actually did, and as you describe below you seem to be unaware of a inconsistency in your thoughts:

Arranging to have sex with groupies is unseemly and, unpresidential (at least the being obvious about it part) but it's not assault...  My views on sex is pretty wide open.

If Rock Star finds a groupie in his dressing room, grabs her by the item and has consensual sex with her, that parses differently from Trump finding a woman in an area where she was seeking him out, grabs her by the item and has consensual sex with her in what way?

If the Rock Star grabs the person by the item and it turns out she was a catererer and not interested is that any less an assault than in Trump had done it?   Don't know if you ever saw Days of Thunder, that kind of situation plays out in that virtually directly and is passed off as a humerous mistake (the main character mistakes his doctor for a hooker and places her hand on his groin).

What if the groupie really did like the Rock Star but hated the way they were treated and only had sex because they were afraid to fight back, or because they believed it would start a relationship?

Why if Bill Clinton is accused of an assault do you respond as if it it were a consensual situation?  It seems to me like it must be for the exact reason I said above, you've decided it's just a lie, the women who it happened too (and it's more than one) really did engage in a consensual activity and just made up the story about it not being consensual afterwards?   At the very least, the stories about how he got into the situations are every bit as one sided and non-consensual as with you believe about Trump.

That this president cheated on wives with new lovers, and later married one of them, (or was it 2?), I find tacky and a character flaw, but it's probably worth being compared against Bill.  Assault allegations or joking that you are able to (implying you just may have done so) is different.  At least to me.

It's interesting that you conflate Trump's cheating (which is a voluntary activity), with Clinton being accused of assault, and then flip it as if Clinton was just a voluntary cheater and Trump the one with the assaults.  You seem to have a consistent ethic -assualt intolerable, cheating just reprehensible - but to be choosing which facts you give credibility to with a flexible weighting.  Is that because you found the actual women that accused Clinton less credible than a comment that doesn't identify anyone and for which no one stepped up?

But I guess (if strain myself to the point of hurting something) I get how someone may take away that he's just describing them as his groupies.

I don't even get how that would strain you, the conversation was literally about the topic of how famous people have groupies who let them get away with anything.  The creepy part about Trump's role in it was his seeming belief that all women are groupies.

If you see it that way, I guess there would be a double standard with Bill, for the most part, getting a pass.  It's probably a lot more superficial as well.  Bill was portrayed as charming / attractive.  Trump as a buffoon / gross.  That shouldn't matter, but probably did/does, quite a lot.

"Portrayed" exactly.  That matters a lot.  And who is it exactly who's potraying them?  Oh yeah the media that Trump should not fight back against.

I don't even think it's a double standard.  The objective facts on the table are much worse for Clinton.  You have multiple cases where we have identified people - that no one believes at all were not engaged in a sexual act with Clinton - and where one says consensual and the other not.  Do you have anyone where that's true for Trump?  You have pornstars that want to talk about their consensual relationships with Trump, which is totally creepy but an actual reality.

[D.W.]

and as you describe below you seem to be unaware of a inconsistency in your thoughts

More accurate to say that I'm not as familiar with the assault allegations.  Which, I suppose proves some points about the omnipresence of negative news against Trump in comparison.

If Rock Star finds a groupie in his dressing room, grabs her by the item and has consensual sex with her, that parses differently from Trump finding a woman in an area where she was seeking him out, grabs her by the item and has consensual sex with her in what way?

Yes

What if the groupie really did like the Rock Star but hated the way they were treated and only had sex because they were afraid to fight back, or because they believed it would start a relationship?

"Fight back" implies a lot.  It could range from standing up for themselves to physically fending off sexual assault...  Cannot answer that part.  As to the last part.  That's consensual.  Unless you want to dive down a rabbit hole of delusional behavior somehow nullifying consent?  None of this tact makes much sense to me as it relates to this discussion.

Why if Bill Clinton is accused of an assault do you respond as if it it were a consensual situation?

Again, deflection because I don't recall the specifics of those.  I wasn't watching the soap opera that was politics as closely then.  Also... it wasn't him on tape talking about it. 

I do assume they both (Bill/Trump) exploit their fame / power to have sex with people (other than their wives).  Did they cross lines?  Seems plausible.  Assault?  IDK, maybe they are above the law and can disappear these problems effectively.

I'm not giving Bill a pass and assuming it's all lies against him.  I just didn't follow his alleged misdeeds as closely as I do Trump's.  I've also said I don't think Trump's statement was a confession of actual rape, only that what he described in a manner that (to me) seemed to indicate he thought it was pretty awesome, that he was able to.  And doing so in a manner that heavily implied he knows this because he's done it before, and possibly often.  HE said that.  Not someone claiming he said it, or did it.  That is a big distinction to me. 

The creepy part about Trump's role in it was his seeming belief that all women are groupies.

Bingo.  A groupie is someone who wants to get close to their idol / powerful target for affection or attention.  You don't see how it changes things when one assumes ALL these women he comes into contact with want him to do these things?  That assuming consent or entitlement is dangerous and disgusting? 

I'm not about to dive into defending Bill's sexual history.  Maybe I should read back on the assault allegations against him.  Granted, he's no longer president...  And I think his wife's aspirations in that regard have been sufficiently derailed that he can be relegated to the history books.  Unless scandals / charges sweep him back into the spotlight...

[Fenring]

As Seriati mentioned, I wasn't brushing off Trump's comment or defending it, but rather trying to avoid my interpretation of what it literally means being clouded by what would be easy to believe about someone like Trump. What I mentioned above is how I understood his comment from the first, to the point where when people began saying he was admitting to rape my first reaction was "huh?" and my second was to roll my eyes. That's basically the way all of his comments go through the public interpreter. It's not enough that he's a creep, but people have to make him into the literal devil on top of it.

But I'll play devil's advocate for just a moment, despite the chuckle you got from "philosopher Trump": suppose he really did admit that women will let him do anything, and that he does like it, and that he *has* done it - what can we gather from that? Sure, we can say bad things about him. But assuming for the moment he's neither falsely bragging nor whitewashing the circumstances he's referring to, the point of his comment would seem to imply not that women are too afraid to call rape on him, but rather that a person such as him in a position of fame and power can actually acquire a kind of uniquitous consent for the craziest things, like a rock star. There was a time in America where the answer to that would have been "well of course he likes that, but what is wrong with those women??" We've nevertheless entered an age where questioning from that angle is seen as victim blaming, which sort of presupposes they're victims at all (a circular argument). But taking his comment at face value and assuming his statement is accurate, he would seem to be saying that, as a guy who likes having his way with women (like JFK, and like many, many men regardless of whether they'd admit it or not) it's lucky for him that he's in a position where they're into it. And if you don't like it coming from a guy who looks like him, imagine instead it was Johnny Depp or something saying that his celebrity lets him have his way with the ladies. Although it's a bit gauche to say it out loud, isn't that sort of an obvious statement once we recognize that America has a weird obsession with celebrity? So while his statement may not have been philosophical, we can imagine it unintentionally having such a message, that Americans have a weird [sexual] fixation on famous people. Well if that's true there's no point blaming Trump for it. I mean, we can blame him for not being mature enough to avoid going along with all that, but then I think he would be no worse than a great many celebrities who just don't talk about it. And so we fall back into him being unfiltered as his main attribute.

[D.W.]

All good points.  Probably just part of me being angry a trashy celebrity was elected over politicians who try not to act like that in public. 

[Wayward Son]

Donald Trump@realDonaldTrump:

The Fake News is saying that I am willing to meet with Iran, “No Conditions.” That is an incorrect statement (as usual!).

Donald Trump, talking with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press:

President Trump: “You [Iran] want to talk? Good.”

Chuck Todd: “No preconditions?”

President Trump: “Not as far as I’m concerned. No preconditions.”

At a joint press conference with Italian Prime Minister Conte:

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would certainly meet with Iran if they wanted to meet.  I don’t know that they’re ready yet.  They’re having a hard time right now.

But I ended the Iran deal; it was a ridiculous deal.  I do believe that they will probably end up wanting to meet, and I’m ready to meet any time they want to.  And I don’t do that from strength or from weakness.  I think it’s an appropriate thing to do.  If we could work something out that’s meaningful, not the waste of paper that the other deal was, I would certainly be willing to meet.

Q:    Do you have preconditions for that meeting?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  No preconditions.  No.  If they want to meet, I’ll meet.  Anytime they want.  Anytime they want.  It’s good for the country, good for them, good for us, and good for the world.  No preconditions.  If they want to meet, I’ll meet.

So who you gonna believe?  The lying Fake News media, or President Trump?

[Seriati]

I don't know Wayward, why don't you tell us when each statement was made, last I checked I thought he met with Conte more than a year ago and it may have been true then he didn't have preconditions.

[D.W.]

I can't keep up.  Is that a lie, a misstatement, fake news, flip-flop or evolving position or just a witch hunt?

So many options.  Maybe all of the above?  This new quantum-stuff makes forming opinions about reality a dicey proposition. 

[Seriati]

I don't know maybe one would reasonably consider that there's been a change of facts after Iran's attacked international shipping, restarted their nuke program, threatened everyone, increased support of rebels throughout the region, and quite possibly staged or supported a major attack on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities.

I mean it could just be me that thinks any or all of the above might have caused a reasonable person (let alone Trump) to change on a prior position of no preconditions. 

Or to wonder why exactly the story seems to be about a gotcha rather than something of substance?

[scifibum]

Trump's attacks on the media seem credible to people like you, so when he lies about the fakeness of news it's important to point that out. How about you quit making excuses for his lies? If his position changed he can fit that in a damn tweet.

[Seriati]

Okay, so hard to piece together a timeline, cause it's hard to find the news that was in play when Trump issued his tweet, as opposed to the spin after, but this piece from the NYTs at least has a context and a timeline.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/world/middleeast/trump-iran.html

So based on the timeline, last week Trump was considering meeting with Rouhani on the sideline of the UN summit, but on Sunday the administration made clear that Iranian "actions" (i.e., drone attacks on Saudi oil fields on Saturday) had jeopardized any potential for discussion.  The Trump tweet came later on Sunday, presumably (but I can't verify) in response to reports either saying he was willing to meet without "preconditions" or implying he was walking back that commitment.  Trump, interestingly tweeted about "conditions" rather than "preconditions" but I'm not sure there's a significant parse there, other than in the Hillary Clinton fully excused on technicalities way.  I think more significant is that Trump used the present tense (I am) to describe his unwillingness to meet, which seems a direct response to a claim that he was still willing to do so.

In any event, absolutely true that in the past he said he was willing to do so, and prior to the oil field attacks administration officials had affirmed that.  So, seems pretty clear, that you're ignoring the intervening act ON SATURDAY to claim foul on a current statement on Sunday, but hey, you're right I'm just "making excuses" for "lies" and not, you know demonstrating that reality and your world view don't align.

[D.W.]

Presidents are allowed to change their mind.  They are allowed to react to new events.  I'm getting sick of both sides trying to score points by illustrating when this happens as if it's some horrible sin.

Attack the new position if you want.  Hell you can even question the sincerity of the original claim if you want.  Crying foul when it happens seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Trump lies with damn near every breath.  You don't need to redefine what a lie is in order to trip him up on one.   

[TheDrake]

This is why professional diplomats justify a shift. He might have said "Previously, I was willing to meet them without preconditions. Now that they have taken an aggressive provocative action, I would have some conditions for them to meet."

As opposed to "NO PRECONDITIONS!" followed by "I don't intend to meet with them". It's a discontinuity that leaves the press and the public in a situation where everyone has to speculate.

[TheDrake]

Oh, and by the way, a professional diplomat would spell out exactly what those conditions are.

[Fenring]

I don't know if this is relevant, but in both of the quotes provided in OP about "preconditions" Trump mentioned that he would meet without preconditions, but in the Tweet that is supposedly a lie he said it was untrue that he would meet with no conditions. Is it possible there's a difference between preconditions (e.g. you do X or we don't talk) versus conditions (when we talk X, Y, and Z will have to be in effect)? Maybe this is just an accident of how he spelled the word this time. But if I were being careful about my wording, a precondition would entail what it will cost you to get me to talk, whereas a condition would entail what measures will be in place when we talk. Examples of "conditions" could be security measures of various sorts, no recordings or media, etc; but those would not be preconditions.

[TheDrake]

And again, we'd know if he fing spelled it out. "We won't meet with Iran until they do X" or "We won't meet with Iran unless they agree to Y".

[Fenring]

And again, we'd know if he fing spelled it out. "We won't meet with Iran until they do X" or "We won't meet with Iran unless they agree to Y".

Well, in the quotes above he *did* spell out the answer to those particular questions, which is that he'd meet with them anytime they wanted. He *did not*, however, specify what the conditions would be like while meeting, and maybe that's what he's addressing in the Tweet? That the media are suggesting he'd let them have such a meeting in any setup they want?

[TheDrake]

The onus is on the Administration to clarify.

Allow me to demonstrate how it is normally done.

Israel, the United States and the European Union classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. They have set three conditions for dealing with Hamas, saying it must renounce all violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist and accept all previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Hamas has so far refused to comply.

[Fenring]

The onus is on the Administration to clarify.

I haven't followed this story so I literally only know what was posted in this thread about it. Do you have more information about what they have or haven't clarified? Based *solely* on OP it seems to me that Trump clarified quite clearly under what preconditions he would meet (i.e. "anytime they want"), but didn't specify what the conditions would be, because - well how could you? That sort of thing can't actually be set until both sides talk about what they'd like the conditions to be.

[Seriati]

If the criticism of Trump on this was that he's flipped his policy, or that he's criticizing the press unfairly when he's announcing a new policy, you might have a point.  But the criticism is of a "gotcha" caught in a lie.  I find that one harder to agree with.

[TheDrake]

I can't read the Times article, I'm not giving them money until they fix some problems.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is denying he previously offered to meet Iranian leaders without preconditions, despite a litany of instances in which he did just that.

Trump’s remarks come as tensions mount in the Middle East following an attack over the weekend on Saudi Arabian oil facilities. Though it is unclear who is responsible, U.S. officials are looking to Iran. The attack has scuttled talk that Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani could meet in New York next week at the United Nations.

“The Fake News is saying that I am willing to meet with Iran, ‘No Conditions.’ That is an incorrect statement (as usual!),” Trump posted on Twitter on Sunday.

Usa today - and others are similar.

He was claiming he never offered to meet without preconditions, and he clearly did. This isn't about changing his mind later, its about him trying to shove his previous statements down the memory hole.

[rightleft22]

A key to Trump success is in his ability refrain history. 
There is no obligation to be honest. Statements are open ended. What matters is what I say now, no now, no now....

Its possible he has the memory of a fish, but more likely intentional. He really does not care about what he said in the past.  Its not relevant.

[Seriati]

TheDrake, can you point to where in the tweet (or do you have an additional source) that he says "he never offered"?  I don't count media gloss as factual statements.

[TheDrake]

You remind me of Clinton parsing the definition of is.

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”

[Wayward Son]

My main criticism is his first few words: "The Fake News is saying..."  It's fine for him to change is mind; it is not fine for him to pretend he never said it and then accuse the media of lying about it.

Remember this every time he talks about "fake news."

[Seriati]

I remind you of that?  Lol.  I'll make it even more simple, where in the tweet did Trump "deny he previously offered"? 

It's pretty obvious to me that they (and you) are reading more into that tweet than is there and making assumptions about it in the write up.  There's legit criticisms to be had, I even flagged a few for you, but the inability to even acknowledge that the media seems to be overreading their source troubles me.

[Wayward Son]

I remind you of that?  Lol.  I'll make it even more simple, where in the tweet did Trump "deny he previously offered"? 

It's pretty obvious to me that they (and you) are reading more into that tweet than is there and making assumptions about it in the write up.  There's legit criticisms to be had, I even flagged a few for you, but the inability to even acknowledge that the media seems to be overreading their source troubles me.

He didn't need to "deny he previously offered."  He simply said that him making the offer was fake news, period.  IOW, he denied ever making the offer.

Five days before this tweet, Mike Pompeo and Steve Mnuchin said he would meet with "no preconditions."

The only excuse I can see is if he changed his mind.  But before this tweet, when did he withdraw his offer to meet without conditions?  Does he believe the media can read his mind? 

What disturbs me is how Trump encourages his followers to doubt everything the media reports about him, blames the media for his own mistakes, and tries to hide his mistakes and crimes by casting all reports about them as "fake news."

Not to mention how some people try to find any excuse to justify and try to make "reasonable" this man's claims.  Apologetics should be left to those crazy creationists.

[Seriati]

I don't know, when did he?  Did you see the media query on whether the tweet meant he had withdrawn his prior offer?  I sure didn't.

Again though, meet the challenge, show where the "gloss" in the media report is supported from the statements in the tweet (we already know if you guys could you would have already and not devolved into the standard ad hominem arguments that are your go to's these days).  I already pointed out the tweet was on Sunday after a major event on Saturday that scuttled an attempt at arranging a meeting (an actual actual that demonstrates there may be a a change in plan - or did you miss that).  I have no idea what was being said on Sunday - but I put some speculation above - to which he was responding.

In any event, you're going a heck of a long way to ignore the timeline (and I acknowledged the statements from his administration) to justify and try to make "reasonable" the media's overstatement.  Why is that? 

[TheDrake]

It's up to him to draw that distinction, either in advance or in response to those reports. Can you show that to me? This is after not only he, but many administration officials made set the baseline. It seems you automatically default to the most rosy interpretation of any ambiguity in favor of the administration.

[TheDeamon]

I'm shocked you find that one murky is all.

Based on context and to whom he was speaking, my best read on it was that he was saying "wow isn't it crazy that we could get away with basically anything we like, and women even seem to like it?" It's chauvinistic to be sure, but I didn't understand it to mean either that he actually does this (it's hyperbole) or that he's glad that he can do this. Maybe he is, but I don't think that data is contained in the statement itself. It sounded to me more like boasting about being such a famous man, and that famous men like him can do stuff ordinary mortals can't. That's the version that best accords with his character that I've seen, and is not the interpretation mostly put across by the media. So yeah, I really do think even this "easy" one is hard to parse precisely.

I guess the mistake I think you are making is the assumption that your interpretation is not what outrages (most?) people. 

It doesn't have to be a literal confession of sexual assault to be so outrageous as to have derailed most mere mortal's campaigns.   

You're also making the mistake of ignoring the matter that Trump said that "pre-Weinstein" and with the full knowledge that he had spent decades moving in various "power circles" where he likely knew a number of men who probably bragged about doing essentially exactly what he described, and possibly even named which women they did it to. It's also likely he'd also heard the other end of things from some of the women who had to deal with those activities as well.

The "casting couch" meme also predates internet memes in general by a large margin. To pretend that Trump in particular would have been oblivious to such things, and how it was being applied is to be more than a bit naive I'd think. And with Trump being Donald Trump, with his being aware of such things. You can expect there's probably going to be a context where he's going to be likely to bring it up as something that is within the bounds of possible for him to pull off, even if he has never made the attempt. Such as the "shoot a mad in broad daylight" in full public view and get away with it.

Unless you think that statement was also a confession on his part to having actually shot somebody in NYC at some time in the past.

[TheDeamon]

I get that a lot of people sling the Hitler thing around, but I don't recall Bush Jr. being painted with that brush.  Then again, maybe I just found the comparison stupid and dismissed it.  Possible.

He started being actively compared to Hitler by the end of 2002 as I recall. The Hitler comparisons were largely in relation to the buildup towards, and subsequent execution of, Operation Iraqi Freedom. By the time you get into 2003 and the start of OIF, the comparisons to Hitler came frequently and often. Google searches for the 2002-2004 time frame should find you plenty of news articles and blogs alike that will make the comparison for you.

I'm pretty sure the Ornery archives will also offer you forum goers making commentary about such comparisons during that same time frame. As I recall, once the comparisons started, they never actually went away, so you should be able to pull up allusions to Bush as Hitler well into the Obama Presidency for that matter.

[TheDeamon]

Granted, I think he would not have been president had a similar tape been released before his election.  Trump's 'brand' was an outrageous egomaniac.  Him saying this 'shocking thing' was... on brand.  It's simply not for anyone else who's perused the highest office before.  If we are fortunate it won't ever happen again.

I'm generally viewing Trump as "the Andrew Jackson of the 21st Century" and calling it a day from there. Hopefully things follow the same track in the aftermath of his presidency as happened in response to Jackson's. (Specifically the introduction of a lot more checks on Executive Powers)

[TheDrake]

Consider the limit as t->infinity, where t is the length of time that a given politician has been publicly known. The probability that they will be compared to Hitler approaches 1 on an exponential curve.

Why Republicans are obsessed with comparing Obama to Hitler

Most rational people avoid comparing other people to Hitler.

[TheDeamon]

the point of his comment would seem to imply not that women are too afraid to call rape on him, but rather that a person such as him in a position of fame and power can actually acquire a kind of uniquitous consent for the craziest things, like a rock star. There was a time in America where the answer to that would have been "well of course he likes that, but what is wrong with those women??" We've nevertheless entered an age where questioning from that angle is seen as victim blaming, which sort of presupposes they're victims at all (a circular argument). But taking his comment at face value and assuming his statement is accurate, he would seem to be saying that, as a guy who likes having his way with women (like JFK, and like many, many men regardless of whether they'd admit it or not) it's lucky for him that he's in a position where they're into it. And if you don't like it coming from a guy who looks like him, imagine instead it was Johnny Depp or something saying that his celebrity lets him have his way with the ladies. Although it's a bit gauche to say it out loud, isn't that sort of an obvious statement once we recognize that America has a weird obsession with celebrity? So while his statement may not have been philosophical, we can imagine it unintentionally having such a message, that Americans have a weird [sexual] fixation on famous people. Well if that's true there's no point blaming Trump for it. I mean, we can blame him for not being mature enough to avoid going along with all that, but then I think he would be no worse than a great many celebrities who just don't talk about it. And so we fall back into him being unfiltered as his main attribute.

I've heard more than a few women over the years outright say they'd let Johnny Depp "have his way" with them. So it wouldn't stretch credibility for him to claim such a thing, but in the era of #metoo he never will do so, nor would any other "A lister" out there. It isn't just Depp that enjoys such status either. Of course, there is naturally a difference between the fantasy and the reality.

But it take two to tango in such scenarios, and anybody who claims there are not any woman out there who would be receptive to such treatment, and even seek it out, from the "right guy" are out of their minds.

[TheDeamon]

I can't keep up.  Is that a lie, a misstatement, fake news, flip-flop or evolving position or just a witch hunt?

Well, if we could get a time frame for those quotes WS gave, that would help immensely.

He may have been open to talks "without conditions" regarding a Nuclear deal a year ago.

But a lot has changed in just the last few months. "Mysterious" attacks on shipping near Iran, a US drone getting shot down, an attack on Saudi Arabia that appears to have at least had support from Iran if not outright perpetrated by Iran...

I'd say the position has probably "evolved" since a year ago.

Now if those quotes were from last week instead..

[TheDeamon]

Consider the limit as t->infinity, where t is the length of time that a given politician has been publicly known. The probability that they will be compared to Hitler approaches 1 on an exponential curve.

Why Republicans are obsessed with comparing Obama to Hitler

Most rational people avoid comparing other people to Hitler.

The Obama Comparisons to Hitler actually were more correct in just about every meaningful way.

Both were highly charismatic.
Both were highly gifted speakers.
Both were highly regarded in both academic and media circles at the height of their power.
Both made significant and lasting changes to their nations.

Bush Jr wasn't viewed as being very charismatic. (Neither is Trump)
Jr wasn't viewed as being a gifted speaker. (Trump's a bit more of a mixed bag, but his gaffes are legion)
Jr and Trump alike are actively sneered at and even derided by the popular media and academia alike.
The extent of the changes Jr and Trump are likely to impart on the Nation are arguable.

[NobleHunter]

At the height of his power, regarding Hitler highly was a strategy to avoid being killed or sent to the camps.

[TheDrake]

Consider the limit as t->infinity, where t is the length of time that a given politician has been publicly known. The probability that they will be compared to Hitler approaches 1 on an exponential curve.

Why Republicans are obsessed with comparing Obama to Hitler

Most rational people avoid comparing other people to Hitler.

The Obama Comparisons to Hitler actually were more correct in just about every meaningful way.

Both were highly charismatic.
Both were highly gifted speakers.
Both were highly regarded in both academic and media circles at the height of their power.
Both made significant and lasting changes to their nations.

Bush Jr wasn't viewed as being very charismatic. (Neither is Trump)
Jr wasn't viewed as being a gifted speaker. (Trump's a bit more of a mixed bag, but his gaffes are legion)
Jr and Trump alike are actively sneered at and even derided by the popular media and academia alike.
The extent of the changes Jr and Trump are likely to impart on the Nation are arguable.

By that stroke of Genius, Nelson Mandela is a lot like Hitler. Nobody making comparisons to Hitler is evaluating someone's skill at oration. Although, as I said

Disagree? Next time someone gives a great rousing speech, walk up to them and tell them they put Hitler to shame.

[Wayward Son]

I can't keep up.  Is that a lie, a misstatement, fake news, flip-flop or evolving position or just a witch hunt?

Well, if we could get a time frame for those quotes WS gave, that would help immensely.

He may have been open to talks "without conditions" regarding a Nuclear deal a year ago.

But a lot has changed in just the last few months. "Mysterious" attacks on shipping near Iran, a US drone getting shot down, an attack on Saudi Arabia that appears to have at least had support from Iran if not outright perpetrated by Iran...

I'd say the position has probably "evolved" since a year ago.

Now if those quotes were from last week instead..

You can find when those quotes were made with a five minute internet search.  Probably three minute.  Aren't you curious?

Besides, I already mentioned Pompeo and Mnuchin saying he would meet with "no preconditions" five days before the tweet.  That's less than a week.

As I said before, it's OK for his position to change.  But he doesn't admit it, does he?  No, it's "fake news" that he ever wanted to meet.  We have always been at war with Eastasia...

[Wayward Son]

I don't know, when did he?  Did you see the media query on whether the tweet meant he had withdrawn his prior offer?  I sure didn't.

Let's review the tweet again:

"The Fake News is saying that I am willing to meet with Iran, “No Conditions.” That is an incorrect statement (as usual!)."

Not much chance for confusion, is there?  "I am willing to meet with Iran, "No Conditions"...is an incorrect statement..." 

Again though, meet the challenge, show where the "gloss" in the media report is supported from the statements in the tweet (we already know if you guys could you would have already and not devolved into the standard ad hominem arguments that are your go to's these days).  I already pointed out the tweet was on Sunday after a major event on Saturday that scuttled an attempt at arranging a meeting (an actual actual that demonstrates there may be a a change in plan - or did you miss that).  I have no idea what was being said on Sunday - but I put some speculation above - to which he was responding.

In any event, you're going a heck of a long way to ignore the timeline (and I acknowledged the statements from his administration) to justify and try to make "reasonable" the media's overstatement.  Why is that?

What "overstatement" are you talking about?  What "gloss?" 

Trump said that "The Fake News media is saying that I am willing to meet with Iran, "No Conditions.""  That is a true statement, because that is exactly what he had been consistently saying over the past few months.

He then continues, "That is an incorrect statement (as usual!)."  When did he tell "The Fake News media" it was untrue?  Oooh, that's right, in the previous sentence!

But "as usual," they were reporting an incorrect statement. Because he just told them he changed his mind a second ago! 

Any parsing of his statement shows that he blames the "Fake News media" for incorrectly reporting that he said that he would meet with Iran with no preconditions, as usual.  He wants you to believe that he never said it.  He thinks his supporters are that stupid.

No gloss.  No overstatement.  Just facts, which Trump conveniently ignores when it suits him.

[Seriati]

So you're doubling down on the last time Trump said no commitments was 6 months or a year earlier?  That said meeting was being scheduled earlier in the week and members of his admin said the same thing ealier in the week.

Then IRAN BLEW UP SAUDI OIL REFINERIES and said meeting was cancelled.

At that point you don't think a reasonable reporter would infer that Trump appears to no longer be willing to meet without pre-conditions based on a change of circumstances?  What exactly were they saying before Trump's tweet?  Did you go look?  Were they saying Trump was lying because he apparently had pre-conditions, or criticizing because he was "willing to meet without them after these atrocities"?  What was he reacting to?

[TheDrake]

Everything you say could be true. Then why isn't Trump saying that, even now? Why isn't he saying: I WAS willing to meet with them but we're taking a step back in light of the recent attacks on our ally Saudi Arabia?

Other administrations would get out in front of it and never have to defend themselves by both acknowledging and revoking the offer to meet.

It's inkblot diplomacy, where everyone gets to see what they want to see.

If you don't like what people are seeing, draw a clear picture.

[Grant]

4-8-18

A MESSAGE FROM DONALD J TRUMP, REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Nobody beats me on National Security.

[Grant]

1-30-19

A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong! When I became President Iran was making trouble all over the Middle East, and beyond. Since ending the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal, they are MUCH different, but a source of potential danger and conflict. They are testing Rockets (last week) and more, and are coming very close to the edge. There economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!

[Wayward Son]

So you're doubling down on the last time Trump said no commitments was 6 months or a year earlier?  That said meeting was being scheduled earlier in the week and members of his admin said the same thing ealier in the week.

As I said to TheDeamon, maybe you should check the dates yourself.

Yes, the news conference with the Italian Prime Minister was over a year ago, July 30, 2018.

But Trump's interview with Chuck Todd was a mere 12 weeks earlier on June 23, 2019--3 months.  Mike Pence said the same thing that day to Jake Tapper.

And, yes, after that, White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley said on Fox News that he would meet without pre-conditions on August 28, 2019.  And Mnuchin and Pompeo said so again on September 10, 2019.

Then IRAN BLEW UP SAUDI OIL REFINERIES and said meeting was cancelled.

At that point you don't think a reasonable reporter would infer that Trump appears to no longer be willing to meet without pre-conditions based on a change of circumstances?  What exactly were they saying before Trump's tweet?  Did you go look?  Were they saying Trump was lying because he apparently had pre-conditions, or criticizing because he was "willing to meet without them after these atrocities"?  What was he reacting to?

Frankly, I don't know where to look to see what Trump was looking at and reacting to.  Does anyone?  What makes you think there necessarily was such a report?

And it still does not excuse him from blaming the "fake news" media that he said he would meet with Iran without conditions.  Because he said it.  Repeatedly.  So did his staff.  Repeatedly.  Days before he changed his mind.

He could have corrected them.  But, no, he assumed (as apparently you do) that they should read his mind.  "Infer" that he changed it.  After all, why should the President actually have to state what is on his mind.  We apparently should all know what he is thinking before he says it, or it's "fake news!" 

Would you have stood for this behavior from Obama?  If not, why do you stand for it from Trump?

[Wayward Son]

President Donald Trump:

"To show you how dishonest the LameStream Media is, I used the word Liddle’, not Liddle, in discribing Corrupt Congressman Liddle’ Adam Schiff. Low ratings @CNN purposely took the hyphen out and said I spelled the word little wrong. A small but never ending situation with CNN!"

[TheDrake]

"All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here -- a lynching. But we will WIN!" - DJT

[Pete at Home]

Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.

Lifted?  Or knocked off food stamps?

[Wayward Son]

President Donald Trump:

"The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!"

[Crunch]

He was speaking theoretically. It’s all the rage.