President Big Mouth opens yap before getting all the facts on London bomb

[justoh]

No one complained about him speaking without facts, they complained about him speaking without ALL the facts.

True. Good job. Totally mis-remembered the thread title. Though probably nobody will ever have all the facts. Should we never speak about anything?

 

[fskimospy]

True. Good job. Totally mis-remembered the thread title. Though probably nobody will ever have all the facts. Should we never speak about anything?

You apparently misremembered Momentsofsanity's post while you were replying to it as well, lol.

Regardless, while you're asking Trump about that expanded EO you should take this up with him too as he's the one who said it. Why would anyone need to explain away stupid things someone else said?

 

[justoh]

You apparently misremembered Momentsofsanity's post while you were replying to it as well, lol.

Regardless, while you're asking Trump about that expanded EO you should take this up with him too as he's the one who said it. Why would anyone need to explain away stupid things someone else said?

I'm not asking Trump. I'm asking whomever the "he" would be. To be honest I'm a little confused about it as well, but i'll probably figure it out later.

What about my question re not speaking about anything? Maybe only the relevant facts are necessary before speaking.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not asking Trump. I'm asking whomever the "he" would be. To be honest I'm a little confused about it as well, but i'll probably figure it out later.

What about my question re not speaking about anything? Maybe only the relevant facts are necessary before speaking.

Or, more likely, Trumpolini was just talking out is ass to inflame the xenophobes & haters in his base. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[justoh]

Or, more likely, Trumpolini was just talking out is ass to inflame the xenophobes & haters in his base. It wouldn't be the first time.

Maybe, but what he's stated so far has been consistent with what we now know and didn't at the time he made the statements. Naturally it was most likely Islam, and naturally they probably watch a lot of muslims, so he could have just got lucky. Doesn't seem like you can say that with any certainty. It's at least possible he had the information.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe, but what he's stated so far has been consistent with what we now know and didn't at the time he made the statements. Naturally it was most likely Islam, and naturally they probably watch a lot of muslims, so he could have just got lucky. Doesn't seem like you can say that with any certainty.

You just confirmed what Teresa May offered, that Trump was speculating & talking out his ass at the time- that he really didn't know jack shit when he spouted off to advance his agenda of fear.

 

[jackstar7]

perhaps the most truthful statement drumpf has ever made during his tenure on this planet

This haunts me.

 

[justoh]

You just confirmed what Teresa May offered, that Trump was speculating & talking out his ass at the time- that he really didn't know jack shit when he spouted off to advance his agenda of fear.

Don't you mean James May?

 

[disappoint]

Britain's Prime Minister slaps him down for it. Does this guy do anything else besides watch TV and react on Twitter?

Hey Dump, how about shut the fuck up until the facts are in


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...-trump-over-tweet-after-london-subway-n801671

While they are mostly housebroken, sometimes the best we can hope for with some presidents is that they only go in the newspapers.

 

[Sonikku]

I remember thinking our reputation as a country soured enormously under Dubya in the eyes of the rest of the world back when I was a teenager.

Oh, to be young.

 

[tommo123]

You mean facts the metro police refuse to release, but that could have been leaked to US intel anyway? If we've learned anything from Stan Lee's Lucky Man, it's that the mayor has considerable influence over the met.

after the manchester concert bombing wasn't there a stop in sharing intel with US agencies due to what the **** in chief vomited out to the media and twitter with nary a thought as to the impact it had?

if he's doing it again (it's not unfair to expect ***** behaviour from a **** then won't this just lead to ever increasing disconnects of intel from non-US intel sources due to the verbal diarrhea of this fat, orange, tiny fingered loser in a suit?

* due to stupid anandtech auto censor stopping me from calling trump what he is.

Filter-circumventing profanity excised. Dial it back please.
admin allisolm

 

[justoh]

after the manchester concert bombing wasn't there a stop in sharing intel with US agencies due to what the **** in chief vomited out to the media and twitter with nary a thought as to the impact it had?

if he's doing it again (it's not unfair to expect ***** behaviour from a ****) then won't this just lead to ever increasing disconnects of intel from non-US intel sources due to the verbal diarrhea of this fat, orange, tiny fingered loser in a suit?

Like I said, it could have been leaked. Maybe they have people on the inside, or maybe some people in law enforcement disagree with their masters and don't like the idea of submission to Islam. Someone should be talking about it, and they knew Trump would, in his way.

 

[Jhhnn]

Like I said, it could have been leaked. Maybe they have people on the inside, or maybe some people in law enforcement disagree with their masters and don't like the idea of submission to Islam. Someone should be talking about it, and they knew Trump would, in his way.

So you're speculating as to the basis for Trump's speculation? With a conspiracy theory about the masters of law enforcement & submission to Islam?

Tell us how it ties in with Benghazi & Jade Helm... I mean, we need to know, don't we, if we're to turn back the threat of Sharia Law?

 

[HomerJS]

So you're speculating as to the basis for Trump's speculation? With a conspiracy theory about the masters of law enforcement & submission to Islam?

Tell us how it ties in with Benghazi & Jade Helm... I mean, we need to know, don't we, if we're to turn back the threat of Sharia Law?

Because clearly justoh knows more then the British PM

 

[brycejones]

Like I said, it could have been leaked. Maybe they have people on the inside, or maybe some people in law enforcement disagree with their masters and don't like the idea of submission to Islam. Someone should be talking about it, and they knew Trump would, in his way.

The knots you twist yourself into.

 

[shortylickens]

True. Good job. Totally mis-remembered the thread title. Though probably nobody will ever have all the facts. Should we never speak about anything?

He had alternative facts which is why I dont like him running his god damn mouth.

 

[justoh]

He had alternative facts which is why I dont like him running his god damn mouth.

What did he state or imply about the situation that wasn't accurate?

Because clearly justoh knows more then the British PM

Good one.

 

[TheVrolok]

What did he state or imply about the situation that wasn't accurate?



Good one.

This is exactly why he speaks in generalities, he never actually commits to anything, and he can always back pedal or pick a thread of truth (possible truth?) in hopes it will seem like he's being truthful.. And people like yourself keep buying it.. It's bizarre.

 

[justoh]

This is exactly why he speaks in generalities, he never actually commits to anything, and he can always back pedal or pick a thread of truth (possible truth?) in hopes it will seem like he's being truthful.. And people like yourself keep buying it.. It's bizarre.

My position in this thread has been (1) that it's not necessarily the case that he spoke without relevant information (contrary to the OP) and (2) that people should be talking about Islam, something which the English authorities are purposefully avoiding, likely out of a combination of fear and misguided "sensitivity" or political correctness. Never stated that he does have the information, and even acknowledged how it was an easy assumption to begin with (even the scotland yard monitoring part - since they would be monitoring a lot of muslims).

So what am I supposed to have bought? Seems like I'm the only one trying to be objective.

 

[TheVrolok]

Seems like I'm the only one trying to be objective.

Unfortunately, this is the problem. In many instances being objective is wonderful, but being purely objective (and then adding speculation) about purposefully general and vague statements is exactly what perpetuates them because of course, if you analyze every word or phrase for the many possible meanings you will find one, or some, that fit. That is exactly what he's relying on. Some subjectivity, inference, and appreciation of context is necessary. Communication is hardly strictly objective.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Can't take trump literally, or figuratively, if it means you disagree

 

[justoh]

Unfortunately, this is the problem. In many instances being objective is wonderful, but being purely objective (and then adding speculation) about purposefully general and vague statements is exactly what perpetuates them because of course, if you analyze every word or phrase for the many possible meanings you will find one, or some, that fit. That is exactly what he's relying on. Some subjectivity, inference, and appreciation of context is necessary. Communication is hardly strictly objective.

None of that seems relevant/pertinent. The question is very simple: did he speak without relevant info? Maybe he did, but not necessarily. It's always the case that everyone speaks without all the facts, since that category is infinite, making that interpretation absurd. It should be about relevant facts, and the only relevant facts necessary would be those incorporated into the statements. It's at least possible had that information.

 

[Jhhnn]

My position in this thread has been (1) that it's not necessarily the case that he spoke without relevant information (contrary to the OP) and (2) that people should be talking about Islam, something which the English authorities are purposefully avoiding, likely out of a combination of fear and misguided "sensitivity" or political correctness. Never stated that he does have the information, and even acknowledged how it was an easy assumption to begin with (even the scotland yard monitoring part - since they would be monitoring a lot of muslims).

So what am I supposed to have bought? Seems like I'm the only one trying to be objective.

None of that seems relevant/pertinent. The question is very simple: did he speak without relevant info? Maybe he did, but not necessarily. It's always the case that everyone speaks without all the facts, since that category is infinite, making that interpretation absurd. It should be about relevant facts, and the only relevant facts necessary would be those incorporated into the statements. It's at least possible had that information.

You're not trying to be objective. You're just making excuse for Trump who was apparently repeating speculation as fact he learned from Fox & Friends a few minutes before his tweet. Notice the timeline-

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/...-push-for-expanding-a-travel-ban.html?mcubz=0

At 6:42 a.m., Mr. Trump tweeted that “sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard” carried out the attack, which injured at least 29 people in the blast and ensuing panic. It was not clear where Mr. Trump got that information, though 23 minutes earlier, “Fox & Friends,” a program he regularly watches, broadcast a report in which a security analyst said he feared that the London police had already known the identity of the attackers.

But Mr. Trump’s assertion that the assailants had been known to Scotland Yard angered Prime Minister Theresa May, who said it was not helpful for anyone to speculate while an investigation was underway. Mr. Trump was later briefed about the attack and called Mrs. May with condolences, according to a senior official, though he did not apologize.

Apparently, the only information he had when he shot off his mouth was from Fox & Friends... Well, unless he was officially briefed earlier than 6:42 AM... Go ahead, tell us that "could" have happened...

 

[pmv]

My position in this thread has been (1) that it's not necessarily the case that he spoke without relevant information (contrary to the OP) and (2) that people should be talking about Islam, something which the English authorities are purposefully avoiding, likely out of a combination of fear and misguided "sensitivity" or political correctness. Never stated that he does have the information, and even acknowledged how it was an easy assumption to begin with (even the scotland yard monitoring part - since they would be monitoring a lot of muslims).

So what am I supposed to have bought? Seems like I'm the only one trying to be objective.

Given his track record of making statements based on no established facts at all (and sometimes that directly contradict the established facts) Occam's razor suggests its far more likely to be just a product of his pre-existing opinions. That you fail to take that into account suggests you are less-than objective.

Mainly, though, whether it's true or not, its just plain undignified and undiplomatic and downright unfriendly for him to tweet about things that are primarily the concern of an allied country.

I fail to see the problem with letting the police investigate and see what they turn up. (Odds certainly seem to be tilting in favour of it being an Islamist attack, but its still a law-and-order issue either way)

And people talk about Islam all the bloody time. It rivals only Brexit as a topic of discussion and conversation and media coverage.

 

[TheVrolok]

None of that seems relevant/pertinent. The question is very simple: did he speak without relevant info? Maybe he did, but not necessarily. It's always the case that everyone speaks without all the facts, since that category is infinite, making that interpretation absurd. It should be about relevant facts, and the only relevant facts necessary would be those incorporated into the statements. It's at least possible had that information.

Oh, you're either entirely missing the point or being purposefully intellectually dishonest. Should I guess?