At the G7 meeting, President Donald Trump enlisted First Lady Melania Trump to vouch for his view that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is a person with “tremendous potential” after spending time with him. The problem is that the First Lady has never met Kim Jong Un, as the White House later embarrassingly admitted. It was a signature moment for the President who has been struggling to convince people that he never suggested nuking hurricanes despite multiple alleged sources saying that he raised the idea repeatedly. The problem is really not the importance of the First Lady vouching for Kim Jong Un or even nuking hurricanes, the problem is that Trump has made so many false statements (including statements contradicted on videotape) that it is no longer possible to simply take his word for it that he never raised the truly insane idea of nuking hurricanes. It is amazing how Trump’s denial did not seem to have any real impact on the coverage. The credibility bill has come due for the President.
At the G-7 (Group of Seven) summit, President Donald Trump declared “Kim Jong Un — who I’ve gotten to know extremely well; the first lady has gotten to know Kim Jong Un, and I think she’d agree with me — he is a man with a country that has tremendous potential.”
For Trump, it was a relatively small misfire. However, it was coming at a time when he was denying a shocking report that he suggested the possibility of exploding nukes to stop the formation of hurricanes. Axios reported that Trump made the proposal to senior Homeland Security and national security officials and cited multiple sources.
The president later called the story “ridiculous.” “The story by Axios that President Trump wanted to blow up large hurricanes with nuclear weapons prior to reaching shore is ridiculous. I never said this. Just more FAKE NEWS!”
For any other president, the denial would have been enough to knock down a story of a clearly moronic proposal. However, Trump has lost that credibility cushion.
While Francis W. Riechelderfer, the head of the U.S. Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service), once raised the idea in 1961, it would cause untold environmental harm. It is chilling that if any modern president would even contemplate such an act. As NOAA wrote on its FAQ page “Apart from the fact that this might not even alter the storm, this approach neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems. Needless to say, this is not a good idea.”
The more worrisome fact for the White House is that this story is considered plausible and that the President’s denial had no impact on the news cycle. That is why President speak carefully. They know that credibility, once lost, is difficult to regain . . . particularly when you need it the most.
I truly do not know the truth of this matter and that disturbs me a great deal. Like many Americans, it is not clear who or what source can be trusted. With some media now openly anti-Trump, it is difficult to trust the reporting. Yet, the President himself shows a continuing lack of concern over the accuracy or truth of statements. That leaves the public with little ability to discern fact from fiction — a dangerous position for any democratic system.
https://www.wired.com/story/nuking-hurricanes-polar-ice-caps-climate-change/
Nuking hurricanes used to be considered cutting edge science. So many scientists and others have suggested it, in fact, that NOAA even has a website devoted to explaining why it won’t work.
There was also talk about fueling automobiles with nuclear energy, and reshaping the climate, melting the ice caps to create more moisture and warmth. Scientists thought they could control the weather with nuclear energy. The Ice Caps were considered, by scientists, an “unnatural condition” of the Earth. The Soviets wanted to speed up global warming to thaw out its frozen lands.
It used to be a tourist attraction for visitors to Vegas to watch the nuclear bomb tests.
When I was younger, climate scientists wanted to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to artificially create global warming, because they were certain we were headed for another ice age.
The moral of this story is that no matter how certain scientists are, it can change.
As for Trump, the problem is twofold. First, when anyone denies saying something that he actually did, then people are more inclined to believe the next story about him, true or false. People can suggest he said just about anything, and it would be believed. The same holds true for his history of infidelity.
The second issue is that nuclear weapons create radioactive fallout, and environmental damage. If the President did suggest such a thing, it indicates an insufficient concern for these effects.
I have no idea if Trump made the suggestion. There are clearly saboteurs with access to the White House who deliberately release damaging leaks, such as that of the Greenland talks. This aids our nation’s adversaries. The source is unnamed. None of the (numerous) stories I have read indicate that this has been independently confirmed. On the one hand, Trump periodically says outrageous things. On the other hand, the media has done a poor job of vetting stories.
So, we do not yet have sufficient information. I am both inclined to believe that Trump said something outrageous, and also inclined to believe the media would fail to check a story.
If he did ask the question, then it is one that was commonly asked for so many decades that there are articles and websites devoted to answering it. Is the appropriate response from high level officials to internationally shame the President for asking a question, or to provide the requested information and answer the question in detail? If Trump was actually planning to launch a nuclear weapon into a hurricane that releases the same energy as multiples of a nuclear bomb, then it would be helpful to release the information. Otherwise, the purpose was clearly to embarrass Trump, which is not an honorable goal.
We know people who had access to previous Presidents. There are always stories of embarrassing behavior from every single one. I cannot imagine any of them abusing their access and privilege to make such stories internationally known, mocking them, while they were in office.
Karen, these people hate Trump more than they love America. A lot of leftists don’t love America and think it is a horrible place but we don’t see them moving elsewhere while we see people from all over the world wanting to live here.
And…a lot of “leftists” (is a leftist someone who grasps the extent of Trump’s awful character?) do love America. Maybe you like the EPA, Education, Interior etc all to be headed by people who’s intent is to hamstring these agencies.
I think those leftists that love America should speak up loud and clear. So far their voices are being drowned out by hateful people and a hateful press. The two party system is good for America but right now it appears the hard left is like a very strong magnet.
Acromion – A classical liberal believes in individual liberty and government sharply restricted to its mandated purview. A modern liberal believes in social change by tax and spend. A modern progressive believes in social change by government fiat.
Leftism is an extreme form of Progressivism. It believes in a very powerful government, with individuals ceding their rights for the good of the people, as defined by the movement. To get such rights, the movement relies upon some existential crisis. Today, it is anthropogenic climate change, systemic racism, and the patriarchy. The crisis is presented, and the solution is a powerful government. An example is mandated speech like gender pronouns. Another example is Antifa, which believes it has the right to silence an individual’s speech if they don’t agree with them. They label someone, often falsely, and then feel entitled to destroy them. Forcing an individual business owner to participate in a gay wedding in Leftism. Supporting gay people to have the right to form a lasting union recognized by law, and for business owners to have the right to participate, or not, in the ceremony, is Classical Liberalism. Systematically seeking out conservative Christian businesses who would not want to participate in a gay wedding, in order to destroy them, is Leftism. A specific example is the gay man who targeted a baker, asking him to bake a series of cakes, including one with Satan on it, until finally suing him because he would not bake a cake that was blue inside and pink outside. This same baker also does not create custom Halloween cakes, because he disagrees with its pagan roots.
Socialism is Leftism. The German Socialist Party (Nazis) are believed by many to satisfy the requirements for a Leftist organization. Leftist academics labeled it as far right, because traditional German identity was part of the movement. However, conservatives seek to protect individual liberty. The Nazis stripped individual rights to create a dictatorship, punished dissent, and even encouraged women to have as many babies out of wedlock as possible to promote the racist master race.
Individual liberty = classical liberalism
Few to no individual rights, all powerful government, and targeting those who dissent with the party line = Leftism.
https://youtu.be/JXbR3oADwaM
Democrats lean left and Republicans lean right, mostly about the roles of government. Moderate Democrats and Republicans are centrist, with more in common than the extreme end of the scale.
A Leftist is at the extreme end of the Leftist identity scale.
Oh, but in their minds they love America, just not Trump’s America. So much so that they have to hate Trump and attack his supporters to prove it.
Funny how the Leftist movement seeks to give more power to government, but at the same time seeks to disempower Trump.
The safeguard against a future president with which you fundamentally disagree is that there are the balance of powers, and restrictions on government.
Make government too powerful, and you create a dictator or authoritarian government.
The safeguard against a future president with which you fundamentally disagree is that there are the balance of powers, and restrictions on government.
The problem for progressives is they lost control of their own monster. They knew what it was capable of doing when they lost it and that fear is driving them to do and say some very bazaar things.
They’ve been scrambling ever since to take cover behind the very constitution they despise. There’s no sincerity there. It’s all so mechanical for them and they cannot figure out why their efforts have been fruitless. Trump hasn’t become the monster they’ve conjured up. He’s been more like one of the local villagers with a torch and pitchfork storming the progressives castle to kill their monster.
Karen, you, like Trump, are enamored with the title “President of the United States”, as if this title somehow confers the dignity and respect earned by men like Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes on Trump. Trump is an anomaly. Uniquely unqualified by virtue of lack of knowledge as to the basics of governance and consensus-building, which are key tools to accomplish anything as a POTUS. Uniquely deceitful. Uniquely narcissistic, arrogant, petty, vindictive, jealous, and uniquely unpatriotic. What other President lied to avoid military service? What other President disabuses a war hero like John McCain?
Simply put, people mock Trump because they do not respect him and do not like him. In fact, this sentiment is shared world-wide. He cheated to “win the victory”. He praises a former KGB agent and sides with him over US Intelligence. He praises a murderous N. Korea dictator. He is distrusted and disliked by the majority of Americans, most of whom voted for the other candidate. He does not belong in the White House.
Faux News does a wonderful job of convincing people like you that Trump is a victim of “mainstream media”, the “deep state”, Barak Obama and the Clintons. Pay attention to the substance of the criticisms–they are all due to Trump’s personal deficiencies rather than politics–the lying, misogyny, xenophobia and racism. No one is “out to get” Trump. America is better than Trump.
more boring garbledygook nonsense from Natch. hyper obsessed with Trump, he is a like kryptonite to her superwoman brain that just shuts down whenever trump makes an errant tweet, and she’s flummoxed into paroxysm of outrage which can only be dispelled by calling him names on the turley blog.
sad!
Mr. Kurtz: Turley’s point is that Trump’s most-recent lies are not “errant”. They are part of his consistent pattern of being a chronic, habitual liar, to the point that he has a crisis of credibility.
mmm, thanks for the exegesis
Natacha – stop claiming you know what I love, or what I think. You’re wrong every single time. At this point, your obsession with Fox has become hysterical.
Also, “disabuses” does not mean what you think it means.
And, Karen Honey, you don’t know much about anything, especially the “isms” you heard someplace and spout off about here. You are a disciple, and what you think is clear–I hear you repeating things put out by Faux News every single day about “leftism”, “progressiveism”, “socialism”, “liberalism”. etc.. You are the one obsessed with Faux News, and I do know the kind of drivel they put out, and I do call out this lack of objectivity and deference to an undeserving fake POTUS every single time. Respectfully, you don’t know what you’re talking about. All of this expounding on “isms” is a pivot to avoid the topic of the day: Trump’s most-recent lies and the resultant lack of credibility he has earned. There isn’t any logical response for this. A POTUS is not supposed to be a chronic, habitual liar. Faux News never deals with this subject. Every time Trump tells another whopper, they pivot to attack Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, one of the Democratic candidates or the mainstream media. Even when Trump is directly challenged about a lie for which there is no defense, as Yamiche Alcindor of PBS did when she confronted him about the reason Russia was kicked out of the G- 8, he doubles down and keeps lying. Such a person is not honorable nor worthy of respect. That’s just on the subject of lying. Then, there’s the deference to Russia and the insults to our allies.
Natacha:
“You are the one obsessed with Faux News.” “Obsessed” doesn’t mean what you think it does. I actually only watch Fox rarely, and do not often bring it up in conversation.
On the other hand, it is unusual for you to pen a single post that does not harp incessantly on your rage against Fox/Faux/Hannity.
For you to know what Fox covers every single day, you would have to watch it continuously.
I do not respect Rachel Maddow as a journalist or host. She puts emotion before facts, and gets the story wrong so often that even Left leaning NYT journalists are forbidden to appear in any official capacity on her show. However, how often do I bring her up in the comments section? Once or twice a year perhaps? I can’t even remember the last time.
In contrast, you are exhibiting an excessive obsession with Fox news. It has a rather frantic, shrill tone. You might not be aware of it, but it’s grating.
How do you know anything about Rachel Maddow’s demeanor or the content of her reporting? You clearly don’t watch her program. List for me all of the stories she has gotten wrong. What is your source for claiming NYT journalists are forbidden from appearing on her show? She is a target because of her intelligence and integrity, things no one at Faux can claim, especially Hannity.
One reason I know you don’t watch her is because she is in the same time slot as Hannity. I don’t continuously watch Faux News because it’s not necessary to get the gist of the daily slop, pivoting, attacks on Democrats, and cover stories for Trump and his foibles. They constantly harp on the “deep state”, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, AOC, Omar and Tlaib. Before them, it was Comey, the CIA, the FBI, Jeff Sessions, Strock, Cohen, and anyone else who has the goods on Trump. They are part of the strategy to put the faces of controversial people on the entire Democratic party, because they can get disciples like you to believe it. They never criticize or question Trump’s daily lying, which to most reasonable people is a very big deal.
Natacha:
“How do you know anything about Rachel Maddow’s demeanor or the content of her reporting? You clearly don’t watch her program.”
I’m going to explain this to you. One. More. Time. Pay attention.
You have absolutely no idea what or whom I watch, or read, or how I come to my opinion, outside of the links that I provide myself, which often come from a variety of sources, left, center, and right.
Just because you appear to believe your own fantasies about me does not make them accurate. You have got to accept that reality does not conform to your inner space, or continue to be blown off as unstable.
Your posts are really getting hysterical (Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Fox Hannity Fox Trump Russia). It’s discomfiting to witness.
Look, if you cannot or will not control yourself, I will return to not addressing you directly, and only correct the slander in general.
Good luck, and I hope you find some sort of peace of mind.
@Karen S
you’re sounding a bit unhinged
as it’s said:
if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen
Anonymous – you are just spouting ad hominems. And George Will may be a conservative, but he is a NeverTrumper. He does not represent all conservatives just as Al Sharpton does not represent all blacks.
@Paul C Schulte
Sometimes the truth hurts.
(This isn’t a debate.)
Anonymous – I am cooking with gas, if that is any help.
Why don’t you try answering the points I raised, such as listing examples of the things Maddow got wrong? You claimed she gets things wrong so often that the NYT doesn’t allow its reporters to appear on her show. You got that idea someplace, since I know you are not a regular viewer, so it’s a fair question to ask you to identify your source. Instead, you pivot to attack me and my criticisms of Faux News.
What “slanders” have I uttered? Like many people, I have strong opinions about the lack of objectivity of Faux News, its general lack of calling out Trump’s lies, and its endless harping about Hillary Clinton, the “deep state”, and anyone testifying against Trump. Slander is another matter altogether.
Natacha as a loyal Maddow fan you can encourage her to debate Laura Ingraham who has asked her for such a debate but to date she has refused.
Laura Ingraham, with her fake yellow hair and black roots, her perpetual snark (because her lips don’t quite cover her veneers), and flashing lots of skin, along with her hypocritical wearing of ashes on Ash Wednesday and her cross*, is the worst of all on Faux News. She makes no pretense of being anything other than a Trump disciple and the snarky way she criticizes Democrats and goes after HRC make her appear more stupid than she probably is. There is no pretense of objectivity here.
Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes scholar. She doesn’t need to appear as a circus sideshow attraction with someone like Ingraham, because Ingraham is nothing but a stupid pro-Trump attack dog. What is there to “debate”? It would be a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent and would accomplish nothing other than to reinforce the fact that Ingraham is dumb, insubstantial and blindly loyal to Trump because she’s being paid a lot of money. We already know these things.
*she is a hypocrite for not calling out the endless lying and abuse of migrants, especially children. Christians are called to do these things. When you wear a great, big cross but support someone who is a chronic, habitual liar and one who abuses the vulnerable, you are a hypocrite. Oh, and the latest thing is that Trump’s administration has sent notice to the families of undocumented migrant children present in the US for lifesaving medical treatment they cannot receive at home that they must vacate the US within 33 days.
“Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes scholar.”
Great, that means the two of them are on a relatively equal footing. By the way Ingraham clerked for a Supreme Court Judge. No need for Maddow to duck such an engagement and if she is so smart and so right she would put Ingraham away, but I am afraid Maddow is smart enough to know that she can’t hold her own in a debate where one has to be able to provide facts and can’t rely on the type of thing you do almost every time you post.
I’m awaiting Maddow’s acceptance of the challenge but that is the problem. The left is mostly afraid of a fair debate and Maddow doesn’t seem to be any different.
Wow! With all of Trump’s consistent, daily lying, you’d still be willing to believe that Trump may not have raised the issue, more than once, as it turns out, of nuking hurricanes. When he raised this the first time, the effect of nuclear fallout on marine life and cities affected by the trade winds was explained, but the explanation didn’t sink in. Faux News has done a wonderful job of convincing you not to trust your lying eyes and ears or to turn to any other source for information. That’s what discipleship does–your feelings are driven by faith, not by fact or logic. That’s how Catholic faith is described in a song sung often at Mass: “we walk by faith and not by sight”. Trump also claims he is the God of Israel, and the “chosen one”. You probably believe that, too.
What about the lie that Melania could vouch for Kim Jong Un, someone she’s never even met? The White House actually tried to spin this clear, unequivocal lie by saying that Trump discusses things with her and she agrees with his assessment. It was a boldface lie, pure and simple. A POTUS is not supposed to lie. A POTUS is not supposed to praise a murderous dictator.
One of the biggest, most-concerning lies is Trump constantly repeating the false statement that Obama was “outsmarted” by Putin, and because of sore feelings, that’s why Obama personally got Russia kicked out of the G-8. Never mind the fact that Macron and other world leaders say this is not true, and that Russia’s not getting back in until it returns Crimea to Ukraine. Trump even claimed that it was Obama’s fault somehow that Putin invaded and is still occupying the Crimea, and that Obama could have stopped this. Again, Trump’s insane and illogical jealousy of Obama is showing, but what is most-concerning is his deference to Putin and advocacy for Putin’s agenda. Is it just a mere coincidence that Trump deferred to Putin in Helsinki wherein he sided with Putin and against American Intelligence? Is it a mere coincidence that Mueller’s team found that Trump’s campaign welcomed help from Russia and fed Russian operatives key polling information for their use in a false social media campaign directed against HIllary Clinton in certain key districts he needed? Maybe it’s another mere coincidence that Trump pocketed $40 million in a real estate deal involving a Florida property he never lived in that was purchased by Russian oligarch. And maybe, just maybe, it’s a coincidence that Trump has announced that he’s inviting Putin to next year’s G-7 conference and that he’s pushing for it to be held at his Doral, FL property, instead of the usual secure and historic properties where such international meetings have previously been held, like Camp David and Colonial Williamsburg.
Karen, Allan, et al are true believers, so whatever spin Faux News puts on this situation, they’ll believe it because, after all, the mainstream media are prejudiced against Trumpy Bear. Nevertheless, Turley is correct: Trump has NO credibility. It is a self-inflicted wound.
For anyone with a brain AND conscience, it must be exhausting making daily excuses for this jerk o.. IT’s not like even he cares, Noted by others, he just lies anew the next day to cover for yesterdays,,,,, and Karen gets the shovel and goes to work.
Anon1……………it’s adorable that you have figured out that politicians sometimes exaggerate.
natch said:
Trump also claims he is the God of Israel,
LIE
do you feel any pangs of conscience at all that you not only spout boring opinionated drivel about him being a narcissist, etc etc etc and now you are making up a blasphemy too? Despicable liar– YOU
They do not feels such pangs, because they hear what fits their preconceived notions, and they do not question the the validity of what they repeat. To them it is true, and that does not concur guilt.
great article!
————-
As NOAA says, among the many reasons nuking a hurricane would be unlikely to make any difference at all is the sheer amount of energy contained inside of a storm: “The heat release is equivalent to a 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes,” that is, a hurricane is already rereleasing energy equivalent every hour to the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, a Soviet device so powerful it caused third-degree burns 100 kilometers away from the blast. Moreover, downgrading a catastrophic Category 5 storm to a merely strong Category 2 would require, by NOAA’s calculations, moving half-a-billion tons of air.
Moreover, NOAA points out that it’s hard to tell what might turn into a hurricane in the first place. There are roughly 80 weak tropical waves or depressions that form in the Atlantic each year, only a half-dozen of which grow into hurricanes. Knowing which to target is impossible.
Even for Donald Trump, launching 80 nukes a year seems extreme.”
thx to wired mag
I agree with the premise of this story. But consider starting mid 19th C for the inability to tell truth from fiction: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/on-the-media-empire-state-mind-1
Some of the best 53 minutes you could spend learning hidden US history. But if you’d prefer to only hear convincing proof that the US military occupation of Mecca, the holiest of all Muslim holy land (a reasonable analogy is the Chinese military occupying DC and the USA’s biggest evangelical mega-church) really did directly cause 9-11, then fast forward to the last 10 minutes: Bin Laden’s father was a contractor who built, with Bin Laden as a young man, the very US Marine barracks that Bin Laden successfully later attacked. Hear then-POTUS Clinton’s own words on this subject.
Stop thinking that ME Muslims as a group, outside the USA, shall welcome within the next several centuries, women voting, women’s rights, females attending school, giving up multiple wives, western nudity and sexual “freedom,” homosexuality, religious freedom, separation of powers, endless genders, sex changes, pornography, abortion, all the happy joys of current Western lifestyles. Islam knows that the westernizing of Islam mandates all these things.
If you think the US military can enact its will by force, look at South Vietnam, which no longer exists, and for which 53k US military died. Only 1/20th the # died in Afghanistan, but with the same result: the US has positively lost in Afghanistan. Soon is the full withdrawal of US troops in shame, tail between its legs. All that shall be left is scum bag CIA agents spending your money, training and arming alleged so-called “Islamic moderates” who slaughter their perceived enemies (those that don’t pay blood money) in the head in front of the victim’s family members.
To say that Islam is much braver, is more willing to sacrifice, and understands history better than US citizens (even more so any Democrat or GOP leader), is the understatement of the C. Watch James Garner’s all time best, the anti-war masterpiece “The Americanization of Emily,” Learn it’s lesson: the truest, most direct, most honest, and most successful “war heroes” are not men with guns, but rather the pacifists who refuse to fight war.
Read Sgt. Smedley Butler’s Wiki page. Learn to talk to and convince those who say they want to fight, that pacifists are the world’s greatest heroes.
Credibility is not a problem for the Left.
Hillary and fabricated Bosnia sniper fire? No problem! Make her President.
If she loses it is the fault of Americans
Truth be told, if only the snipers had clipped Hillary none of us would be having this debate. Snipers arent what they used to be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
Nuking Hurricanes: The Surprising History of a Really Bad Idea National Geographic 2016
‘To be fair, though, there was a time when scientists and government agencies were themselves seriously considering the nuclear option. In a speech delivered at the National Press Club on October 11, 1961, Francis W. Riechelderfer, the head of the U.S. Weather Bureau, said he could “imagine the possibility someday of exploding a nuclear bomb on a hurricane far at sea.” (Although, comfortingly, Riechelderfer added that the Weather Bureau would not begin acquiring its own nuclear arsenal “until we know what we’re doing.”)’
Here is some other credibility problem, one that is killing a lot of people: From the State Dept itself, their own document:
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/05/06/us-state-department-publishes-then-deletes-sadistic-venezuela-hit-list-boasting-of-economic-ruin/
Hasn’t Turley yet learned that anonymous sources aren’t to be trusted? Hasn’t Turley learned that asking questions is good and should not be discouraged? Turley made a big thing about what anonymous sources said absent names. As an attorney Turley should know, but has apparently forgotten, that anonymous sources lie and don’t bother with context and intent.
I’d hate to walk into gang territory with Turley because he would get us killed. One doesn’t walk with the attitude that the gang sitting on the stoop is going to beat you up and one doesn’t walk with clenched fists. One also doesn’t make one’s weaknesses or strengths absolutely clear. One is unpredictable. Turley is a horrible negotiator. Has Truley forgetton that all other Presidents promised to defuse the situation in North Korea but Trump is the only one that has chosen negotiation based on strength rather than the weakness associated with worrying about polling numbers?
Clearly Allan’s great insights and talents are wasted on this blog. Best not to waste any more of his precious time here.
“Allan’s great insights and talents are wasted on this blog. Best not to waste any more of his precious time here.”
Anonymous, that my talent is wasted on you is clear to everyone that reads the blog but that doesn’t mean my time is wasted.
Allan wrote: “that my talent is wasted on you is clear to everyone that reads the blog”
LOL, Allan.
So you’re a mindreader, too. Wow. What a guy.
“So you’re a mindreader, too”
One need not read minds. All one needs to do is read the comments especially yours. You are a complete waste of time and quite foolish. Take note, in this series of comments once again you tried to involve yourself with me only so you can whine and complain later.
More bs from Allan.
Have you heard about your buddy Andy Ngo?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3apyv/super-awkward-for-right-wing-blogger-andy-ngo-to-make-a-cameo-in-video-of-plot-against-antifaf
Anonymous, I see you are still trying to blame Andy Ngo for nearly being killed by Antifa. We are seeing a lot of violent activity from Antifa that you seem to applaud. Freedom of speech exists for all and one need not be killed because someone didn’t like what they said. Your attitude in favor of violence is absolutely disgusting.
Another one of Allan’s baseless conclusions:
“Your attitude in favor of violence is absolutely disgusting.”
I am not “in favor of violence.”
That is why you blame Andy Ngo for placing his face between Antifa fists.
You are disgusting.
Yet another faulty conclusion, Allan.
You are stupid.
Anonymous, you are nasty and disgusting. I guess if Andy Ngo died that would have made your day. There is something very wrong with you.
Allan makes dopey comments…and is offended when someone tells him that his comments are dopey.
Anonymous, one can’t get offended by foolish people. If you agreed with me then I would have to rethink my ideas. The following is a quote from my first paragraph above. What have you said that adds or subtracts from the commentt? I’ll give you the answer, nothing.
“Hasn’t Turley yet learned that anonymous sources aren’t to be trusted? Hasn’t Turley learned that asking questions is good and should not be discouraged? Turley made a big thing about what anonymous sources said absent names. As an attorney Turley should know, but has apparently forgotten, that anonymous sources lie and don’t bother with context and intent.”
And then there was this from Allan:
“I’d hate to walk into gang territory with Turley because he would get us killed.”
“Turley…is a horrible negotiator.”
From the last part of the comment.
“I’d hate to walk into gang territory with Turley because he would get us killed. One doesn’t walk with the attitude that the gang sitting on the stoop is going to beat you up and one doesn’t walk with clenched fists. One also doesn’t make one’s weaknesses or strengths absolutely clear. One is unpredictable. Turley is a horrible negotiator.”
Typical nonsense from Allan.
The subject of credibility is interesting. How about BHO’s comments and claims (supported by a compliant, echo-chamber media): the Benghazi massacre was not a terrorist attack but a protest gone wrong (and then immediately flew to a Las Vegas campaign event); NSA was not collecting metadata on millions of U.S. citizens; the Muslim Brotherhood is a “largely secular” organization; a jihadist mass-murder attack on soldiers headed to Afghanistan was “workplace violence”; the jihadist mullahs in Iran were “moderating”; al-Qaeda was “decimated”; ISIS was a “JV” team; “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”; interfered in an Israeli election by sending over $350,000 to defeat Netanyahu; verbally threatened David Cameron that if the UK voted for BREXIT, the US would cut “ties” with them; and his administration was “scandal free.”
Demps, nice list of things for Turley to consider and best of all they didn’t involve anonymous sources. They also involved outrigh tObama administration lies of consequence rather than the anonymous manure Turley is spreading. I respect Turley when it comes to our civil rights but I don’t understand his pettiness and the way he handles those things outside his expertise.
Allan….I agree! and OT: yes, having to play an octave by ear on the piano is painful….LOL
“having to play an octave by ear on the piano is painful”
Cindy, very painful. I too played piano by ear starting at ~3 or 4 and was apparently very talented but it wasn’t appropriately encouraged so today I might as well play by my ears. 😀
I was told I had perfect pitch but I don’t know if it was absolute perfect pitch or relative perfect pitch. The piano played no part in my life after a couple of years.
Allan…..You are impressive, my friend! Pitch memorization is a wonderful tool. You probably do have perfect pitch, but because of a lapse in playing, you are maybe a little rusty…..but that’s an easy fix! I have relative perfect pitch because I can conjure up an A 440, which is the “tuning fork” pitch for strings in an orchestra. After years of tuning to it, I can hear it eadily in my head. The rest of the scale, I have to work at.
But I’m not surprised that you are a perfect pitcher…..you seem to have that kind of direct thought process.
And BTW, I’ll bet you cannot listen to an old Doors album without holding your ears, screaming ” please make it stop!” Morrison was SO flat all the time. I couldn’t stand that quarter, to sometimes half step below pitch singing… Ouch!
And when no one is looking, hop back up on that piano bench and treat yourself to your talent. Making-music is a gift you give yourself, and others.
Cindy, The only thing I was told is that I drove the piano tuner crazy. I don’t think I knew what a tuning fork was. That part of my life ended very early.
Allan…….sorry it ended early!
Cindy, I’m not. I don’t think my environment was conducive to develping and expanding that talent sufficiently whatever it was. Instead many other doors opened that I was able to take advantage of. We are not built for only one thing.
True!
Just because his way of doing things don’t fit the big plan of the far left doesn’t mean he has lost credibility but gained. The left has no credibility.
true they have no credibility but they can swing bats and clubs, throw projectiles at Americans and destroy public spaces
“With some media now openly anti-Trump, it is difficult to trust the reporting. Yet, the President himself shows a continuing lack of concern over the accuracy or truth of statements. That leaves the public with little ability to discern fact from fiction — a dangerous position for any democratic system.”
Exactly, and that’s why he does it and why those around him let him. It’s dangerous for a democracy but a basic need for fascism.
“It’s dangerous for a democracy but a basic need for fascism.”
Lucky for USA we have Democrats, MSM and ANTIFA to incite others to kill, stone, batter, inflict brain hemorrhages, bodily harm and hide behind anonymity to deter fascism all the while embodying Fascism
Arent you clever!
🔫
Just throw Rachel Maddow at the hurricane. Her tears are powerful!
I have too much respect for hurricanes to want to see that happen.
JT clearly doesn’t know that NASA actually studied the notion of nuking a hurricane. And Mrs. Trump aside, does JT really thing that Kim has no potential? After Hitler invaded Poland, he decided that he needed the hospital beds occupied by those we know call special needs children. So he rounded up 5000 of them……..and killed them.
It wasn’t to long ago when Supreme Dear Divine Leader Kim Jong Un, aka “rocket man” wanted to do an above ground nuclear test. Maybe near Guam when the next typhoon comes in.
Swan is credible
I truly do not know the truth of this matter and that disturbs me a great deal.
Apparently not disturbed enough to prevent you from posting an 8-paragraph story on it. Your Chicago public education roots are showing.
That would make for a great Celebrity Deathmatch battle: Hurricane Katrina vs. Tsar Bomba.
Not a good sign for the 1% when even moderates like JT begin to act like they’re waking up.
Wow. You are coming to this realization very late. Many of us knew he was a chronic liar years ago.
What the heck is wrong with nuking a hurricane? Sometimes you just spitball a lot of ideas and see which ones might work.
Apparently, if he asks a question, he will be internationally shamed for it, rather than simply answering it.
It actually is a commonly asked question, so much so that NOAA has a website devoted to answering it.
For me, the problems with the story are – it requires corroboration, and the accusation is that President Trump lied about asking it, and that he is not sufficiently concerned with fallout to consider it.
“It actually is a commonly asked question” Commonly? Somewing-nut dumber thanTrump with no understanding of radiation threw out such utter nonsense and used horse-food. No one at NOAA, no one at NASA for that matter, thought it was more than a stupid idea.
Anonymous – Do you have any idea how often people without a scientific background ask obvious questions? I wouldn’t make fun of them for it. Well, okay, I was pretty shocked when the Congressman said Haiti could tip over.
I will say that my foremost concern was whether Trump had an appropriate respect for radioactive fallout when this rumor first hit, as well as if he denied something he actually said.
In any case, the story needs to be confirmed.
Just for giggles, Karen, favor us with a statement as to YOUR academic and professional achievements, including professional licenses, certificates and other credentials. No need to name institutions, but any diplomas, degrees, certificates and licenses will do.
Karen S, if Natacha can claim to be a lawyer and have an advanced degree in nursing, you can claim to be a nuclear physicist who also has an MD.
Such is the value of claimed credentials here.
Anonymous – I identify as a demigod, so I have no problem with anyone else. 😉
If you like your nuked hurricane story, you can keep your nuked hurricane story.
I do not know why she lied to media.