Cont: The Trump Presidency 11: Insert something funny

Status
Not open for further replies.
fishbob said:
What are the odds that the designated scapegoats are the actual murderers?
Not good is my guess.
Click to expand...


Even if they were the murderers, if they were being used as a smokescreen to keep their boss ... the one who ordered them to do the hit ... from being nailed then they are still scapegoats. They're just scapegoats and murderers.

In the U.S. when someone gets caught contracting a murder, it isn't unusual for them to get a harsher sentence than whoever they hired. The idea being, I suspect, that if it hadn't have been for their actions there wouldn't have been a murder.

Makes sense to me.
 
Hmmmm, lot to think about.... maybe, and hear me out here:

The murderers were the real victims....

Oy vey...
 
The Big Dog said:
Trump tweets:

“On the ten-year anniversary of the Mumbai terror attack, the U.S. stands with the people of India in their quest for justice. The attack killed 166 innocents, including six Americans. We will never let terrorists win, or even come close to winning!”

Thanks Mr. President
Click to expand...

But go ahead and kill our reporters. And Russia, feel free to attack Ukraine.

Thanks Mr. Pussy.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm thoroughly convinced of this. This is a perfect example why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution. Trump is clearly a captive of foreign interests. He sold out and now can be threatened by those interests. He stopped representing America and now is owned by Russia and the Saudis. There cannot be another explanation.
Click to expand...
Even if that is all true, I still don't understand the butt-kissing. There are instances where it might even be better for the dictators if Trump weren't so obviously communicating his loyalties. And I don't know that the economic explanation holds up as well when talking about Kim and Duterte. Maybe he has deals with them too. But the "we fell in love" rhetoric is unnecessary even under the scenario you and other posters are proposing here. To me there seems to be something else to it, some compulsion to grovel.
 
The ridiculous sophistry being practiced by the Big Dog demonstrates just how intellectually bankrupt and devoid of morals the Republican party has become.

Seriously, Big Dog, we're not as stupid as conservatives who buy into the feces finger sandwiches that Trump serves up and go 'yumm'.

To think the people who murdered and Kashoggi were any more responsible for their mission then the 101st Airborne was in Bastogne or Seal Team Six was in Afghanistan is a monument to intellectual dishonesty. They were both clearly ordered by their governments. The intelligence services aren't buying that they weren't ordered by the Saudi dictator. Why are you?
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Hi! No, they can’t, because scapegoating requires unmerited blame.

Fascinating thread, as always
Click to expand...

Blaming them for giving the order would be unmerited blame. If the prince ordered it, the killers are innocent of the sin of being the ringleaders.

ETA: if you are bothered by the use of the word scapegoat, whenever you read it, substitute, "left holding the bag."
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Blaming them for giving the order would be unmerited blame. If the prince ordered it, the killers are innocent of the sin of being the ringleaders.
Click to expand...

While we all enjoy a dramatic move of the goalposts, that is not what you said, and in any event that is not what scapegoating means...

Getting prosecuted for murdering someone is not being left holding the bag, either.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
While we all enjoy a dramatic move of the goalposts, that is not what you said, and in any event that is not what scapegoating means...

Fascinating.
Click to expand...

A) I didn't move the goalposts. I said murders can be victims of scapegoating. That is true. Someone can be a murderer, and in a separate issue, be a scapegoat to a traffic accident.

B) if the word scapegoat is something you are getting hung up on, substitute "left holding the bag." No one else here is as committed to your use of phrase. That way, there is no confusion on what is meant, and we can continue to use term X.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
Even if that is all true, I still don't understand the butt-kissing. There are instances where it might even be better for the dictators if Trump weren't so obviously communicating his loyalties. And I don't know that the economic explanation holds up as well when talking about Kim and Duterte. Maybe he has deals with them too. But the "we fell in love" rhetoric is unnecessary even under the scenario you and other posters are proposing here. To me there seems to be something else to it, some compulsion to grovel.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that. Trump loves to fight. So why are the only people he chooses to suck up to are these dictatorships? Politically it's moronic. There has to be a reason for it. And the ONLY thing that makes sense, is that he's over a barrel somehow.

Intelligence Services know that when they buy some information from their enemy, they get more than whatever they paid for because they can always threaten exposure down the road. If Trump stops doing their bidding, the evidence of treason is leaked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom