Trump asks three times during briefing why we can't use nukes
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
Yes, MSNBC is clearly an unbiased source of information.You were better off when you were citing politifacts, I think.
Qaz doesn't need my help to defend himself, but all the same, I am curious about this mindset.
If Michael Hayden [Four Star General and former Director of NSA] would have shared his facts and opinion on Fox, CNN or pick-another-channel he'd be credible, but because he shared it on Morning Joe - MSNBC he is not credible? Really? Same Guy / Same Message - but you're questioning his credibility because of the channel?
By the way, he also said in that interview that he would not endorse nor was he ready to support Clinton. Still not credible because he said it on MSNBC?
If Michael Hayden [Four Star General and former Director of NSA] would have shared his facts and opinion on Fox, CNN or pick-another-channel he'd be credible, but because he shared it on Morning Joe - MSNBC he is not credible? Really? Same Guy / Same Message - but you're questioning his credibility because of the channel?
By the way, he also said in that interview that he would not endorse nor was he ready to support Clinton. Still not credible because he said it on MSNBC?
And, assuming it was actually said, Scarborough took it so seriously, he sat on it for 3 months until just the right time to warn us, right? After Trump was nominated. Uh huh, sure, he did.
First, never lump me in with the Fox News crowd. That channel is banned in my house.
I think it does matter the venue these folks choose to share their information, because pretty clearly some of these channels don't vet stories nearly as closely as they should because they're just trying to attract their viewer base.
I view MSNBC as the Fox News of the left. It is also banned in my house. So yeah, I guess if CNN had picked it up first, I would not have commented (and yes, I understand that CNN leans left).
Now, I'm often critical of the loons who post Newsmax and Krauthammer opinions here as though they are fact, and MSNBC isn't (quite) those, but it's not too far off in some cases. So I feel like it should be equal opportunity source bashing.
You are picking one point and debating the source for that point (Scarborough) as credible to make a point - but the original statements were about the perceived bias of the channel invalidating the information. Scarborough is that guy who gets praised and shared widely when he uses the RNC's talking points, but ridiculed because of his association with MSNBC when his views don't align with those talking points.
I still question the basic assertion that MSNBC as a channel somehow invalidates the facts or opinions being shared. The image shown is Hayden. The interview in question was with Hayden. So his opinion, or his sharing of facts, is invalid because it was on MSNBC? would be valid if on Fox? CNN?
I still question the basic assertion that MSNBC as a channel somehow invalidates the facts or opinions being shared. The image shown is Hayden. The interview in question was with Hayden. So his opinion, or his sharing of facts, is invalid because it was on MSNBC? would be valid if on Fox? CNN?
Are we going to go round and round on this, because I already answered your question.
So Scarborough...noted Trump friend, known him for a decades, a republican congressman in a former life, notable conservative, clearly no fan of Hillary or the Democratic party is making it all up...because he's on MSNBC.
Right.
There are elements and folks on FOX News who aren't particularly biased. Shep Smith certainly wasn't/isn't. A couple of others. An interview with an insider into republican politics on that channel probably tells you the real truth vis-a-vis republican politics, and likewise the same with the rare Dem insider.
No different on MSNBC.
He sat on it for three months because three months ago he was nominally pro-Trump or at the very worst Switzerland on Trump. Now he's seen all the bat guano crazy of the last two to three weeks. So he raises it.
But sure he's lying because...he's on MSNBC.
Gr8 - my second post was not intended as a reply to your reply - but actually a response to TOKen - and my typing missed your post.
I accept and agree that some of these cable news channels have an inherent bias - its in their business model.
That said - a public official making a statement (IE: Hayden) doesn't lose credibility in my mind based on which channel he is on. I'm not talking about paid left/right position "pundits" - I'm talking about legitimate interviews.
Just a heads-up, it was Scarborough who said it in the video. Hayden was just saying that nobody that he knows is advising Trump on foreign policy . .which is damning, in itself.
So, when he was pro-Trump, Trump talking about using the nuclear arsenal, it's a big yawn...but now, it's a big concern. Yeah, right. Sorry, not buying what you or Joe are selling on this one.
Hayden didn't make the comment about the nukes, Scarborough did.I haven't said anything about Hayden's comments. Can we at least talk about what I did comment on?
Rant:
So let's get one thing straight, Michael Hayden isn't a public official any longer. One pet peeve is guys wearing ranks/titles to which they're no longer entitled. When you're a retired general, you're retired. Your name is Mike. Not General Mike. I know people call him General out of respect, but it carries no weight. He is no longer privy to details that he once was, thus I wouldn't consider him any more informed than probably anyone else with the same access.
/rant
That said, Trump is a nightmare and I hope we see more stories like this come out to prove it.
So let's get one thing straight, Michael Hayden isn't a public official any longer. One pet peeve is guys wearing ranks/titles to which they're no longer entitled. When you're a retired general, you're retired. Your name is Mike. Not General Mike. I know people call him General out of respect, but it carries no weight. He is no longer privy to details that he once was, thus I wouldn't consider him any more informed than probably anyone else with the same access.
/rant
That said, Trump is a nightmare and I hope we see more stories like this come out to prove it.
For Christ's sake - I watched the interview and I know who said what. The POV you and other seem to be taking is that ANYTHING on MSNBC is bullshit because the channel is bullshit. That is a silly POV - and is just as silly when people say it about Fox. The image on the original post was of Hayden - and so I used him as an example interview subject to illustrate my point. I am not orbiting around the Scarborough quote about nukes - I am challenging the broader mindset.
Different metaphor: if MSNBC said it was raining, you would "know" they were lying because (damn liberals) - even if you saw the rain outside your window.
The network has a liberal bias. And they are certainly more likely to bring on guests who have negative things to say about Republicans, and Trump especially. But, I didn't say what Hayden said was BS because he was on MSNBC. I'm sure he truthfully expressed his opinions. I'm taking issue with the veracity of Scarborough's ominous (stale) account of Trump asking petulantly why he "can't use the nukes," like he's Greg Stillson from Stephen King's "The Dead Zone." On that, I call BS.
Great catch. It was intentionally a ridiculous strawman. Your earlier posts didn't include any details about questioning Scarborough's motives. You simply said "Yes, MSNBC is clearly an unbiased source of information.You were better off when you were citing politifacts, I think " and presuming anything on a channel (regardless of slant) is worthless - it equally ridiculous, and shows your bias.
When Trump wasn't acting crazy, he probably thought less of the comment, but now that Trump has acted the way he has, and given that he told Chris Matthews in an interview that he wouldn't rule out using nukes in Europe, and given that he was interviewing someone who said no one he knew was advising Trump on foreign policy, he probably gave the comment more credence in that light.
He's also a republican who doesn't want Hillary to win. So his motive for lying about Trump is what exactly?
By the way, it's not clear that he has been "sitting on this for months." The only thing that is clear is that the statement was made months ago.
“I’ll be very careful here,” Scarborough said on Wednesday morning, following an interview with General Michael Hayden. “Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on international level went to advise Donald Trump. Three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked, at one point, ‘If we have them, why can’t we use them?’ That’s one of the reasons why he just doesn’t have foreign policy experts around him,” Scarborough said. “Three times, in an hour briefing: ‘Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?’”
So, he's a Republican who doesn't want Hillary to win...and he sat on this "story" for 3 months...until the heart of the election campaign when he releases the story in ominous tones...because he doesn't want Hillary to win...right...uh huh. Again, you believe it if you so choose. I don't. Enough already.
Again, there is no evidence that he "sat" on anything. He says the statement was made several months ago, he does not say he was told three months ago. That's you reading into it.
Then there is this:
Actually, that's not true. I do it all the time and so do you. It's applicable because you can actually get the same stories from other less tainted sources. It's why I'm willing to watch CNN but not MSNBC/Fox.
How would you answer the question? Because currently, there's no official US policy against using nuclear weapons...at least none I"m aware of.Again, there is no evidence that he "sat" on anything. He says the statement was made several months ago, he does not say he was told three months ago. That's you reading into it.
Then there is this:
I wouldn't ask the question "Why do we have them?" I would also suggest to you that someone who asks "why do we have them" probably has as the next thought in their head "if we are never going to use them." And I would submit to you that such a person is probably the type of person who asks three times why we can't use nuclear weapons.
I would reply " If you need to ask this question you have no business running for President of the United States."
The whole reason the question was asked in the first place was because Trump had intimated that he would use nukes. I wouldn't be asked the question because I'd never be crazy enough to intimate that. I certainly wouldn't answer "why do we have them?"
It's pretty clear, I cannot envision a scenario in which I would approve the use of nukes in Europe at this time. There is no reason whatsoever to "keep nukes on the table" vis-a-vis Europe.
That response about keeping them on the table didn't concern Europe. It concerned the ME. And PresBO doesn't have a never-ever nuke policy. He doesn't even have an NFU policy.
Follow up. "So, are you saying that America's nuclear arsenal is simply for show and that you would never authorize its use?"
"If there ever came a time when the United States was threatened in such a way that required the use of nuclear weapons to protect its national interest and preserve our way of life, I would. Those would have to be extreme circumstances, and I hope to never be placed in such a position, as I would hope any rational human being would."
This isn't hard.
The entire discussion with CM started with Europe. I didn't link the entire interview, but you are free to go look at it.
No one said anything about a "never ever nuke policy."
