Secret CIA source claims Russia rigged 2016 election


Hitler liked kittens. Saying you like kittens is the same as Hitler.

I mean, ignoring the obvious logical fallacy of the guilt by association argument, we can go even further and point out that Trump’s statements regarding nuclear arms are in fact not at all a legitimate peace through strength argument.

Nuclear arms are only a deterrent in prevention of nuclear war, through a policy of MAD. Statements by Trump suggest using nuclear weapons in conventional conflicts, even dropping them on friendly countries. It’s so far beyond the pale in terms of any sensible foreign policy, that it’s nonsensical.

There is not some sort of dichotomy between, “Being unwilling to engage in military conflict” and “drop nuclear weapons on countries in europe”.

“Peace through strength” does not mean “use nuclear weapons”. Holy shit, why does this even need to be said?


"“Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
-Theodore Roosevelt

Trump is screaming like a lunatic while insulting people and waving a gun around, there is a big difference.


I agree. The fact that these allegations have been swirling around and reputable news organization didn’t publish them means there is a reasonable chance they are false. But even KellyAnne isn’t saying that’s a ridiculous allegation Donald Trump would never do anything like that. Because as talent a spinner as she is, nobody is that good.


When Trump denied it he didn’t say I WOULD NEVER DO THAT he said I’M A GERMOPHOBE. Lol.


Congratulation, you managed to use Nazis Germany as quickly as Trump used it as a defense.


It’s the classic example of the guilt by association fallacy.


It’s not “fake news”. If you think it is, please tell me what is false in CNN’s reporting. That should easy if they said anything false.



At some point we gotta hope the masses who don’t vote get outraged enough to vote- starting with millenials.

It’s going to take some sort of patriotism to save America.

As for the allegations, they are still unverified right?


Wait. Obama asked Congress to authorize war with Syria and they didn’t do it. So what you are saying is that Obama should have illegally attacked the Syrian government because he had threatened them? Sounds to me like Congress undercut him and then called him weak… and you bought it. For Obama to take action against Syria in the way you suggest would have meant literally standing alone against Congress, the UN, and even the UK. I never understood the contortions that suggested the AUMF granted him authority to attack, and I still don’t buy them.

If you want to lay blame for him drawing a line that no one seemed willing to support, then I guess I can see that. But the use of chemical weapons should be the line. That it wasn’t isn’t Obama’s fault, it’s the fault of a fundamentally corrupt world that has been steadily returning to a pre-WWI mentality, and a political class that is giving up on the norms of their predecessors at an alarming pace.


Believe what you will. I’m certainly not going to change your mind, especially if you jump to Nazis any time someone tries to do a comparison you don’t like.


I’m a little confused that we’re trying to pin a Trump apologist/enabler label to @Timex, of all people. Or maybe I’m just misreading this whole tangent…


I think it’s because he had the audacity to be critical of Obama.


What would have made it illegal?


Look, I don’t mean the in the normal pejorative sense when I say this. You aren’t reading and comprehending what is being said. You are reading individual words, and then reacting without taking the time to understand what is actually said.

The Hitler thing itself is just a further example of that. It clearly wasn’t calling you Hitler or a Nazi. It was highlighting the fallacy of a guilt by association argument, through use of an intentionally extreme and absurd example.

This whole tangent here is based upon your misunderstanding, and then refusal to reflect upon and acknowledge it.


That’s a total copout. Of the scores of times (probably closer to a thousand if you count drone strikes) that US has military force since 1900, Congress has only only authorized a handful of these actions and some after the fact.

Even under the War Powers act, which may or may not be constitutional, the President is given a 60-90 day period to do whatever he wants as commander in chief. Bombing the shit out of Assad for his use of chemical weapons is well within his rights. I’d argue considering the huge number of international treaties and convention he violated, it was actually his moral responsibility to enforce it (presumably with assistance of NATO forces.)

No question there weren’t any good options in Syria, but it is hard to imagine how it could turned out any worse.


You also cannot condemn the purveyors of fake news that hurts you while keeping around purveyors of fake news that helps you. We don’t need to imagine if it was about Hillary - we already have the child-sex ring fake news that was passed along by people Trump still supports. When will Trump treat Flynn (Sr) and Trump (Jr) the same way he is treating anyone who even talks about the memo?


What a wonderful time to be alive for a headline writer.


I don’t think you’re taking what I am saying into context either. We have a disagreement and suddenly you’re talking about Hitler. It’s the same approach that Trump takes, all the way to the extreme as quickly as he can get there, the very thing you seem to kind of criticize him for. And I’m saying kind of because you sort of his support his position and policy but say he’s taking it to the extreme I guess because he’s loud and talks about nukes so you don’t? Like how much strength is too much strength?

But I don’t think it’s the strength part at all, it’s this uncomfortable realization that Trump has never met a line he doesn’t cross if he feels like it.


Hey all those folders? Probably blank sheets of paper.