Discussion for article #243832
"Trump never goes and says, ‘I’m going to kill the family members.’ He says, ‘I’m going to take them out’ or ‘I’m going to treat them rough.’ You know what I’m talking about," O’Reilly told Krauthammer.
“No, I don’t know what you’re talking about,” Krauthammer hit back.
"It’s designed to get votes. It’s designed to get people emotionally allied with him," O’Reilly said in response.
This is the second (known) time that he has gone for this canard. The above video is likely the first time that he’s put that belief out there.
…
ahhh
muck it.
http://www.defense.gov/portals/1/features/2014/0814_iraq/Operation_Inherent_ResolveNov13.jpg
subject to change
9 Likes
“I can’t really say whether I approve of it or not,” O’Reilly said, adding that Trump does sometimes go “overboard.”
16 Likes
Actually, this was a good back-and-forth between O’Reilly and Krauthammer. Neither of them are my cup of tea. That said, it’s interesting to me there is actually this sort of soul-searching within the GOP that is happening. For that, though, they didn’t need Trump. Trump is a result of what FOX Entertainment’s talking heads and many others out there on AM Radio, etc., have been fomenting, feeding, nurturing all these years. If they–any of them–are surprised by this result – then I’m actually surprised at their sheer stupidity and lack of any critical thinking skills.
18 Likes
You have to love it when O’Reilly defends Trump by essentially saying “You know he just said that. He says all kinds of things that he doesn’t mean.”
It would be a great campaign slogan: “I say things for effect. I don’t mean any of them.”
21 Likes
That’s not soul searching though…
Unlike Trump, Krauthammer prefers a more “dignified” method of killing people. O’Reilly is just a (radio edit) fence sitting (radio edit)*.
*Too early to use profanity…that’s what afternoons are for.
6 Likes
so… pretty much their argument is ‘a chicken in every pot’
1 Like
I do so love it when the left wing of the Nazi party debates the right wing of the KKK.
19 Likes
Trump’s next move will be to suggest we take all American Muslims hostage and use them as Trump Cards to negotiate with terrorists… especially the children.
A Trump era Muslim internment camp would be interesting to see… he’d probably outlaw anyone facing east… just because.
3 Likes
Orielly’s a cat on a hot tin fence…
1 Like
You know you’re really out there when even a deranged PNAC loon like Krauthammer thinks you’ve gone too far, but Trump didn’t help himself when he mocked Krauthammer’s disability.
Not that Trump gives a shit. He’d mock a crippled child live on TV if he thought it would get him votes.
10 Likes
(A sort of LOL but sadly so). I believe you are right. I guess one (person or group) must possess a soul in order to search for a misplaced one.
3 Likes
I wonder if these republicans are aware that they have teevee in the Middle East…and there are folks who we don’t like, listening to all this…and during the commercial breaks, they might just be talking about what they will do to the USofA…they are of the same mind…the gop, and the terrorists…killing of innocents, if they aren’t in a womb, is the preferred method of the republican terrorists…
9 Likes
Very good point that this is an interesting exchange between two appallingly amoral fruitcakes. O’Reilly makes a good point about Trump’s demagoguery, but Krauthammer actually got him to admit that he thinks Trump’s demagoguery “is both good and bad.”
1 Like
It’s a pretty ridiculous discussion for these two to be having, but I suppose it’s the only one they can have—they certainly can’t say the man’s a buffoonish bullshitter who really doesn’t understand “meaning what you say” as a concept. He says what he says purely to get attention. Who cares what it means, what its import is? The ironic thing is they’ve all been bullshitting this way for a very long time, and now they’re way out on the limb where Trump has taken them, and nobody has a clue how to get back to safety before Trump saws it off like the reckless fool he is.
14 Likes
Journalists miss seemingly obvious questions in the moment. Trump should have been asked if a terrorist in Yemen had parents, a sister, a wife and a child that were citizens living in the U.S. would he be “tough” on them, go after (kill, torture, detain, deport?) them? I’d like to see GOP candidates openly advocate extrajudicial actions against U.S. citizens merely because they were related to terrorists. And if they declined ask them why they’d be tough on Yemeni relatives but not stateside relatives?
Syed Farook was a terrorist in every sense of the word. His brother wasn’t.
The brothers were a study in contrasts.
Syed Raheel Farook was the extrovert — loud and sociable with an air of nonchalance. Acquaintances said he preferred to walk a casual line when it came to religion. He told people he "wasn't into Islam," dated a non-Muslim girl, imbibed freely and showed up at a local mosque primarily to please his family.
***After graduating from La Sierra High in Riverside, he joined the Navy and received medals for service in the "Global War on Terrorism."***
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sb-farook-family-20151211-story.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
***Would President Trump have "taken out" Raheel Farook because of Syed's terrorist acts?***
4 Likes
Trump '16: Becuz He Sez Shit
5 Likes
While reading this I wondered which voters O’Reilly thinks Trump’s comments might appeal to.
But now, I really don’t want to know.
3 Likes
What does it say about a MAJOR American Political Party that the discussion is not about whether we SHOULD kill innocent women and children via massive, indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Collective Punishment for having the temerity to LIVE somewhere that occasionally reminds us that we are NOT OMNIPOTENT but the discussion is about HOW MANY and HOW OFTEN we should do it.
Alice, we are WAY through the looking glass now…
2 Likes