Trump: Saudis' new claim that Khashoggi was killed due to a fistfight is "credible"

[John Shaw]

I'm so confused about the whole thing. Aren't these guys supposed to be smart?? ANYONE with a brain would realize that killing this guy in cold blood in your own building LOCATED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T LIKE YOU MUCH, would be an awful idea. Did they really think they were gonna get away with it? Come the fuck on ... such a crazy play. Could end up costing them billions, just to kill one reporter.

 

[Godboy]

Trump was asked Friday at an event in Arizona whether he found the Saudi explanation credible and he responded "I do,"

Saudi Arabia acknowledges Jamal Khashoggi died in consulate, says 18 detained

Because of Trump’s financial interest with the Saudis, he is expected to agree with absolutely any explanation issued by the prince.

Yep, he is going to bow down to SA like every president before him. I get it, it makes his job way the fuck harder if he goes after them. Oil prices will sky rocket, the economy suffers, the stock market will plummet and he wont be reelected. That is the one of the flaws with our system. Its too personal for the president, so he ends up acting in his own interests. What a shame.

In a free market, the economy isn't the President's responsibility.

It is if he wants to be reelected.

 

[Erinwltr]

Trump was asked Friday at an event in Arizona whether he found the Saudi explanation credible and he responded "I do,"

Saudi Arabia acknowledges Jamal Khashoggi died in consulate, says 18 detained

Because of Trump’s financial interest with the Saudis, he is expected to agree with absolutely any explanation issued by the prince.

Interesting. I would have to disagree. POTUS made his bed with the Russians.

 

[dblack]

Trump was asked Friday at an event in Arizona whether he found the Saudi explanation credible and he responded "I do,"

Saudi Arabia acknowledges Jamal Khashoggi died in consulate, says 18 detained

Because of Trump’s financial interest with the Saudis, he is expected to agree with absolutely any explanation issued by the prince.

Yep, he is going to bow down to SA like every president before him. I get it, it makes his job way the fuck harder if he goes after them. Oil prices will sky rocket, the economy suffers, the stock market will plummet and he wont be reelected. That is the one of the flaws with our system. Its too personal for the president, so he ends up acting in his own interests. What a shame.

In a free market, the economy isn't the President's responsibility.

It is if he wants to be reelected.

If people want government in charge of the economy, they should vote socialist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every president has kissed the Saudi asses.

This painting of Trump as the sole benefactor of the Saudis is pathetic.

Nobody is doing that. Nor would they need to do so. Whether or not trump is a "sole benefactor" is irrelevant to the fact that he does personally benefit from his business ties to them. And this clearly shows in his behavior, just as it did in W's behavior.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Aren't these guys supposed to be smart??

Their perception has been skewed by decades of authoritarian rule. They have been doing this to their own for decades with impunity. No doubt they honestly thought they could just do whatever they wanted.

 

[Godboy]

Trump was asked Friday at an event in Arizona whether he found the Saudi explanation credible and he responded "I do,"

Saudi Arabia acknowledges Jamal Khashoggi died in consulate, says 18 detained

Because of Trump’s financial interest with the Saudis, he is expected to agree with absolutely any explanation issued by the prince.

Yep, he is going to bow down to SA like every president before him. I get it, it makes his job way the fuck harder if he goes after them. Oil prices will sky rocket, the economy suffers, the stock market will plummet and he wont be reelected. That is the one of the flaws with our system. Its too personal for the president, so he ends up acting in his own interests. What a shame.

In a free market, the economy isn't the President's responsibility.

It is if he wants to be reelected.

If people want government in charge of the economy, they should vote socialist.

They do want it, and no, they shouldn't vote socialist.

 

[dblack]

Saudi Arabia acknowledges Jamal Khashoggi died in consulate, says 18 detained

Because of Trump’s financial interest with the Saudis, he is expected to agree with absolutely any explanation issued by the prince.

Yep, he is going to bow down to SA like every president before him. I get it, it makes his job way the fuck harder if he goes after them. Oil prices will sky rocket, the economy suffers, the stock market will plummet and he wont be reelected. That is the one of the flaws with our system. Its too personal for the president, so he ends up acting in his own interests. What a shame.

In a free market, the economy isn't the President's responsibility.

It is if he wants to be reelected.

If people want government in charge of the economy, they should vote socialist.

They do want it, and no, they shouldn't vote socialist.

Why shouldn't they vote for what they want?

 

[xyz]

I wonder if these people were also killed in "fistfights":
Women beheaded, corpses dangling from cranes

Saudi Beheading Streak Already Surpasses Last Year

 

[dblack]

I wonder if these people were also killed in "fistfights":
Women beheaded, corpses dangling from cranes

Saudi Beheading Streak Already Surpasses Last Year

They just slipped and fell.

 

[Godboy]

Yep, he is going to bow down to SA like every president before him. I get it, it makes his job way the fuck harder if he goes after them. Oil prices will sky rocket, the economy suffers, the stock market will plummet and he wont be reelected. That is the one of the flaws with our system. Its too personal for the president, so he ends up acting in his own interests. What a shame.

In a free market, the economy isn't the President's responsibility.

It is if he wants to be reelected.

If people want government in charge of the economy, they should vote socialist.

They do want it, and no, they shouldn't vote socialist.

Why shouldn't they vote for what they want?

No one wants socialism, even the ones who think they do.

 

[Erinwltr]

I wonder if these people were also killed in "fistfights":
Women beheaded, corpses dangling from cranes

Saudi Beheading Streak Already Surpasses Last Year

That's not a fist fight, dude.

 

[Erinwltr]

Yep, he is going to bow down to SA like every president before him. I get it, it makes his job way the fuck harder if he goes after them. Oil prices will sky rocket, the economy suffers, the stock market will plummet and he wont be reelected. That is the one of the flaws with our system. Its too personal for the president, so he ends up acting in his own interests. What a shame.

In a free market, the economy isn't the President's responsibility.

It is if he wants to be reelected.

If people want government in charge of the economy, they should vote socialist.

They do want it, and no, they shouldn't vote socialist.

Why shouldn't they vote for what they want?

Simple. They can no vote.

You know. Big Brother and all that stuff.

 

[dblack]

In a free market, the economy isn't the President's responsibility.

It is if he wants to be reelected.

If people want government in charge of the economy, they should vote socialist.

They do want it, and no, they shouldn't vote socialist.

Why shouldn't they vote for what they want?

No one wants socialism, even the ones who think they do.

If the want government controlling the economy - that's socialism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is if he wants to be reelected.

If people want government in charge of the economy, they should vote socialist.

They do want it, and no, they shouldn't vote socialist.

Why shouldn't they vote for what they want?

No one wants socialism, even the ones who think they do.

If the want government controlling the economy - that's socialism.

Like, tariffs? Subsidies?

 

[dblack]

If people want government in charge of the economy, they should vote socialist.

They do want it, and no, they shouldn't vote socialist.

Why shouldn't they vote for what they want?

No one wants socialism, even the ones who think they do.

If the want government controlling the economy - that's socialism.

Like, tariffs? Subsidies?

That's part of it yeah, but socialism is more forthright in placing government as the primary responsible party for the economy. When we elect, and pressure, leaders to amp up economic performance, we're asking them to take more and more control over the economy. That's not a free market.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

of course you will parrot trump and the party line to defend anything......including the deficit caused by tax cuts

Mexican Jumping Beans

The party line is a string of the fiddle that Trump plays you obsessive Gotcha grabbers like.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

more and more control over the economy.

Which is not socialism, but rather a mixed system. A mixed system is what we have. We have centralized banking, and Fiat currency, and all manner of banking regs, for instance. And a good argument can be made that we need more of these regulations.

 

[irosie91]

I wonder if these people were also killed in "fistfights":
Women beheaded, corpses dangling from cranes

Saudi Beheading Streak Already Surpasses Last Year

They just slipped and fell.

I wonder what happened to the other guys in the "fist-fight"

 

[dblack]

more and more control over the economy.

Which is not socialism, but rather a mixed system. A mixed system is what we have.

Whatever. I'm not looking to quibble over definitions. The point is, voters are kidding themselves. When they ask for government to promise us a rosy economy, they're asking for the opposite of a free market. And the more they demand it, the less free it will be.

We have centralized banking, and Fiat currency, and all manner of banking regs, for instance. And a good argument can be made that we need more of these regulations.

Yes. And it's mostly the same kind of argument that is used to justify socialism. It's the same premise: the idea government is there to shape and guide (regulate and control) society, instead of the other way around. It's the difference between government acting as a "coach" rather than a "referee".