- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is anyone else laughing about this "red line" media creation?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:24 am
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:24 am
i've been watching CNN exclusively, so i don't know how widespread this is across all the media, but i've also seen more liberal-leaning posters on this board use the "red line" description to Trump's tweet. they're trying SO HARD to make this look like Obama's actual "red line" (because ultimately it's unlikely we preemptively attack NK with our military)
Obama's statement about Syria:
Wapo
the reason Obama had a "Red line" is because he actually created a red line by....using the term "red line"
Trump sent a typical macho-Trump tweet. he didn't create anything close to a "Red line", yet the narrative is being pushed
Trump did not create this NK situation. this situation has been developing since the 90s when Carter/Clinton were weak on NK and allowed NK to start its nuclear program. Trump has not done anything significant to enrage NK. their nuclear missile program just happens to be maturing while Trump is in office. if HRC had won, she'd be facing the same issues with NK. Trump's admin HAS sought non-military, diplomatic strategies (the UN sanctions) to deal with NK
Obama's statement about Syria:
quote:
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
Wapo
the reason Obama had a "Red line" is because he actually created a red line by....using the term "red line"
Trump sent a typical macho-Trump tweet. he didn't create anything close to a "Red line", yet the narrative is being pushed
Trump did not create this NK situation. this situation has been developing since the 90s when Carter/Clinton were weak on NK and allowed NK to start its nuclear program. Trump has not done anything significant to enrage NK. their nuclear missile program just happens to be maturing while Trump is in office. if HRC had won, she'd be facing the same issues with NK. Trump's admin HAS sought non-military, diplomatic strategies (the UN sanctions) to deal with NK
29
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro
fake news does the same things over and over and it is amazing how many on here still fall for it/believe it.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:26 am to SlowFlowPro
Anyone comparing Trump to anything Obama is an idiot.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:26 am to SlowFlowPro
I've noticed that as well. Completely fake and lame.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:28 am to GeorgeTheGreek
literally a segment on CNN right now is discussing this now 
one GOP commentator said that Trump didn't use the word "red line" and the CNN commentator is like "obviously he didn't use the term 'red line" and i'm over here like, "Obama literally used the term 'red line"
also the CNN commentator cited Lindsey Graham as "conservative" evidence
one GOP commentator said that Trump didn't use the word "red line" and the CNN commentator is like "obviously he didn't use the term 'red line" and i'm over here like, "Obama literally used the term 'red line"
also the CNN commentator cited Lindsey Graham as "conservative" evidence
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:28 am to SlowFlowPro
I think the "redline" stuff is just to hype shite up.
Unfortunately, North Korea has grown into a very real problem, that will not go away (despite all eftorts for 20+ years) and I think that we will now see a military intervention in the not too distant future (1-5 years.) I really hope the human toll will be kept to a minimum.
Unfortunately, North Korea has grown into a very real problem, that will not go away (despite all eftorts for 20+ years) and I think that we will now see a military intervention in the not too distant future (1-5 years.) I really hope the human toll will be kept to a minimum.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:30 am to SlowFlowPro
The media and liberal reaction to this whole situation is bizarre. And quite possibly the most clear indictment yet of their mindset. Resist resist resist, at all costs.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:30 am to SlowFlowPro
It's pretty sad that they hate Trump so much they're siding with NK.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:31 am to SlowFlowPro
If you threaten to do something in response to a specific action, what would you call that?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:31 am to makinskrilla
quote:Welcome to the 2010s.
I think the :insert anything the media does: stuff is just to hype shite up.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
Exactly. Our current situation is drastically more critical because the point of no return on the issue has arrived. The U.S. position for decades has been North Korea cannot be allowed to acquire this capability and now we are at the rubicon where a decision has to be made one way or another. Yet it seems the left is more concerned with using the situation to destroy Trump rather than actually address whether the United States should completely acquiesce on decades of hard talk and simply allow the North Koreans to have nuclear weapons and the means to hit the mainland United States with them. It's a completely nonpartisan issue that is now being exploited for partisan purposes at the most critical moment.
It is truly disturbing.
It is truly disturbing.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:32 am to ILeaveAtHalftime
if you keep reading that Wapo article, you see just how partisan their "Fact checking" is, also
could anyone ever imagine Wapo giving Trump this sort of benefit of the doubt?
i took out some temporal language but you get the jist. that excuse is how Wapo had to twist reality to avoid calling Obama a liar or admit his "red line" showed his weakness as President. would they EVER give Trump that same benefit?
could anyone ever imagine Wapo giving Trump this sort of benefit of the doubt?
quote:
To sum up, the president made an ill-considered rhetorical statement, without consulting his aides. But the White House staff decided they could not take it back and even considered it a useful example of firm presidential leadership.
i took out some temporal language but you get the jist. that excuse is how Wapo had to twist reality to avoid calling Obama a liar or admit his "red line" showed his weakness as President. would they EVER give Trump that same benefit?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:33 am to mmcgrath
quote:
If you threaten to do something in response to a specific action, what would you call that?
in this case, a tweet
did Trump use the term "red line"?
did Obama use the term "red line"?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen
How is this not a "red line"?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:34 am to TotesMcGotes
quote:
How is this not a "red line"?
did he use the term "Red line"?
the only reason Obama was associated with "Red line" is because of the words that i quoted above. show me where Trump said something similar
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 10:35 am
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:36 am to TotesMcGotes
quote:
North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen
It is an ultimatum, but how do know that Trump isn't fully serious about military action against NK and hasn't be preparing for this for quite some time?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
in this case, a tweet
well it wasn't actually a tweet, it was a statement
quote:
did Trump use the term "red line"?
did Obama use the term "red line"?
I mean...did Trump's statement not imply a certain "line" to cross?
this seems like a pretty weak argument
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:36 am to ChewyDante
quote:
Exactly. Our current situation is drastically more critical because the point of no return on the issue has arrived. The U.S. position for decades has been North Korea cannot be allowed to acquire this capability and now we are at the rubicon where a decision has to be made one way or another. Yet it seems the left is more concerned with using the situation to destroy Trump rather than actually address whether the United States should completely acquiesce on decades of hard talk and simply allow the North Koreans to have nuclear weapons and the means to hit the mainland United States with them. It's a completely nonpartisan issue that is now being exploited for partisan purposes at the most critical moment.
i think the UN sanctions shocked them
i don't think the anti-Trump, DEM-coordinated media expected Trump to pull off such a diplomatic victory (by getting Russia and China on board). also, SK's new President has pulled a complete 180 the past few years and is now basically on the Trump train. they cannot let him have a victory so they have to spin this to be somehow his fault and associate negative realities to Trump and Trump alone
what they really fear is Trump having a "Cuban Missile Crisis" moment where he pulls off the biggest diplomatic victory since WWII
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
did he use the term "Red line"?
That's an embarrassing argument, even for a Trumpkin
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 10:38 am
Posted on 8/9/17 at 10:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
did he use the term "Red line"?
the only reason Obama was associated with "Red line" is because of the words that i quoted above. show me where Trump said something similar
To be fair, a clear declaration of "if you do this, then we will do this" is a de facto red line.
If Trump's intention was to suggest that we will destroy you in the event you launch any military operation against us, he left that unclear as his language in his statement yesterday pertained to "if these threats continue."
I grant that there is room for criticism on the language used that needs clarification.
Page 1 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News