Patterico's Pontifications

6/2/2016

Trump Blatantly Lies About His Position on Japanese Nukes

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:28 pm



CNN calls this a flip-flop. No. A flip-flop is when you change your mind. This is a lie. Here, Trump denies having said Japan should get nukes, while (as the video shows) Trump said Japan should get nukes.

He’s stupid and dishonest and incompetent and embarrassing.

If you’re determined to vote for him, I’m not trying to persuade you otherwise. You’re unpersuadable. In return, perhaps you can give up trying to persuade me to vote for this trogolodyte. It will never ever ever happen, so save your breath.

So why do I blog this stuff? Because it amuses me, in a dark and depressing sort of way, to catalogue all the stuff this guy says and does . . . while watching people continue to defend him. It’s hard not to entertain the possibility that this is a giant cosmic game, where some Higher Power just wants to see exactly how ridiculous a human being can be, while still having millions of people want him to be their ruler. And the Higher Power just keeps turning the dial towards peak ridiculousness, and people keep on defending him.

That’s probably not what’s going on. But if it were . . . what would be different?

62 Responses to “Trump Blatantly Lies About His Position on Japanese Nukes”

  1. Meanwhile, Hillary gave some speech or other. Watching true things come out of her mouth, like her valid criticisms of Donald Trump, is more than slightly nauseating and jarring. Plus I consider her to be a giant warmonger who will, no doubt in my mind, get us into some kind of war. So they can both go straight to hell.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  2. “what would be different?”

    Any decent deus ex machina would go for lightning at the appropriate moment.

    On a cloudless day.

    With no thunder involved.

    Rick Ballard (7727d9)

  3. let see thanks to wendy sherman and lurch, the mad tyrant of pyongyang will have 10-20 nuclear weapons, with the delivery systems to match, logic demands that japan and probably taiwan for good measure, have some defensive system,

    narciso (732bc0)

  4. Watching true things come out of her mouth, like her valid criticisms of Donald Trump, is more than slightly nauseating and jarring.

    You can rest easy – it’s
    still a lie. It was a carefully limited attack that didn’t get down to the real truth.

    A comment on another thread linked to this:

    http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-real-estate-investment-blog/114332355-media-still-not-quite-getting-the-whole-story-of-trump-unviersity

    This was something other people brought to Trump. They had done the same thing with other personalities. Hillary was speaking only about Trump, like the Trump University scam only involved Trump, or was he only one (although she didn’t say so)

    Of course, this sort of thing being around, is something Trump should have known about. It was impossible for him not to know the whole idea was fraudulant.

    Trump University actualy started out as something else – online courses , good instructors and not so expensive. Then it changed after a year or two.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  5. I’m cheering you on, Pat, because I want there to be a permanent record of firm and principled resistance.

    I am proud of the fact that I can search this blog eight years in the past and see my skepticism about Barack Obama largely fulfilled. But IMHO, the Trump phenomenon is worse. All of us have watched Obama, a newcomer to Washington, snow people into thinking he could bring America together with his oratorical skills. Now many of the same people who said they saw through Obama are swearing that there’s a “there” there in draft-dodging rank-amateur Trump’s mercurial trash talk.

    If Hillary Clinton is the liberty-sucking nuclear-powered swamp monster you think she is, than maddoggit, you should’ve sent a man (you know what I mean) to do the job of defeating the weakest candidate since McGovern. I warned you all early on that failing to abort the idea of a Trump nomination could mean the death of the GOP as we know it (NOT a good thing). And now, the de facto head of the party is an adult baby that may (or may not) have billions of dollars.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  6. I’m cheering you on, Pat, because I want there to be a permanent record of firm and principled resistance.

    Ding ding ding ding ding. We have a winner.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  7. The PRC would never tolerate a NORK attack on Taiwan. They want that island intact.

    Japan and South Korea another story. I’m more familiar with the situation in Japan. That country could have nuclear weapons in such rapid, short order your head would spin. The infrastructure is in place, and despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese government has never ruled out acquiring nuclear weapons.

    And they don’t need Donald Trump to tell them whether or not they acquire nukes. That depends on us, and whether or not they consider us a reliable ally. And their confidence in our reliability has been badly shaken by 8 years of Obama’s fecklessness. We’ve let the Senkaku Islands situation deteriorate as King Putt kowtows to China. Despite the fact the Senkakus are specifically included as Japanese territory in our Treaty of Mutual Assistance and Security with the GoJ the fact that this administration has gone supine when confronting China leaves them with no confidence in us as an ally.

    But Trump hasn’t helped the situation with his stupid comments. We certainly don’t want Japan to rearm, and they already pay a lot of money for us to station forces in Japan.

    We’re not doing them a favor. We’re doing us a favor, as any WWII vet who fought in the Pacific could tell you.

    Steve57 (e33d44)

  8. I was thinking the situation is more like this

    http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/pershing_missiles.asp

    china think it has the north korean tiger by the tale, but as with the ussr and cuba, I’m not that confident, also the ddr had more extensive ties with terrorists than the core regime would allow,

    narciso (732bc0)

  9. Trump’s position on nuclear weapons in Japan is well-informed, consistent, and sensible. Let me lay it out for you, Patterico. These are facts, not hype. Let’s start with the New York Times of March 27, 2016.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html

    “It’s a very scary nuclear world. Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation. At the same time, you know, we’re a country that doesn’t have money….So, the bottom line is, I think that frankly, as long as North Korea’s there, I think that Japan having a capability is something that maybe is going to happen whether we like it or not.”

    Next, Fox News on April 3, 2016.

    http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/04/03/donald-trump-fights-to-win-over-women-reince-priebus-on-possibility-contested/

    “At some point, we have to say, you know what, we’re better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea….My number one choice is, leave it the way it is, but they have to pay us because we cannot afford to continue to lose the billions and billions of dollars that we’re losing in order to defend Japan and Germany and South Korea and Saudi Arabia”.

    And lastly, the New York Times of April 2, 2016.

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/02/donald-trump-tells-crowd-hed-be-fine-if-nato-broke-up/

    “I would rather have them not arm, but I’m not going to continue to lose this tremendous amount of money….And frankly, the case could be made, that let them protect themselves against North Korea. They’d probably wipe them out pretty quick.”

    All of these statements are smart and consistent. Japan may go for nukes if China doesn’t make North Korea give up its nukes. Japan may do that whether we want them to or not. It would be best if Japan doesn’t go nuclear and if Japan coughs up more dough for us to protect them. Suggesting we may stop giving nuclear protection to Japan if they don’t pay up is added reason for China to crack down on North Korea, so that Japan will be more inclined to pay us rather than going nuclear. The Obama-Hillary policy on North Korea has failed at curbing proliferation there, and Trump outlines a different strategy that could succeed, not to mention helping us financially. Be calm, meditate, and wise up! Thank you.

    Andrew Hyman (b12b60)

  10. Trump’s position on nuclear weapons in Japan is well-informed, consistent, and sensible.

    Watch the video before you call his position “consistent,” Andrew. He said one thing and then denied he said it. That is not “consistent.”

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  11. I’ve looked at those video snippets, and the earlier snippet has him saying basically that “maybe” Japan would be better off with nukes because they could deal with North Korea.

    Jesus Christ, that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t prefer it if China would crack down on North Korea, and Japan would pay us more for nuclear protection, and Japan would continue to forswear nukes. It just means that “maybe” Japan getting nukes would be better than the status quo, in which we get financially shortchanged for the nuclear umbrella, and we do basically nothing to rein in North Korea.

    I was for Cruz too, but when he lost I didn’t go off the frigging deep end. Please be sober about this. You’re a (somewhat) influential guy, after all, and rightly so I might add.

    Andrew Hyman (b12b60)

  12. Andrew, characterizing at as him saying “maybe” doesn’t begin to describe the forcefulness with which Trump advocates Japan having nukes in the clip. Fortunately for all of us, we need not argue the point further, because the video is right there in the post and it’s very short, meaning anyone can watch it and decide for themselves which of us is more accurately characterizing it.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  13. “Trump is consistent.” — Anyone who says that is either a fool or dishonest. And sometimes both.

    John Hitchcock (7f23d9)

  14. Sure, let them watch the tiny little sour byte clip, and not read any of the extended quotations that I gave putting the matter in context. And I didn’t say Trump has always been consistent about everything.

    Andrew Hyman (b12b60)

  15. sour >> sound

    Andrew Hyman (b12b60)

  16. Trump is not consistent about any subject matter.

    John Hitchcock (7f23d9)

  17. Trump lies about the little things.
    Trump lies about the big things.
    Trump lies about the yuge things.
    Trump lies about whether he lied.
    Trump lies about whether he’s a Christian.
    Trump lies about whether he’s a Republican.

    That’s one thing Trump is consistent at: lying.

    John Hitchcock (7f23d9)

  18. Sure he’s consistent about lots of things. He consistently says that he loves his children and is proud of them. Need more examples?

    Andrew Hyman (b12b60)

  19. Clinton has that consistency republicans vote for.

    mg (f81376)

  20. Try something pertinent to the job he’s applying for. Not irrelevancies. There are people serving Life in Prison who love their children and are proud of them.

    John Hitchcock (7f23d9)

  21. MG, just stop. #NeverTrump #NeverClinton. What part of that do you not understand? Try being honest.

    John Hitchcock (7f23d9)

  22. probably he’ll need to deploy them, around hakodate maybe south near takashima afb,

    narciso (732bc0)

  23. you stop, I stop. unless your a Sanders republican

    mg (f81376)

  24. Don’t dish it out if you can’t handle the b.s.

    mg (f81376)

  25. Oh I see. So what you meant to say, Mr. Hitchcock, is “Trump is not consistent about any RELEVANT subject matter.” Well, he’s consistently said that he wants to reduce illegal immigration hasn’t he? Or did I miss the part where he cheered for sanctuary cities?

    Andrew Hyman (e8ded8)

  26. MG, you’re just being dishonest and inflammatory. People who know the truth know you’re being dishonest and inflammatory.

    John Hitchcock (7f23d9)

  27. I take after you, John Hitchcock. As I am tired of your hateful b.s.

    mg (f81376)

  28. Saying Romney’s self-deportation plan is cruel and that the Democrats have their hearts in the right place is not consistent with wanting fewer illegals.

    His revolving door in his never-to-be-built wall is not consistent with wanting fewer illegals.

    His change in stance from an absolutely built wall to a suggested wall is not consistent.

    He was for illegals before he was against them.

    John Hitchcock (7f23d9)

  29. No, mg, I’m principled. You’re not.

    John Hitchcock (7f23d9)

  30. He was good to his mother, too.

    And I’ve never seen him kick a dog.

    As for “reducing illegal immigration”, those illegal workers he hired and was fined(?) for might seem an inconsistency to some captious person. I know, I know, these days you cannot get anything built without bribing politicians or hiring illegals.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. I’m proud of you.
    Time for a walk down Doheny state beach, a darn beautiful place.

    mg (f81376)

  32. He never said he wants a “revolving door”. He never said the wall is “never-to-be-built”. If you want to argue inconsistent positions, you don’t get to advertise one actual position, and then fabricate the other opposing position.

    And if a person says something many years ago, and has thought better of it, that’s best understood as a “changed” position. Opposite positions that are approximately contemporaneous are best understood as “inconsistent” positions.

    Andrew Hyman (e8ded8)

  33. nk (dbc370) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:44 pm

    As for “reducing illegal immigration”, those illegal workers he hired and was fined(?) for

    1. He didn’t hire them, his subcontractor diid (but he probably knew it)

    2. This was before Simpson Mazzoli, before 1986. Hiring them was not against the law in 1980.

    3. The issue was not paying them the minimum wage or overtime, and having an arrangement with the union where money was not contributed to the union pension fund. Something like that.

    4. He was sued, and after a very long time, finally settled, in preparation for his run for president in 1999. He was not fined by any court. He was ordered to pa back wages and interest, but this case continued through the courts until he settled.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/25/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-donald-trump-had-pay-1-million-hi/

    Sometime between 1979 and 1980, Trump hired a contractor to demolish an old building in midtown Manhattan to make way for Trump Tower. The contractor signed on workers from a local union and, to meet Trump’s tight deadline, also brought on 200 undocumented laborers from Poland dubbed the “Polish Brigade.”

    The Polish employees were off-the-books, working 12-hour shifts seven days a week for $4 to $5 an hour, with no overtime. Some workers were never paid what they were owed.

    In 1983, union members sued a union boss, Trump and his contractor for cheating the union out of pension and welfare funds by hiring the Polish Brigade. Trump owed the union pension fund $1 million, the plaintiffs said.

    Appearing in court in 1990, Trump blamed the violations on the contractor and denied knowing that the Polish workers were undocumented.

    Further links in he article.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  34. There is a frontier between saying Japan might seek out nukes, and japan should seek out nukes.

    You think they might be able to handle the Jet Age technology?

    What you’re missing is a boundary. A mental border. Where there should be a fence. Or maybe even a wall. We could have ivy. Hold graffiti contests. Set up a skateboard ramp.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  35. Look who’s talking about a “mental border”.

    ……………………..

    Question I wake to in the morning and pass out with at night: “What’s my popularity with my fellow white people?”

    papertiger (c2d6da) — 5/29/2016 @ 3:59 pm

    Luke Stywalker (bc0335)

  36. You figure I worry for nothing?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  37. OK, someone please explain why we shouldn’t want civilised countries like Japan and South Korea to have nukes. How is non-proliferation different from the anti-gun position that we oppose for good reasons? Surely a world in which presumably decent countries all have the means to defend themselves is a safer world, even if it means it’s slightly easier for criminal countries to arm themselves too, just as a country where presumably decent people have the means to defend themselves is a safer country even if it means many criminals also have easier access to the means to attack others. How is expecting non-nuclear countries to depend on their nuclear allies to defend them different from expecting people to rely on the police?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  38. In both Japan and South Korea, “civilization” is a thin veneer that was imposed by military occupation after 1945. Would you have wanted them to have nukes before 1945?

    nk (dbc370)

  39. Pre-’45 Japan was a very different kind of country. The occupation broke them, which they badly needed. If we claim that an armed society is a polite society, and we include in that the children and grandchildren of criminals, why should we take a different attitude to Japan and every other non-criminal country having access to nuclear arms?

    And what am I missing about pre-’45 Korea that should make me not have wanted them to have nukes? (Other, of course, than the fact that they were under Japanese occupation, which surely is a point in their favor, not against them.)

    Milhouse (87c499)

  40. Milhouse, the fact that Japan still plays games with revisionist versions of its own history, rewriting itself as victim, puts your claim in doubt.

    Modern South Korea isn’t as stable as you assume either. There is a reason the US still commands all forces in Korea and it’s not to protect South Korea from North.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  41. How is non-proliferation different from the anti-gun position that we oppose for good reasons?

    Inter alia:

    The populations of South Korea and Japan have embraced theoretical and actual nuclear weapons non-proliferation for decades. Meanwhile it appears to me that a fairly unrepresentative clique seek to impose anti-gun legislation on the rest of the populace in your country. Is this a mistaken view on my part?

    South Korea and Japan have the conventional means (if not always the inclination in the case of the latter) to defend themselves from potentially or currently hostile regional states.

    Individual self-interest and self-protection is not necessarily congruent with national interest and national defence policy. And so on.

    JP (bd5dd9)

  42. Again, how is non-proliferation consistent with a view that favors free access to arms by anyone who is not known to be an aggressor?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  43. The population in my state is heavily anti-gun. Does that make their position right?! Since when are right and wrong determined by numbers?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  44. Hymen is a skilled apologist. If you just read what Hymen wrote, you might think Trump didn’t say what he did say.

    JD (2e3880)

  45. 42.Again, how is non-proliferation consistent with a view that favors free access to arms by anyone who is not known to be an aggressor?

    It probably isn’t, but that wasn’t the original question. Moreover, free access to arms is not the same thing as election to possess and maintain arms.

    Unlike a lot of anti-gun (or pro-gun control, if you like) laws in the US, non-proliferation policies haven’t been imposed on most Japanese or South Koreans. That’s a fairly important distinction (e.g. I don’t believe the population of apartheid-era South Africa wasn’t consulted on whether development of a nuclear arsenal was a sensible national security posture or use of government resources).

    NB: my understanding is that most South Koreans active nuclear research, and there isn’t much doubt that either state is quite capable of developing short- or mid-range nuclear-tipped ballistic systems on fairly short (high months, low years) notice.

    JP (bd5dd9)

  46. I don’t believe the population of apartheid-era South Africa wasn’t consulted

    Typo – should be “were consulted”

    JP (bd5dd9)

  47. Abe is the grandson of class a war criminal kishi, also a fmr pm

    narciso (732bc0)

  48. Shot:

    And the Higher Power just keeps turning the dial towards peak ridiculousness, and people keep on defending him.

    Chaser:

    Trump’s position on nuclear weapons in Japan is well-informed, consistent, and sensible

    Its funny how the Trumpers can’t allow ANY room for Trump’s lies.

    Thank you Patterico for documenting this for the future.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1)

  49. 42. Milhouse (87c499) — 6/3/2016 @ 7:32 am

    Again, how is non-proliferation consistent with a view that favors free access to arms by anyone who is not known to be an aggressor?

    Most people who favor free access to arms actually don’t. There is no lobbying against the 1934 Firearms Act, which restricts the purchase of machine guns, or at least makes them cost a lot. Neither is anyone manufacturing “gadget guns” but every gun is readily identifiable as a firearm. Nobody seems to be interested in overturning that prohibition and selling James Bond weapons. (of course you can have some custom made)

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  50. I think the argument for limiting nuclear proliferation is that the fewer actors around the world who have them, the better, because each one of them includes a possibility of something going wrong.

    Of course maximum safety does NOT lie in attempted total disarmament of everyone, but in one rather benign power being dominant. That was the situation of Great Britain on the high seas in the 1800s. And that may be the position with regard to nuclear weapons now.

    The question still is: Why would Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons be any different than Britain and France having them? They’re not countries to worry about – not very very much anyway. So why is that is a problem?

    The fear here is, I guess, that if Japan and South Korea had nuclear weapons, and were not clearly being defended, or under the nuclear umbrella of the United States North Korea might feel somewhat emboldened to use its nuclear weapons, figuring it could deter a response.

    I mean terrorism works that way.

    One act of terrorism doesn’t lead to a big war. Maybe it used to. No nation, would have done that before the 1960s. Now we have lots of terroism.

    Now, actually there was a time, long ago, when some nations did try terrorism but thought they could avoid a war. Serbia did engage in acts of terrorism in 1914. And Germany did that too during World War I, but at least the terrorism, or sabotage, it did in the United States circa 1916 was strictly limited to something that would affect the war in Europe.

    Anyway, North Korea could think, that with the United States out of the picture, and Donald Trump has talked that way, it might be possible to get away with threatening the use of an atomic bomb, or even using it. It could do that, even if that would actually be a serious miscalculation. North Korea seems to approve of that kind of change, so that’s not good.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  51. Re: miscalculation:

    You could also say that Osama bin Laden miscalculated on Sept 11. 2001. He surely didn’t expect to instigate a war. What could have been the reason for 9/11? Perhaps he wanted to demonstrate the impotence of the United States so that the resistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan would end because they would all give up hope, especially since the military leader was of the Northern Alliance was assassinated right before.

    I mean if the U.S. would do nothing after the Pentagon was attacked, it surely wouldn’t defend anybody in Afghanistan!

    It had the opposite effect, though. The United States didn’t do nothing, or nothing of significance, but almost destroyed al Qaeda. (Almost because the United States relied on Pakistan to deal with members of al Qaeda wgo crossed the border)

    But maybe this was a closer call than it appears. Maybe things would have worked out OK in 2001 for Osama bin Laden if Al Gore was president.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  52. 40. Milhouse, the fact that Japan still plays games with revisionist versions of its own history, rewriting itself as victim, puts your claim in doubt…

    SPQR (a3a747) — 6/3/2016 @ 7:26 am

    If you go to the Hiroshima memorial you’d never know there was a war on. WWII is never mentioned, so the memorial makes it sound like one nice day in the summer of 1945 the Americans just out of the blue and for no reason at all dropped an atomic bomb on peaceful Japan. Why the hell did they do that.

    Also there’s an an inscription on the memorial cenotaph that is ominously ambiguous. It leaves out the subject of the sentence; it transliterates into to English as “Please rest in peace, for (blank) shall not repeat the error (or mistake).” So in Japanese it could be taken as “the Americans shall not repeat the error.”

    To be fair the professor who wrote the inscription says that the subject is “we” meaning all people everywhere, and instead of “error” he meant “evil;” meaning the evil of war. So there’s an English language plaque “clarifying” the statement but nothing of the sort in Japanese. Again, in Japanese it just means a mistake or error, and there’s nothing there to connect that mistake or error to the “evils of war.”

    Japanese history textbooks tend to rush past the events of the 1930s and ’40s and basically sum it all up as “a lot of bad things happened and now a lot of people really don’t like us because they blame us for it” and then move on to the ’50s. Not every Japanese is so unaware of history; you’ll see many Japanese tourists at the Arizona memorial. And if you’ve ever been there you know they show a film about the attack before they’ll take you on a short boat ride out to the actual memorial. But many Japanese don’t even know there was anything such as WWII. If you run into these tourists in Hawaii after they get over their initial shock they’ll ask who won. And you can’t really blame them given all the signs in Japanese.

    As an aside, a lot of Japanese are no better with geography. Every once in a while violence will flair up in the Philippines, tourists get kidnapped and beheaded, etc. When I was stationed in Japan a lot of Japanese would never have gone to the Philippines.

    So resort owners on the island of Mindoro came up with a brilliant advertising idea. They’d advertise vacation packages on Mindoro and never mention the island was part of the Philippines. And it worked; the Japanese tourists had no idea they were in the Philippines.

    Steve57 (e33d44)

  53. Also to be fair in polite Japanese it would be unusual to mention the subject, so the inscription isn’t so strange in that regard. It’s possible to be blunt and to the point in Japanese, but the Japanese consider it rude. So much so that I knew musicians in Japan who learned English just so they could honestly communicate with other band members and critique each others work.

    But the ambiguity means that Japanese people are left to fill in the blank on their own, which is difficult to do if you don’t have the historical context. Such as at the Hiroshima Peace Park. It leads to a lot of misunderstanding.

    Steve57 (e33d44)

  54. Hymen is a skilled apologist.

    Thanks, I try to argue persuasively and sincerely — and I try not to misspell my name, because of the anatomical connotations! 😜

    Andrew Hyman (b12b60)

  55. Its funny how the Trumpers can’t allow ANY room for Trump’s lies.

    Thank you Patterico for documenting this for the future.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:51 am

    On that point, you ain’t seen nothing until you see Trump-humper Jeffrey Lord make an ass of himself (OK, a bigger one) under scrutiny of Anderson Cooper re Trump University. Bold and italics are mine. Pay close attention to the parallel Lord draws to excuse Trump’s false claim of hand-picking Trump U people:

    ANDERSON COOPER: Jeffrey, let me start off with you. I mean, I know you sort of poo pooed this whole Trump University action against Trump. Do you still poo poo it, or do you think this could come back?

    JEFFREY LORD, TRUMP SUPPORTER: Yes, yes, of course I do. There’s even — there’s even more. And looking at, for example, one of the law firms that’s involved with this, they paid Bill and Hillary Clinton over half a million dollars, if not more, in speech fees. I mean, this is a clear, clear political conflict of interest.

    COOPER: Do you think Trump University was an actual university?

    LORD: I think it was a university in the way that these kind of inspiring things, if you will — I mean, Tony Robbins, all these kind of things, I think it was that —

    COOPER: But he doesn’t call himself a university.

    LORD: No, no, no, but, I mean, I just — I was not offended by the term “university” here. I mean, you can —

    COOPER: Do you think people knew what they were getting into? Knew — I mean, that when Donald Trump says I hand-picked all these people who are the professors in the associate professors —

    LORD: I mean, I think you’ve got an obligation as a customer to look into anything you do if you’re going to —

    (CROSSTALK)

    COOPER: Do you have an obligation as somebody running an organization —

    LORD: Sure.

    COOPER: — if you say you hand-picked people to actually hand pick them?

    LORD: You know, you get to a point here where you’re in business and you’re selling. You’re selling a product here. I mean, we do things all the time in the — we, the private sector — in the media and everywhere that whatever it is you’re selling is the biggest, the best, the brightest, et cetera, et cetera.

    COOPER: Right, but when you go to, you know, Columbia University, they don’t send you a video that says we’ve vetted our professors and it turns out they haven’t vetted the professors. They actually generally —

    LORD: Right, well, boy, you know, if we’re going to — if we’re going to start vetting actual universities for the quality of their graduates —

    (CROSSTALK)

    COOPER: OK, so Trump, who — Trump, who said — Trump, who said he had personally selected these people, it’s OK that he actually had not done that in your mind?

    LORD: I just don’t — I just don’t see that as a big deal honestly.

    COOPER: Isn’t that a lie?

    LORD: No, Anderson, are we —

    (CROSSTALK)

    COOPER: If I say I’ve hand-vetted — if I say I have vetted all the people working for me and I haven’t —

    LORD: If you say — if you say you want — you can keep your doctor if you want to keep your doctor, is that a lie?

    COOPER: OK, but you’re deflecting.

    LORD: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, Anderson.

    (CROSSTALK)

    COOPER: That’s a lie. That’s a lie. If you believe —

    LORD: OK.

    COOPER: — if you know for a fact —

    LORD: OK.

    COOPER: — you can’t keep your doctor, that is a lie.

    LORD: So all the stories —

    COOPER: Is Donald Trump —

    LORD: — about President Obama lying —

    COOPER: I’m just asking. You refuse to answer the question. Did Donald Trump lie when he said I personally selected these people, when it turns out he didn’t?

    LORD: Anderson, he, I’m sure in his mind, thought he was selling a product.

    (CROSSTALK)

    COOPER: Are no Trump supporters allowed to actually contradict the candidate?

    LORD: There’s a lightning bolt that will come in.

    COOPER: Apparently.

    LORD: No, no, no, no.

    COOPER: Tara, was that a lie?

    TARA SETMAYER, CONSERVATIVE TRUMP CRITIC: Absolutely, it was a lie. And it was a lie as part of a sales pitch to get people in to spend more money, to be — to engage in this program that turned out to be a fraud, which is why the case —

    (CROSSTALK)

    COOPER: Does it matter. I mean, the vote — the primary vote — to Jeffrey’s point, does it matter at all? Primary voters had this information. They saw this and they voted for him, and he’s the candidate.

    SETMAYER: Well, it should matter. And I don’t think — I think that what voters were exposed to was a very limited amount of this information, and you hear all of this —

    COOPER: Well, they had a lot of the information out there.

    SETMAYER: Yes, but you hear Trump with this word vomit of nonsense all the time that you never know what he’s saying is true or not. He can’t focus on more than one lie at a time, because there’s so many.

    But just really quick. The point that you made, Jeffrey, as you were trying so hard, my dear friend, to not admit that that was a lie when you know it was one — but is that you said he was selling a product. You do whatever it takes to sell a product.

    That’s exactly what he’s doing right now with voters, saying whatever he needs to do to sell the product, which is his candidacy.

    LORD: But this is what —

    SETMAYER: And this is — and people are going to get the same fraud that these people at Trump University did, and I feel bad for people like you that keep —

    LORD: If that is the standard —

    SETMAYER: — but why do you guys keep supporting this —

    LORD: Tara, if that is the —

    SETMAYER: — when it’s clear what’s going on here.

    LORD: — if that is the standard, everybody’s got to get out of the presidential race right now.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  56. I just re-read the transcript of Anderson Cooper vs. Jeffrey Lord and realized that I missed something YUGE:

    COOPER: Do you think people knew what they were getting into? Knew — I mean, that when Donald Trump says I hand-picked all these people who are the professors in the associate professors —

    LORD: I mean, I think you’ve got an obligation as a customer to look into anything you do if you’re going to —

    BINGO.

    Jeffrey Lord — even though he would likely deny he did — blamed angry Trump University customers for believing Trump’s lie about hand-picking “the best” people for their courses, saying they “[had] an obligation as a customer to look into anything you do…”

    That’s what I know I have been doing for almost a year now, and fighting people with their hands over their ears singing “La la la la la la la la can’t hear you” every step of the way.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  57. Really?
    You think that Japan pays any attention to what somebody on the other side of the world opines about them defending themselves?
    I think that Japan, like all other countries, makes their own determination of their own interest and makes their own decision about what to do. I doubt that they pay any heed to what *any* US politician thinks they should do. They are not looking for “permission” from us.

    If anything, the last 7 1/2 years has informed every country in the world that they cannot depend on the USA to protect them. All it takes is for the US voters to put the right (wrong?) person as President and the US foreign policy changes in an instant. What rational country is going to depend on the whim of some future unknown person in another country for their own defense?

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

  58. In this case, it’s not a lie. Trump did not say he wanted Japan to have anucelear weapon. He said “maybe” And he did the same in debates and other places.

    CNN Town Hall, March 29, 2016:

    http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/29/full-rush-transcript-donald-trump-cnn-milwaukee-republican-presidential-town-hall/

    COOPER: Let’s talk about nuclear issues because you talked about this in a really interesting article in The New York Times.

    TRUMP: One of the very, very big issues. I think maybe the biggest issue of our time.

    COOPER: That’s what you said to The New York Times. You said you worried about the proliferation of nuclear weapons…

    TRUMP: Right.

    COOPER: … the most. You also said, though, that you might support Japan and South Korea developing nuclear weapons of their own. Isn’t that completely contradictory?

    TRUMP: No, not at all. Look, you have North Korea has nuclear weapons. And he doesn’t have a carrier yet but he has got nuclear weapons. He soon will have. We don’t want to pull the trigger. We’re just – you know, we have a president, frankly, that doesn’t – nobody is afraid of our president. Nobody respects our president.

    You take a look at what’s going on throughout the world. It’s not the country that it was.

    COOPER: But if you’re concerned about proliferation, letting other countries get nuclear weapons, isn’t that proliferation?

    TRUMP: No, no. We owe $19 $trillion, we have another $2 trillion because of the very, very bad omnibus budget that was just signed. It’s a disgrace, which gives everything that Obama wanted. We get nothing. They get everything.

    So that’s going to be $21 trillion. We are supporting nations now, militarily, we are supporting nations like Saudi Arabia which was making during the good oil days which was a year ago, now they’re making less but still a lot, $1 billion a day.

    We are supporting them, militarily, and pay us a fraction, a fraction of what they should be paying us and of the cost. We are supporting Japan. Most people didn’t even know that. Most people didn’t know that we are taking care of Japan’s military needs. We’re supporting…

    (CROSSTALK)

    TRUMP: Excuse me, excuse me, we’re supporting Germany. We’re supporting South Korea. I order thousands of television sets because I am in the real estate business, you know, in my other life, OK.

    COOPER: It has been a U.S. policy for decades to prevent Japan from getting a nuclear weapon.

    TRUMP: That might be policy, but maybe…

    COOPER: South Korea as well.

    TRUMP: Can I be honest are you? Maybe it’s going to have to be time to change, because so many people, you have Pakistan has it, you have China has it. You have so many other countries are now having it…

    COOPER: So some proliferation is OK?

    TRUMP: No, no, not proliferation. I hate nuclear more than any. My uncle was a professor was at MIT, used to (AUDIO GAP) nuclear, he used to tell me about the problem.

    COOPER: But that’s contradictory about Japan and South Korea.

    TRUMP: (AUDIO GAP) Iran is going to have it very – within…

    COOPER: But that’s proliferation.

    TRUMP: Excuse me, one of the dumbest I’ve ever seen signed ever, ever, ever by anybody, Iran is going to have it within 10 years. Iran is going to have it. I thought it was a very good interview in The New York Times.

    COOPER: So you have no problem with Japan and South Korea having…

    TRUMP: I thought…

    (CROSSTALK)

    COOPER: … nuclear weapons.

    TRUMP: At some point we have to say, you know what, we’re better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea, we’re better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself, we have…

    COOPER: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?

    TRUMP: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

    COOPER: You would be fine with them having nuclear weapons?

    TRUMP: No, not nuclear weapons, but they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.

    Here’s the thing, with Japan, they have to pay us or we have to let them protect themselves.

    COOPER: So if you said, Japan, yes, it’s fine, you get nuclear weapons, South Korea, you as well, and Saudi Arabia says we want them, too?

    TRUMP: Can I be honest with you? It’s going to happen, anyway. It’s going to happen anyway. It’s only a question of time. They’re going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely.

    But you have so many countries already, China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia, you have so many countries right now that have them.

    Now, wouldn’t you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons? And they do have them. They absolutely have them. They can’t – they have no carrier system yet but they will very soon.

    Wouldn’t you rather have Japan, perhaps, they’re over there, they’re very close, they’re very fearful of North Korea, and we’re supposed to protect.

    COOPER: So you’re saying you don’t want more nuclear weapons in the world but you’re OK with Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons?

    TRUMP: I don’t want more nuclear weapons. I think that – you know, when I hear Obama get up and say the biggest threat to the world today is global warming, I say, is this guy kidding?

    The only global warming – the only global warming I’m worried about is nuclear global warming because that’s the single biggest threat. So it’s not that I’m a fan – we can’t afford it anymore. We’re sitting on a tremendous bubble. We’re going to be – again, $21 trillion. We don’t have money.

    COOPER: So you have no security concerns…

    TRUMP: We’re using all of the money…

    COOPER: … about Japan or South Korea getting nuclear weapons?

    TRUMP: Anderson, when you see all of the money that our country is spending on military, we’re not spending it for ourselves; we’re protecting all of these nations all over the world. We can’t afford to do it anymore.

    COOPER: But isn’t there benefit for the United States in having a secure Europe. Isn’t there benefit for the United States in having a secure Asia.

    TRUMP: There’s a benefit, but not big enough to bankrupt and destroy the United States, because that’s what’s happening. We can’t afford it. It’s very simple.

    Now, I would rather see Japan having some form of defense, and maybe even offense, against North Korea. Because we’re not pulling the trigger. The bottom line on North Korea is china, if they wanted to, they’re a tremendous supplier of North Korea. They have tremendous power over North Korea. If they wanted to, if they weren’t toying with us, Anderson, China would be the one that would get in and could make a deal in one day, okay…

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  59. Really?
    You think that Japan pays any attention to what somebody on the other side of the world opines about them defending themselves?
    I think that Japan, like all other countries, makes their own determination of their own interest and makes their own decision about what to do. I doubt that they pay any heed to what *any* US politician thinks they should do. They are not looking for “permission” from us.

    If anything, the last 7 1/2 years has informed every country in the world that they cannot depend on the USA to protect them. All it takes is for the US voters to put the right (wrong?) person as President and the US foreign policy changes in an instant. What rational country is going to depend on the whim of some future unknown person in another country for their own defense?

    fred-2 (ce04f3) — 6/3/2016 @ 1:44 pm

    But this is why it matters. And it’s why @7 I said Trump isn’t helping the situation with his stupid, conflicting comments. We still do have a Mutual Assistance and Security Treaty with Japan and Trump could at least start working on repairing the damage Obama’s done and restoring confidence. Countries like Japan and South Korea don’t actually want to have to go it alone, without a strong alliance with the US. But no, Trump just has to engage mouth before thinking and add to the damage.

    Of course in this regard we already know Hillary! will be even worse. Why? Because she’s already been worse as SecState, what with her craven, feckless betrayal of South Korea after the sinking of the Cheonan in 2010. She effectively prevented the ROKs from responding with force on their own in retaliation. Instead she claimed the “international community” (a leftist fiction, sort of like there being a two state solution that will turn the M.E. into the land of skittles of beer and solve all the world’s problems) would respond.

    And they did in typical UN fashion; with a toothless resolution condemning the attack on that ship without saying who did it. While Kim Jong Il was pinning medals on several of those responsible on NORK TV.

    There’s no love lost between Japan and South Korea. As far as the Japanese are concerned if the North and South ever reunify that just means NORK missiles will be down around Pusan. But they know a betrayal when they see it.

    Steve57 (e33d44)

  60. One could think of the chertyblossom society as the ikwan.

    narciso (732bc0)

  61. Yes the Korean joffrey has a big chip on his shoulder, Wendy Sherman has made this region very dangerous.

    narciso (732bc0)

  62. In the rapper thread, I had a link to torpedo 8.

    narciso (732bc0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3812 secs.