The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[Kutnupe14]

It's found that it was previously cut in 2015 as Trump was beginning his campaign and being labelled a "racist"

Lends more weight to the "petty" excuse

Actually all the stories I've read say 2014. And they did so the pair down the running times to allow for commercials. Given that Trump didn't announce he was running until the 2015, this seems like faux outrage.

 

[KG1]

Apparently it was no big deal to Trump either. He joked about in a tweet. "The movie will never be the same! (just kidding)"

 

[T.Lex]

Actually all the stories I've read say 2014. And they did so the pair down the running times to allow for commercials. Given that Trump didn't announce he was running until the 2015, this seems like faux outrage.

I don't give 2 flying faux when it was edited, the whole thing is stupid.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't give 2 flying faux when it was edited, the whole thing is stupid.

I see you got your bearings straight.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Apparently it was no big deal to Trump either. He joked about in a tweet. "The movie will never be the same! (just kidding)"

Probably because out of the great many things he doesn't know, television is the exception.

 

[Jludo]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/the-weekly/eddie-gallagher-navy-seal.html

This whole Edward Gallagher thing confuses me. It looks like the nytimes released the interviews with fellow seal team 7 members and it looks pretty damning on the face of it. I would also think the navy would be hesitant to try their own for war crimes. What am I missing here that Trump seems to know? Is it that no matter what anyone on the US side does, they should never be tried for war crimes? Is it that Gallagher didn't do/wasn't who his fellow seals said he was? Their testimony was influenced/ coerced to serve some nefarious end?
It seems like Gallagher was a psychopath with a license to kill on the face of it. What's this deep state conspiracy against him I've not seen elaborated yet?

 

[T.Lex]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/the-weekly/eddie-gallagher-navy-seal.html

This whole Edward Gallagher thing confuses me. It looks like the nytimes released the interviews with fellow seal team 7 members and it looks pretty damning on the face of it. I would also think the navy would be hesitant to try their own for war crimes. What am I missing here that Trump seems to know? Is it that no matter what anyone on the US side does, they should never be tried for war crimes? Is it that Gallagher didn't do/wasn't who his fellow seals said he was? Their testimony was influenced/ coerced to serve some nefarious end?
It seems like Gallagher was a psychopath with a license to kill on the face of it. What's this deep state conspiracy against him I've not seen elaborated yet?

First, I agree with you on this, overall.

Second, though, the evidence that came out at trial was different from the preliminary interviews... as often happens. I don't recall the specifics, but at least one witness said that he was the one that killed the detainee, not Gallagher. And I think another one recanted his earlier statement. There were other inconsistencies that can add up.

IMHO, it still doesn't justify the CinC's direct involvement, in the way that Trump got involved. But, he is CinC. So, his nose goes wherever he wants to put it.

 

[Leadeye]

NYT and Seal teams, a lot of distance between those two organizations as loquacity goes.

 

[Jludo]

NYT and Seal teams, a lot of distance between those two organizations as loquacity goes.

Not sure what the implication/ point is. Its especially damning that his fellow seals felt the need to speak up?

 

[nonobaddog]

The truth does not come from the nyt.

 

[Leadeye]

There's probably not enough real info for us citizens to form an accurate opinion. I've known one Seal, one SF, and one 160th pilot and they speak when told. I respect that, and don't ask questions about what they do, we talk about things like family, sports, etc., just like anybody else. The NYT on the other hand will make up a story if they can't find one they want. Like Tlex said, it seems odd for the President to get involved at this level, but again we don't know everything and the credibility of the NYT is nothing I would take to the bank.

 

[Jludo]

The truth does not come from the nyt.

They deep faked the leaked interviews?

 

[Birds Away]

They've demonstrated time and again that they are more than willing to exclude facts discovered in an investigation if those facts are unflattering for the team they play for. At this point they are suitable for wrapping spoiled fish and that's about it.

 

[Leadeye]

Taking history as an example, in modern times, questions were asked about why Charles McVay, the captain of the Indianapolis, was prosecuted for hazarding his command. Today, I think ordinary citizens think he was unfairly treated and President Clinton posthumously exonerated him of his conviction. What was the Navy's purpose in pursuing the prosecution many years ago? We'll probably never know the real truth of it.

 

[Jludo]

I fail to understand what the fact that it's the nyt has to do with the evidence laid out or the facts of the case, can we get past that part? The two stories I've heard are that it's a deep state conspiracy to bring down a decorated seal vs a psychopathic killer who's own team wanted him gone. Im trying to better understand the navy's reason for going after a decorated seal for no apparent reason.

 

[nonobaddog]

Because the nyt doesn't lay out the truth. Remember the hit pieces they did on the covington kids and the phony lying indian. The nyt ran with the edited version of the video and made up crap like they approached him and they surrounded him. None of that happened, it was not in the edited version and it was not in the full version because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. But the lies fit their agenda so they ran with it. The nyt lies.
They can just as easily edit or use edited versions of interviews, statements, implications and just plain lies - as long as it fits their agenda.
If you want the truth - look at what the nyt says and you can rule that out.

 

[jbombelli]

There's always a reason. It just might not be the reason we're told.

I automatically distrust anything the NYT says. I don't care what evidence they say there is, or who they say they talked to or what was said. I don't trust a word of it. They've lied too many times.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I fail to understand what the fact that it's the nyt has to do with the evidence laid out or the facts of the case, can we get past that part? The two stories I've heard are that it's a deep state conspiracy to bring down a decorated seal vs a psychopathic killer who's own team wanted him gone. Im trying to better understand the navy's reason for going after a decorated seal for no apparent reason.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm inclined to take the word of an alleged "psychopathic killer" (your words, not mine) than a known pathological liar (the NYT). I'd tend to believe that he was decorated for doing his duty, part, if not most of which, included killing the enemy. I don't much care how he did it or if he did it. Doing that was his duty, and that appears to be what he did.

 

[Jludo]

Im baffled as to this NYT obsession. Find me a source on the subject you trust and we can use it.

My questions are all about the actual story/events. Im trying to understand the Trump push behind it.

 

[Jludo]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm inclined to take the word of an alleged "psychopathic killer" (your words, not mine) than a known pathological liar (the NYT). I'd tend to believe that he was decorated for doing his duty, part, if not most of which, included killing the enemy. I don't much care how he did it or if he did it. Doing that was his duty, and that appears to be what he did.

It's not his word against the nyt, it's his word against fellow seals.

But it also sounds like you're saying if done agaisnt isis, it can't, by definition, be wrong?