Fox News’ Shep Smith explains why Trump’s foreign policy went down in flames at today’s Senate Intel

[Xelor]

also TL;DR

While PW;CBR is a sentiment I maybe would feel/express, TL;DR isn't.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Guys like Trump always wear out their welcome, I have been pointing this out for at least 18 months.

 

[marke]

It has got to sting when even Partisan Fox news Shep Smith rebukes your foreign policy. So much for "ISIS[FONT=&] is defeated[/FONT]".:roll:


[FONT=&]< Tuesday, several top national security officials appointed by President Donald Trump testified in front of Congress.>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<Fox News host Shep Smith opened his show by discussing the ways in which their testimony proved a strong rebuke of Trump’s own foreign policy.>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<According to FBI director Christopher Wray, the Russians have meddled in our elections and are “continuing to adapt their model” while “other countries are taking a very interested eye in that approach.”>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<“Of course, intelligence agencies found that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election and 2018 midterms, using social media to try to manipulate voters,” Smith said.>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<Smith then detailed how the day’s testimony “directly contradicts President Trump’s foreign policy.”>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<“They say North Korea will likely not give up their nuclear arsenal. [National Intelligence director Dan] Coats say its leaders viewed nuclear weapons as critical to the North Korean regime’s survival,” Smith said. “Second, on Iran, the Islamic Republic is not currently undertaking the necessary steps to make a bomb.”>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<Trump’s claim that ISIS is defeated and that a border wall is needed to stop a “crisis” on the southern border were also undermined by Trump’s own appointees, he said.>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<“Regarding the ongoing threat from the Islamic state, ISIS still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria and is active in Syria and has networks around the world. In short, ISIS is not defeated,” he said. “And finally, nowhere in the 42-page threat assessment report is there an indication that a wall on the southern border would be helpful in any way and nothing to indicate a wall should be built to bolster national security or anything else.”>

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/fo...licy-went-flames-todays-senate-intel-hearing/[/FONT]

Shepherd Smith and others have been completely taken in by the fabricated 'evidence' they believe proves Trump colluded with the Russians to influence our elections. These people who have been deceived by the likes of Peter Strzok, James Clapper, John Brennan and dozens of others and have made themselves laughingstocks in front of Russians who have better sense that to believe the lies they know are lies.

 

[party free]

Whataboutism

It goes well beyond whataboutism.

A lot of people misunderstand whataboutism in the first place. Trump is directly being praised for doing things Obama was attacked for having said or done. The right-wing media went ballistic at merely the mention that Obama would consider meeting with NK's leader. They wouldn't have it. And now Trump is being praised for doing EXACTLY what Obama suggested he'd do. That's not whataboutism. That's "why does one guy get praised for doing the thing you attacked the other guy for doing?" ism.

 

[mrdeltoid]

At what point does one wonder what Shep Smith has on the higher-ups at Fox News?

He started that new "I hate Trump shtick " not long after MSNBC got that ratings surge. MSNBC understood there was a huge "never Trump" viewership and capitalized on it. I'm sure the timing of the "Truth to power" part he is playing now, isn't a coincidence. Obviously, he's attracted liberal viewers to his slot. We can see that right here on DP.

 

[mrdeltoid]

It goes well beyond whataboutism.

A lot of people misunderstand whataboutism in the first place. Trump is directly being praised for doing things Obama was attacked for having said or done. The right-wing media went ballistic at merely the mention that Obama would consider meeting with NK's leader. They wouldn't have it. And now Trump is being praised for doing EXACTLY what Obama suggested he'd do. That's not whataboutism. That's "why does one guy get praised for doing the thing you attacked the other guy for doing?" ism.

And that will never change. One might say "Why is MSM so concerned with Trump disagreeing with his military leaders and his intelligence officers, when Flynn "spoke truth to power" (he told Obama the terror war isn't won, and ISIS is not the "JV team") and was fired for it? It goes like this. Liberals and never Trumpers will criticize everything Trump does, and Conservatives will criticize everything Obama does/did. You do understand that right? None of this has anything to do with what is really best for our country or it's citizens. There is the establishment right, and the establishment left, and their #1 goal is to seize and hold power at any cost. The rest of us either pick a side, and protect ourselves, or go with the flow.

 

[party free]

And that will never change. One might say "Why is MSM so concerned with Trump disagreeing with his military leaders and his intelligence officers, when Flynn "spoke truth to power" (he told Obama the terror war isn't won, and ISIS is not the "JV team") and was fired for it? It goes like this. Liberals and never Trumpers will criticize everything Trump does, and Conservatives will criticize everything Obama does/did. You do understand that right? None of this has anything to do with what is really best for our country or it's citizens. There is the establishment right, and the establishment left, and their #1 goal is to seize and hold power at any cost. The rest of us either pick a side, and protect ourselves, or go with the flow.

And not a single word of that is relevant to the point I made.

 

[mrdeltoid]

And not a single word of that is relevant to the point I made.

You don't see " Liberals and never Trumpers will criticize everything Trump does, and Conservatives will criticize everything Obama does/did." as an answer/response (IMO) to your statement of: That's "why does one guy get praised for doing the thing you attacked the other guy for doing?" ism.?

 

[Donc]

Shepherd Smith and others have been completely taken in by the fabricated 'evidence' they believe proves Trump colluded with the Russians to influence our elections. These people who have been deceived by the likes of Peter Strzok, James Clapper, John Brennan and dozens of others and have made themselves laughingstocks in front of Russians who have better sense that to believe the lies they know are lies.

Of course, you have a list of the "fabricated evidence" that Peter Strzok, James Clapper, and John Brennan put forth: I for ONE would like to see the list.:2wave:

 

[Born Free]

Whataboutism

Nice Try

 

[Born Free]

So that's a yes, you trust the Saudis. Got it.

Typical liberal response, Nice Try

 

[party free]

You don't see " Liberals and never Trumpers will criticize everything Trump does, and Conservatives will criticize everything Obama does/did." as an answer/response (IMO) to your statement of: That's "why does one guy get praised for doing the thing you attacked the other guy for doing?" ism.?

I don't find your version to be true. I see liberals both give Trump credit where it is due, and never Trumpers coming to bat for Trump quite often. Trump brings a lot of criticism on himself that his predecessor did not. There were times Obama went too far, such as his feud with Fox, and was called out by ALL for it.

 

[party free]

Typical liberal response, Nice Try

"Typical liberal response."

Compelling, and rich. Very convincing and high discourse. Much appreciated!

 

[Born Free]

"Typical liberal response."

Compelling, and rich. Very convincing and high discourse. Much appreciated!

Putting words in my mouth is a Typical Liberal Response.

 

[Xelor]

It goes well beyond whataboutism.

A lot of people misunderstand whataboutism in the first place. Trump is directly being praised for doing things Obama was attacked for having said or done. The right-wing media went ballistic at merely the mention that Obama would consider meeting with NK's leader. They wouldn't have it. And now Trump is being praised for doing EXACTLY what Obama suggested he'd do. That's not whataboutism. That's "why does one guy get praised for doing the thing you attacked the other guy for doing?" ism.

Red and off-topic:
What follows is applied "Forensic Debate 101," if that doesn't interest you, don't read it.

Flaws in reasoning fall into several categories some of which, at the margins, overlap, and that's certainly so of relevance and misdirection logic lacunae. Only in rarefied settings does apt taxonomy matter. What always matters is whether a given line a discussant uses falls (or doesn't) into the exception to the general rule regarding a given argumentative approach's irrationality. Always too an argument's structure matters in determining the preponderant logical flaw it contains, if it contains any.

What you've described above is essentially the hypocrisy rebuttal/complaint. The thing to keep in mind is that calling someone a hypocrite, even if that's true, doesn't address the substance of their claim.

1. Mark: "I oppose Mary's proposal because it will harm the farmers."
   Bill: "How hypocritical of you. You didn't feel that way when Susan [Mary's opponent] harmed farmers by...."
2. Mark: "I oppose Mary's proposal because it will harm the farmers."
   Bill: "Your "gal," Susan harmed farmers by...."

From the two dialogues above, one can see the importance an argument's structure has to the nature of the primary logical flaw it exhibits.

• In the first, "Bill" assails Mark's position by ridiculing Mark as a hypocrite rather than by showing that the proposal doesn't harm farmers or by showing that harming farmers is acceptable.
• In the second, "Bill" explicitly invokes whataboutery; however, in saying "your 'gal,'" he tacitly calls "Mark" a hypocrite, thus secondarily invoking an ad hominem (hypocrisy variation) rebuttal. What's matters with "Bill's" main and secondary rebuttal lines is that neither addresses the substance -- the harm to farmers -- of "Mark's" justification for opposing "Mary's" proposal.
• In neither dialogue do we have enough information to know why "Bill" demurred from offering a substantive/on-point rebuttal. There are at least two general reasons -- "Bill's" an idiot or ignoramus (he could also be both) who doesn't know he hasn't offered an on-point retort; "Bill's" deliberately attempting to deflect or change the topic -- but we just can't credibly say which applies.

Given the above, let's return to your "red" remark....Yes, many a Trumpkin's ridicule and retorts are hypocritical. The thing to keep in mind is that one rarely gains rhetorical advantage by responding to the substance of a fallacious rebuttal to one's own assertions or arguments. Astute observers will see the weakness of the fallacious retort and pay it no mind, and the opinion of observers who aren't astute enough to see the weakness of such retorts don't matter. Accordingly, the following discursive sequence/structure is to be avoided:

• Opener --> Make an assertion.
  Respondent --> Reply with a fallacious, thus weak, rebuttal. (Mind, fallacious reasoning isn't the only type of weak rebuttal.)
  Opener --> Respond to the substance of the weak retort.
  • The only successful responses opener has are
    • Silence or
    • Declaring the nature of the weakness.
    • Reiterating the original claim, provided the respondent's retort didn't address it.
    • Defend it if the respondent's retort is substantive yet also fallacious/errant.
  • All others weaken opener's rhetorical position.

The "opener/respondent" illustration shows the problem with your calling the other member's remarks hypocritical. Even though you may be correct, you're responding to me about his comments. That makes you an indirect respondent to his comments, and that exposes you to being rightly accused of not directly addressing his remarks. That's a rhetorically/argumentatively undesirable place to put oneself, and it shows why the structure and sequence of comments in a discussion matter. When one finds oneself in such a position, the only recourse is to own the logical inadequacy and move on to something else, be it a strong and direct rebuttal of the points one initially attacked with a weak retort or withdrawal from the argument.

 

[marke]

Of course, you have a list of the "fabricated evidence" that Peter Strzok, James Clapper, and John Brennan put forth: I for ONE would like to see the list.:2wave:

The biased leftist democrats will believe any unverified crap the leftist propagandists feed them but they insist that any claims not approved by democrat headquarters be verified with irrefutable evidence.

 

[jdog21]

It has got to sting when even Partisan Fox news Shep Smith rebukes your foreign policy. So much for "ISIS[FONT=&] is defeated[/FONT]".:roll:


[FONT=&]< Tuesday, several top national security officials appointed by President Donald Trump testified in front of Congress.>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<Fox News host Shep Smith opened his show by discussing the ways in which their testimony proved a strong rebuke of Trump’s own foreign policy.>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<According to FBI director Christopher Wray, the Russians have meddled in our elections and are “continuing to adapt their model” while “other countries are taking a very interested eye in that approach.”>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<“Of course, intelligence agencies found that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election and 2018 midterms, using social media to try to manipulate voters,” Smith said.>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<Smith then detailed how the day’s testimony “directly contradicts President Trump’s foreign policy.”>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<“They say North Korea will likely not give up their nuclear arsenal. [National Intelligence director Dan] Coats say its leaders viewed nuclear weapons as critical to the North Korean regime’s survival,” Smith said. “Second, on Iran, the Islamic Republic is not currently undertaking the necessary steps to make a bomb.”>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<Trump’s claim that ISIS is defeated and that a border wall is needed to stop a “crisis” on the southern border were also undermined by Trump’s own appointees, he said.>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<“Regarding the ongoing threat from the Islamic state, ISIS still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria and is active in Syria and has networks around the world. In short, ISIS is not defeated,” he said. “And finally, nowhere in the 42-page threat assessment report is there an indication that a wall on the southern border would be helpful in any way and nothing to indicate a wall should be built to bolster national security or anything else.”>

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/fo...licy-went-flames-todays-senate-intel-hearing/[/FONT]

The never Trump GOP would like Trump to stay in engaged in all the wars we're in and probably want even more.

 

[Mr Person]

LOL, dude you got punked.. Shep is no conservative.. You may as well have quoted Don Lemon..


Tim-

LOL, dude you punked yourself. You punk yourself every single time you announce somebody is no longer a conservative because they didn't say what you wanted to hear.

 

[Hicup]

LOL, dude you punked yourself. You punk yourself every single time you announce somebody is no longer a conservative because they didn't say what you wanted to hear.

Well, if you say so..


Tim-

 

[Donc]

The never Trump GOP would like Trump to stay in engaged in all the wars we're in and probably want even more.

Especially Yosemite Sam AKA John Bolton.:2wave:

 

[mrdeltoid]

I don't find your version to be true. I see liberals both give Trump credit where it is due, and never Trumpers coming to bat for Trump quite often. Trump brings a lot of criticism on himself that his predecessor did not. There were times Obama went too far, such as his feud with Fox, and was called out by ALL for it.

I was specifically speaking about MSM and democrat politicians. I do understand when it comes to partisan politics, and most other things it's never never, and never always. What I was trying to articulate was, since Trump has taken office, when policy and issues are discussed, 90% of the dems and MSM are critical of Trump, and conservatives/Republicans did the same thing when BO was in office, hence, when Trump is criticized by the dems, the pubs will point out something similar with Obama. And to be honest, when it comes to the issues, it's hard to name more than one thing, at least that I can remember, where a dem politician has given Trump credit for anything. JMHO

 

[Moderate Right]

It has got to sting when even Partisan Fox news Shep Smith rebukes your foreign policy. So much for "ISIS[FONT=&] is defeated[/FONT]".:roll:


[FONT=&]< Tuesday, several top national security officials appointed by President Donald Trump testified in front of Congress.>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<Fox News host Shep Smith opened his show by discussing the ways in which their testimony proved a strong rebuke of Trump’s own foreign policy.>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<According to FBI director Christopher Wray, the Russians have meddled in our elections and are “continuing to adapt their model” while “other countries are taking a very interested eye in that approach.”>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<“Of course, intelligence agencies found that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election and 2018 midterms, using social media to try to manipulate voters,” Smith said.>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<Smith then detailed how the day’s testimony “directly contradicts President Trump’s foreign policy.”>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<“They say North Korea will likely not give up their nuclear arsenal. [National Intelligence director Dan] Coats say its leaders viewed nuclear weapons as critical to the North Korean regime’s survival,” Smith said. “Second, on Iran, the Islamic Republic is not currently undertaking the necessary steps to make a bomb.”>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<Trump’s claim that ISIS is defeated and that a border wall is needed to stop a “crisis” on the southern border were also undermined by Trump’s own appointees, he said.>[/FONT]

[FONT=&]<“Regarding the ongoing threat from the Islamic state, ISIS still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria and is active in Syria and has networks around the world. In short, ISIS is not defeated,” he said. “And finally, nowhere in the 42-page threat assessment report is there an indication that a wall on the southern border would be helpful in any way and nothing to indicate a wall should be built to bolster national security or anything else.”>

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/fo...licy-went-flames-todays-senate-intel-hearing/[/FONT]

I thought that you guys think that Fox News is fake news. Please make up your friggin mind.