Naive Hillary Believes Mex Prez on What Was Said About Wall at Trump Meet
Which Other Third World Leaders Would Hillary Naively Take at Face Value?
I lived and worked in Mexico at the beginning of my career. Loved the country, the people, the culture. Was offered a permanent position. Tempting, but couldn’t do it for one key reason: the absolutely endemic corruption. From the “policeman” on the corner shaking you down for an illusory infraction right up to the president, corruption and deceit were ingrained.
A person would have to be dangerously naive to take as gospel the word of the Mexican president. Enter Hillary Clinton. Morning Joe today aired her latest ad in which she claims that Donald Trump was caught “lying” when he said he didn’t discuss payment for the wall during his meeting with Mexican President Peña Nieto. Hillary’s proof? A subsequent statement by the Mex prez that he was “clear and emphatic” that Mexico won’t pay for the wall. What other statements by what other Third World leaders will Hillary—naively and uncritically—take at face value?
Interestingly, Chuck Todd made a similar point, saying “in fairness to Trump, we don’t know what happened behind closed doors. And it’s in Peña Nieto’s best interest to suddenly now say, oh no, no, no, no: I told him.”
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Here’s Hillary Clinton’s ad, by the way, that she has out today.
HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AD: Imagine a president promising to make another country pay for the centerpiece of his agenda. Who is going to pay for the wall? Who?
DONALD TRUMP: Who’s going to pay for the wall?
CROWD: Mexico!
TRUMP: Who?
CROWD: Mexico!
AD: Imagine he finally has the chance to negotiate with that country’s president. Imagine he gets shut down. Imagine he lies about it.
TRUMP:We did discuss the wall. We didn’t discuss payment of the wall.
AD: Imagine he gets called out for lying. Rebuked by an ally.
PENA NIETO: I was very clear and emphatic that Mexico won’t pay for the wall.
AD: As a candidate, Donald Trump has already embarrassed us on the world stage. Imagine him as president.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: That’s pretty powerful.
. . .
CHUCK TODD: Everybody’s taking Peña Nieto’s word on this. He didn’t say anything about the wall either. He didn’t contradict Trump at that point. So, in fairness to Trump, we don’t know what happened behind closed doors. And it’s in Peña Nieto’s best interest to suddenly now say, oh no, no, no, no: I told him. I told him.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Q. “What other statements by what other Third World leaders will Hillary—naively and uncritically—take at face value?”
A. “Islam is a religion of peace.”
Just after landing, though, Mr. Trump discovered that Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto had tweeted that he had told the Republican presidential nominee during their private meeting earlier that day that his country would refuse to pay for the wall.
Mr. Trump was peeved that Mr. Peña Nieto had gone public with the fact that the Mexican president had broken what Mr. Trump considered a deal to keep the question of paying for the wall off the table at their initial meeting.
So Mr. Trump hurriedly inserted a new sentence in his immigration speech, and he soon boomed out from the podium his traditional declaration that the wall would be paid for by Mexico—adding, “They don’t know it yet but they’re going to pay for the wall.”
“I had no choice,” Mr. Trump said in an interview on Thursday. But he also said of the Mexican president, “I liked him very much.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/02/trump-changed-immigration-policy-speech-after-mexican-presidents-tweet.html
So, certainly suggestive, huh?
The main element that divides the left/the right, Dem vs Rep, Liberal vs Conservative, is our source(s) for information. Now, what makes YOU, Rags, so certain of Fox’s honesty and integrity? I stopped watching cable news in 2008, haven’t trusted any ONE news source for years. If I see the same information on 4 to 6 different sites, I might tend to believe it. You, sir/madam, need to start looking for “supporting evidence”.
I don’t know you, and you obviously don’t know me.
I’m one of the leading proponents of “looking under the hood” of news/perceived wisdom/popular memes on both the left and the right.
I take a lot of flack for that here, and have for years. I don’t mind it at all, since I thing GroupThink is a danger to any set of people, and right-leaning people are as prone to it as anyone.
In the case of the Fox piece I noted, T-rump was quoted. That’s a first-hand source.
I don’t assume, however, that he was quoted with complete fidelity. I DO assume that his campaign is more than able to refute what the Fox piece says. They have not.
You’ll also note that I did not say it was “dispositive”; only “suggestive”.
But, again, it has not been challenged or refuted by T-rump.
I’m a very masculine “Sir”, BTW. Hard to imagine that would not be apparent to anyone whose read my posts.
“If I see the same information on 4 to 6 different sites, I might tend to believe it.”
The media is a massive echo chamber and as divided as the culture in general for the most part, any more. Looking for 4 or 5 sources is not so reliable these days. Especially if the subject matter is a favored one for a certain ideological outlook. Although you cannot really find any mixed media outlets beyond FNC that are not biased AGAINST conservatives and even libertarians, the booming number of conservative internet outlets can still be echo chambers too. Finding a Daily Caller original piece referenced with additional text on, say, The Blaze is not uncommon (just a random example).
To me the only tool to find facts within fiction is time. And often you have to dig to find the retractions and clarifications. For progressives that is deliberate (which includes most of the media). History will index the original inaccurate smear especially when it repeats across many outlets (lots of hits, lots of “records”). The clarification and truth is subtle and probably gets lost.
“What other statements by what other Third World leaders will Hillary—naively and uncritically—take at face value?”
That depends, of course, on who is making contributions to the Clinton Crime Family Protection Fund.
That’s a nice looking country ya’ got there.
There are so many ways to make that happen that Nieto’s head would spin. We could put a fee on remittances, end the manifestos program, reduce foreign aid, end entitlement payments to those living in Mexico, return all convicted illegal aliens to their home country….
My question is, after finding out about all of the direct lying our media does when it reports on what Trump (not to mention so many prominent Republicans before now) said, we are suddenly to believe what they say the President of Mexico said?
Here is a translation (transcript) of what the President of Mexico had to say.
http://thetruthdivision.com/2016/08/boom-mexican-presidents-speech-translated-proves-media-dead-wrong/
Here’s the whole press conference
http://time.com/4475102/donald-trump-enrique-pena-nieto-transcript/
It’s a little amusing reading that Hillary “believes” someone’s words.
She and Bill are such extreme political robots, I wonder if they see the humanity in anything. Words are simply commodities to be leveraged politically. When they work to your benefit, you “believe” them. When they work against you, there is some vast conspiracy, or other reason to not “believe” them. I “believe” when they meet another person the encounter is sized up in a political context, not a human one. Vote or non-vote? Race? Social value (for me)? Social danger (e.g. not PC)? Photo op? Etc.
If you want your wall paid for by Mexico, you can have your wall paid for by Mexico
Trump: We did discuss the wall, didn’t discuss payment
Trump at the beginning of the news conference after their meeting said the wall was discussed but not how it would be paid for.
Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto did not counter this statement during the news conference. If what Trump said was untrue why did Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto state that fact?
Only after being attacked by the press in Mexico he tweeted hours after the meeting that he told Trump Mexico would not pay for the wall!
I think what Hillary believes is besides the point. Trump opened the political door by his trip to Mexico. It was a risky move. Hillary walked through and is attempting to take advantage by playing on the caricature Team Hillary has been constructing of him.
As has been noted here previously, Hillary is laying back. The more Trump allows himself to be drawn into secondary, or side, issues the more it seems to work against him and for her.
Cut off the aid to Mexico, deny them visas and start shipping their people back and Mexico might change its stance.
So how are those who rush to believe Nieto any different than the ones who rush to believe Putin? In either case its an expediency. Grandma isn’t naive but this even left left at least temporarily rudderless. She assumed the poser “stateswoman” posture as a stopgap to cover the obvious fact that she had been flanked.
There were anythings covered in Trump’s speech and this who will pay for the wall thing is what liberals have attached to like barnacles, since that’s about all that they can glean as somewhat vulnerable in it. The usual slight of hand. Was anybody expecting Nieto to hand over a money order he picked up at Safeway? There are lots of ways to fund a barrier, places like the AZ and Texas border counties would likely donate a lot of free labor. Then add indirect financing, like the drop in expenses for incarcerating illegal criminals and protracted court costs to make sure they get die process. As usual, no there there.
If anyone is naive and gullible, it would be people who buy that “mexico pays for the wall” line. There is zero chance of that happening, but as long as it excites the rubes, Trump keeps pushing it.
That is why he is losing – he is always playing to the part of the voter base that already bought into his BS.
Meanwhile, polls show that 61% oppose the wall; that was in March and I seen greater number since. Also, BEFORE Trump made it his issue, the support was higher, quite a bit. Trump is such an irredeemable clown that having him advocate a policy is electoral poison – it drops public support for policy just because of his anti-Midas touch turning anything he touches into a steaming pile of … stuff.
I agree. There is zero chance that Trump will win the nomination. My guess is that you live a long way from a border county, or a barrio, or a ghetto. I pray that section 8 housing is in your near future and that you and other democratic enablers get to enjoy it in leisure.
While I am not near the border, my state/county both of which are deep blue, show on at least couple of the “locations most friendly for immigrants” articles.
In other words, you don’t have a clue. You might want to speak for yourself next time, at least that way you won’t be demonstrably misguided.
P.S. Ignoring attempts to go off-topic. If you want to reply to someone, kiddo, try to reply to what was said.
But I am on topic señor. You emphasized chance and I broadened it. I am so sorry that you live in a “deep blue” area menaced by Hottentots but doing anything about it other than trying to elect a Democrat? Start picking out some Somali names for the grand kids.
“anything he touches into a steaming pile of … stuff.”
There is a “steaming pile of … stuff” here, your writing.
While you are much too dumb to try to reason with, I guess I should reply, since other people, ones who have measurable IQ, would see it.
Posted in early April 2016 on that notorious anti-Trump site Breitbart. “Just 38 percent of American voters say they support building a wall across the border with Mexico, according to a new survey from Pew Research. This is a considerable drop since September, when almost half of voters, 46 percent, said they supported building a wall”
A question for any Trumpie with a functional brain (that excludes you, Barry) is try to figure out what happened between Sept 2015 and April 2016 that can account for public support going down that much.
August 19 Rasmussen:
“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Likely Republican Voters agree with the GOP presidential hopeful that the United States should build a wall along the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigration. Seventeen percent (17%) of GOP voters disagree, while 13% are undecided.”
You cite a pew poll, which may not be such a genuine poll:
“Media Mislead on Pew Poll about Border Wall”
http://cis.org/feere/media-misleads-pew-border-wall-poll
As I said, “steaming pile of … stuff”. It is all you have.
Dumbass.
So there is no confusion, the Rasmussen poll is Aug 2015.
the pew poll is march 2016.
What’s high-larry-ous is that Butt-hurt Barry cannot answer the question you posed.
BUT he does go off on the wonderfullness of different polls.
One he trusts implicitly. The other is suspect, though it reports consistent findings that he can’t account for.
Then he calls you names. Whadda guy…
“Then he calls you names. Whadda guy…”
I simply returned the compliment:
“While you are much too dumb to try to reason with…”
I answered the question. You are just not bright enough to understand the answer. For the IQ challenged, the answer is:
It’s not possible to know the absolute feelings from the polls. The large swings should tell you the polls are often cleverly designed to produce the results desired. The link to the analysis of the pew poll is an explanation. Make of it what you will.
It’s all horseshit. Some people buy horseshit by the bucket. And that fits you nevertrumpers quite well. Must be lovely to know you have aligned yourself with the left wing.
And what’s really “high-larry-ous”?
Rags complaining about someone else calling people names.
“Butt-hurt Barry”
That is all you really do. Call people names. But I plead guilty as well. I generally return the compliments.
Butt-hurt Ragspiss
It’s not hard to make Mexico pay for the wall. They offer next to nothing to the US and money flows from this country to that one….take a cut of that money and wall is paid for, and if we do it that way it will be paid for with interest.
As a federal program, the wall, including maitenance and personell is so cheap. 10 billion, even three times that, can be paid for out of Defense spending waste.
And the payout to America is so huge once you count actual costs & benefits. The wall really is a no brainer. Even Norway is building a wall!