WH Correspondent’s Dinner - Trump evacuated, shooter in lobby

Callatoroy said:
Two were listed as editorials. I can offer the same from sources you would discredit. If you want to cherry-pick facts from those and discuss, then by all means but im not reading all that just for you to say it incorporated some “facts” that I might not even dispute to begin with. If you want to have a discussion then calling people you are trying to discuss something with lazy doesn’t really advance that discussion.
Click to expand...
2 out of the 9 links were listed as editorials so you decided to ignore all of them. Got it.

What else other than lazy do you call a person who claims there are no facts, gets replied to with 9 links full of facts, and then says "I'm not reading any of that"? I guess it could be either laziness or that you're arguing in bad faith, and you can pick whichever one you like best.

Since you are too lazy to read a few paragraphs here are some passages from the editorials that you can respond to. In case you didn't know, those lines of blue text are called "hyperlinks" that you can click on to access a cited source.


I don’t think Americans fully appreciate the extraordinary cost of Trump’s bluster and blunders. It should go without saying, but once you threaten to invade an allied country, you don’t just place the existence of the alliance in jeopardy; you raise the possibility of allies turning into mortal enemies. You can also trigger the kind of insecurity and scramble for power that contributed to the start of World War I.

In practical terms, it’s hard to see how alienating American allies puts America first.

There’s certainly no military benefit. Americans have spent the last several weeks watching our president dismiss our European allies as irrelevant then rage at them for not helping American forces reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

By launching the war against Iran without seeking the help of (or even consulting) our European allies, we lost potential access to their advanced fighters and frigates, as well as to France’s carrier battle group. In this context, there is no such thing as addition by subtraction. We are not stronger when there are fewer forces that will deploy to our aid.

There’s no fiscal benefit, either. This may sound overly basic, but it needs to be said: If you break faith with your allies, you can’t count on them to come to your defense. And that means you have to spend more money to maintain the same level of deterrence.

That’s exactly what Trump is planning to do; he has submitted a roughly $1.5 trillion budget request for the U.S. military, a staggering 40 percent increase from this fiscal year.

And where is the economic benefit? On Friday, Fareed Zakaria published a piece in The Washington Post observing that European and other allied governments aren’t just attempting to achieve greater military independence from the United States; they’re also attempting to gain more financial independence. And even though they have serious differences with China, the primary beneficiary of a rift in European and American relations may well be … China.




Projections suggest there will be millions of dead men, women and children as a result of his budget cuts, which were made without direct congressional approval. A study published in The Lancet, the London-based medical journal, found that Trump administration cuts in U.S.A.I.D. funding “would result in approximately 1,776,539 all-age deaths and 689,900 deaths in children younger than 5 years” in 2025 alone.

“Over the remainder of the period,” the study continues, “the complete defunding of U.S.A.I.D. would cause an estimated 2,450,000 all-age deaths annually, leading to a total of 14,051,750 excess all-age deaths and 4,537,157 excess under-5 deaths by 2030.”
At the same time, the administration has been canceling funding for lifesaving scientific and medical research. In November, JAMA Internal Medicine published “Clinical Trials Affected by Research Grant Terminations at the National Institutes of Health.”

It said that “in the first half of 2025, the N.I.H. terminated grants supporting 383 unique clinical trials, affecting 74,311 individuals.”
In the October 2025 issue of Nature Medicine, Marianne Guenot reported that “at least 148 clinical trials have been impacted, with over 138,000 patients due to be enrolled or already enrolled,” as a result of cancellations. The word “impacted” falls far short of what’s needed to describe the plight of those 138,000 patients.

In their steadfast disregard for scientific study, Trump and his appointees have purposely elevated unfounded fears of vaccines, effectively guaranteeing more childhood illness and infection epidemics.

In addition to policies inducing sickness and death, Trump has undermined America’s ability to compete with China on clean energy. In September, CarbonCredits.com, an energy news platform, published “The A.I. Energy War: How China’s Solar and Nuclear Outshine the U.S.,” summing up the problem nicely.
  • “China is on track for 1,400 GW, while the U.S. will reach only about 350 GW.”
  • “China plans to add 212 gigawatts of solar and 51 GW of wind, compared to less than 100 GW combined” in the United States.
  • “Offshore wind: China already has 42.7 gigawatts installed, compared with the U.S.’s Empire Wind project (816 megawatts in Phase 1, with a potential expansion to 2.1 gigawatts).”


Trump has assaulted the integrity of the presidency, turning the White House into a corrupt enterprise, pardoning donors as his family’s companies receive millions through cryptocurrency purchases from foreign companies and crypto operators subject to U.S. regulation.
 
MendotoManteo said:
I'm not going to go full conspiracy theory on this one. Yet.

But if Iran, say, had a trained gunmen squad, they possibly could have broke through.

This is why I'm incredulous about how half the Cabinet and line of succession was in that place at one time.
Click to expand...
They all expected Trump to deliver an incredible “speech” mocking the “media.”

They wanted to see Trump performing…..or, they were expected to be there to watch Trump perform.
 
Calheel said:
Again, for the fifth time now, what do you think the Hilton could have done differently to prevent this nut ball from getting as far as he did?

That is a pretty simple question and is very different from what you keep rambling about.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t the Hilton’s job to keep this guy from running through security.

It was the Secret Service’s responsibility (and possibly other law enforcement agencies).

How that guy sprinted through the first part of security is baffling.

Anyone carrying something as long as a shotgun, even a concealed one, should be stopped by the Secret Service and/or law enforcement.

It’s not the Hilton’s responsibility.
 
rodoheel said:
2 out of the 9 links were listed as editorials so you decided to ignore all of them. Got it.

What else other than lazy do you call a person who claims there are no facts, gets replied to with 9 links full of facts, and then says "I'm not reading any of that"? I guess it could be either laziness or that you're arguing in bad faith, and you can pick whichever one you like best.

Since you are too lazy to read a few paragraphs here are some passages from the editorials that you can respond to. In case you didn't know, those lines of blue text are called "hyperlinks" that you can click on to access a cited source.


I don’t think Americans fully appreciate the extraordinary cost of Trump’s bluster and blunders. It should go without saying, but once you threaten to invade an allied country, you don’t just place the existence of the alliance in jeopardy; you raise the possibility of allies turning into mortal enemies. You can also trigger the kind of insecurity and scramble for power that contributed to the start of World War I.

In practical terms, it’s hard to see how alienating American allies puts America first.

There’s certainly no military benefit. Americans have spent the last several weeks watching our president dismiss our European allies as irrelevant then rage at them for not helping American forces reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

By launching the war against Iran without seeking the help of (or even consulting) our European allies, we lost potential access to their advanced fighters and frigates, as well as to France’s carrier battle group. In this context, there is no such thing as addition by subtraction. We are not stronger when there are fewer forces that will deploy to our aid.

There’s no fiscal benefit, either. This may sound overly basic, but it needs to be said: If you break faith with your allies, you can’t count on them to come to your defense. And that means you have to spend more money to maintain the same level of deterrence.

That’s exactly what Trump is planning to do; he has submitted a roughly $1.5 trillion budget request for the U.S. military, a staggering 40 percent increase from this fiscal year.

And where is the economic benefit? On Friday, Fareed Zakaria published a piece in The Washington Post observing that European and other allied governments aren’t just attempting to achieve greater military independence from the United States; they’re also attempting to gain more financial independence. And even though they have serious differences with China, the primary beneficiary of a rift in European and American relations may well be … China.




Projections suggest there will be millions of dead men, women and children as a result of his budget cuts, which were made without direct congressional approval. A study published in The Lancet, the London-based medical journal, found that Trump administration cuts in U.S.A.I.D. funding “would result in approximately 1,776,539 all-age deaths and 689,900 deaths in children younger than 5 years” in 2025 alone.

“Over the remainder of the period,” the study continues, “the complete defunding of U.S.A.I.D. would cause an estimated 2,450,000 all-age deaths annually, leading to a total of 14,051,750 excess all-age deaths and 4,537,157 excess under-5 deaths by 2030.”
At the same time, the administration has been canceling funding for lifesaving scientific and medical research. In November, JAMA Internal Medicine published “Clinical Trials Affected by Research Grant Terminations at the National Institutes of Health.”

It said that “in the first half of 2025, the N.I.H. terminated grants supporting 383 unique clinical trials, affecting 74,311 individuals.”
In the October 2025 issue of Nature Medicine, Marianne Guenot reported that “at least 148 clinical trials have been impacted, with over 138,000 patients due to be enrolled or already enrolled,” as a result of cancellations. The word “impacted” falls far short of what’s needed to describe the plight of those 138,000 patients.

In their steadfast disregard for scientific study, Trump and his appointees have purposely elevated unfounded fears of vaccines, effectively guaranteeing more childhood illness and infection epidemics.

In addition to policies inducing sickness and death, Trump has undermined America’s ability to compete with China on clean energy. In September, CarbonCredits.com, an energy news platform, published “The A.I. Energy War: How China’s Solar and Nuclear Outshine the U.S.,” summing up the problem nicely.
  • “China is on track for 1,400 GW, while the U.S. will reach only about 350 GW.”
  • “China plans to add 212 gigawatts of solar and 51 GW of wind, compared to less than 100 GW combined” in the United States.
  • “Offshore wind: China already has 42.7 gigawatts installed, compared with the U.S.’s Empire Wind project (816 megawatts in Phase 1, with a potential expansion to 2.1 gigawatts).”


Trump has assaulted the integrity of the presidency, turning the White House into a corrupt enterprise, pardoning donors as his family’s companies receive millions through cryptocurrency purchases from foreign companies and crypto operators subject to U.S. regulation.
Click to expand...
You have just posted anti trump blah, blah, blah. No impartial journalist writes “the extraordinary cost of trump’s bluster and blunders”. I acknowledge he submitted a $1.5 trillion pentagon budget. That is a fact. Want to discuss the pros and cons/ cons of the proposed budget? If you can’t see a military or financial benefit, or America First approach to his dealings then aren’t knowledgeable enough to discuss it. Note im not saying if you disagree with a counter argument you aren’t knowledgeable enough. But to say none exists is factually incorrect. The same applies to the rest of your sources. If you want to argue specific cuts to USAID fine, but the claims made about deaths it will cause is pure speculation and not based in facts. Just leftist speculation.
 
Callatoroy said:
Anyone who believes in journalistic integrity.
Click to expand...
I agree.

In 2002 and 2003, The NY Times helped Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and other right-wingers hype the BS reasons for invading Iraq (spurious claims to Saddam’s ties to Al-Qaeda and terrorism and BS claims about WMD’s).

The NY Times lost a lot of credibility.

Something tells me you favored attacking Iraq in 2003.
 
Callatoroy said:
You have just posted anti trump blah, blah, blah. No impartial journalist writes “the extraordinary cost of trump’s bluster and blunders”. I acknowledge he submitted a $1.5 trillion pentagon budget. That is a fact. Want to discuss the pros and cons/ cons of the proposed budget? If you can’t see a military or financial benefit, or America First approach to his dealings then aren’t knowledgeable enough to discuss it. Note im not saying if you disagree with a counter argument you aren’t knowledgeable enough. But to say none exists is factually incorrect. The same applies to the rest of your sources. If you want to argue specific cuts to USAID fine, but the claims made about deaths it will cause is pure speculation and not based in facts. Just leftist speculation.
Click to expand...
What about claims of deaths it has already caused. Is that speculation? Lies?
 
Could someone please explain how calla at this point is any different from rammy or blue pandemic? I know some people keep saying that he's posting in good faith, but I'm having a hard time seeing the difference at this point. He'll defend anything Dear Leader does, without question.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Could someone please explain how calla at this point is any different from rammy or blue pandemic? I know some people keep saying that he's posting in good faith, but I'm having a hard time seeing the difference at this point. He'll defend anything Dear Leader does, without question.
Click to expand...
It is worse at this point because he actually believes he isnt full on bought into the cult. The other two know they are and are fine with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top