Trump PR implodes when asked about Saudi Arabia

So, after the big arms deal with Saudi Arabia a press conference was arranged. Acting assistant secretary for Near East affairs Stuart Jones was tasked to answer question from journalists about the trip.
Just before the end of the press conference one of the journalists checkmated Trump's PR with an question many of us would love to hear Trump or at least his worshipers answer. I quote:

While you were over there, the secretary criticized the conduct of the Iranian elections and Iran's record on democracy. He did so standing next to Saudi officials. How do you characterize Saudi Arabia's commitment to democracy ?And does the administration believe that democracy is a buffer or a barrier against extremism ?

This question​ created an awkward moment and a pause for almost 20 seconds before Stuart Jones came up with a response in which he didn't even address the question but kept talking about Iranian terrorism.

The awkward moment was recorded and can be seen in this YouTube video:



I have seen some mental gymnastics by Trump's cheerleaders on ATS trying to justify this by comparing Trumps visit to Obamas and how he didn't bow, but the bottom line is that it's the same crap that has been going on for decades. Saudi Arabia is a ruthless monarchy and #1 exporter of radical Islam yet almost every US admin in the past has sold them weapons and at same time criticized Iran for it's record in democracy !!
How can you keep looking past this ? Are your heads so far up your masters bums that you can't see past the partisan crap and demand some answers ?

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Your linky is stinky. (isn't working)

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
How can you keep looking past this ? Are your heads so far up your masters bums that you can't see past the partisan crap and demand some answers ?

Speaking for myself only, I don't want to see the US Economy crash and burn. The Petro-Dollar and our alliance with Saudi Arabia is the only thing keeping that from happening. They help us, in return we help them. It's not ideal, but it's the reality of the situation. Realism Trumps Idealism, for me at least.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

After the equals (=) sign:
Edit: How do we fight extremism with democracy when the Saudi aren't at all democratic?

Beautiful:

"Umm erm ummm..."

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

You know what our door prizes are along with the alliance?

Central bank
fractional reserve lending
fiat currency
inflation for ever
our military at constant war for oil to flow
terrorism (of course they are going to do this)
oil is a crushing industry that destroys other cleaner fuels and shelves innovation

a reply to: intrptr

Holy cow does that guy look like a Saturday night live skit.

Where was this sort of questioning when this unholy alliance was made in the first place and then perpetuated by each subsequent administration.. vigorously? Im not pleased with it.. but I also understand the wider implications by NOT honoring the agreements made well before Trump ever considered running for president. There are ugly deals that in an ideal world we would not get involved in.. this world is pretty below anywhere approaching ideal though. We all have made more deals with the devil than we care to admit to.. to keep the ball rolling.

Some folks think they are above being knocked off of that shiny white pedestal they have hoisted themselves upon. They arent... just remember who they are when they break their necks in the fall.

This is kind of an opinion piece. If you listen to this guy brain wash you for ten minutes using the "power of suggestion method" you might think it a big deal.

It seems like a confusing question to begin with. You would have to think about that one for a while under the best of circumstances.

He basically stated what they wanted to accomplish while in Saudi Arabia. Putting in measures to combat this extremism in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. Not that the Saudi's are perfect or anything like that. Then he stated that some forms of terrorism originate in Iran from an apparatus not responsive to the electorate.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

You know what our door prizes are along with the alliance?

Better than poverty and third world living conditions. If you know of some grand plan to rid the US of these institutions without devastating consequences, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'll stick with what I've got, it could be much worse.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Thank you for your post!

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

I would be more worried about the fall of Rome scenario.

Anything that can't go on forever will stop.

Now is the time to plan for a after oil world.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

I would be more worried about the fall of Rome scenario.

Anything that can't go on forever will stop.

Now is the time to plan for a after oil world.

Oil is going to be around for a long time still, certainly longer than my lifetime. When I'm dead, you idealists can go around and try to remake the world, I'll have no quarrel with that. Until then, try not to rock the boat too much, I don't want to fall into the ocean.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

I didn't have a problem when Hillary did it under Obama and I don't have an issue with it now. I don't remember anyone saying anything about Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deal to Clinton Foundation Donors

Oh, and the source is a liberal rag to boot.

So, Obama and Hillary is no issue, but Trump...righteous indignation.

Congratulations on the hypocrisy.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Idealism has little to do with this.

Oil is going to be used for many moons. That isn't the problem. It is paying for it in US $$$.

Running out of oil is a fallacy. Paying for it is the is where the US is vulnerable. BRICS could do this in, I don't know enough about the current situation. I can only guess it is precarious.

Yet much has been written about a supposed strain in U.S.-GCC relations during the tenure of President Barack Obama. For example, some in the GCC have expressed concern over what they have viewed as a U.S. retrenchment away from the overall region under Obama. For instance, they cite America’s reluctance to take effective measures to bring an end the Syrian civil war that, according to some estimates, has killed more than 400,000 people, wounded nearly 2 million people more, forced 4.8 million people to flee the country, and internally displaced another 6.3 million people. At the same time, others in the region have maintained that the “thaw” in U.S.-Iranian relations sent the wrong message not only to Iran and other “rogue” states but also to America’s allies in the region. For example, they note that President Obama, along with five other nations, chose to pursue an agreement with Iran over its nuclear energy program. That Obama did this was viewed throughout the GCC region as dangerous. Without adhering to the legitimate strategic and related sensitivities of Iran’s neighboring six GCC countries, the P5+1 coalition’s (representing the Five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council, i.e., China, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States, plus Germany) nuclear agreement with Iran was signed despite Tehran all the time sowing the seeds of insecurity and instability in most of the GCC countries right next door. A North American equivalency would have been for Communist China, the Soviet Union, or some other Great Power country during the Cold War being allowed to enter into a far-reaching strategic agreement with Canada or Mexico without the United States having any direct say in either the process or the outcome.

LINK

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Oil is going to be used for many moons. That isn't the problem. It is paying for it in US $$$.

Isn't this the reason we are doing deals with the Saudis? To keep the Petro-Dollar system. Which was my point from the beginning.

They never bothered with that question with Obama or Bush. Better late than never I guess.

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

This question​ created an awkward moment and a pause for almost 20 seconds

Must be an artifact due to the video buffering ...

Democracy is a farce anyway. It's the illusion of choice.

You're tricked into thinking Democrats and Republicans are different. They're not.

Why can't people yet see it doesn't matter who they vote for? The same BS will ensue.

Those that have control are behind the scenes pulling the strings.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Oil is going to be used for many moons. That isn't the problem. It is paying for it in US $$$.

Isn't this the reason we are doing deals with the Saudis? To keep the Petro-Dollar system. Which was my point from the beginning.

Saudis strengthening their military means the US won't have to come to their rescue like last time. Them having a stronger military is a benefit to the US.