|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 16 2017 00:32 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:13 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 23:44 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 23:23 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 22:49 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 22:43 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 22:20 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Like not condemn violence by Nazis? No, tax reform, immigration, healthcare, jobs, trade, infrastructure, crime, national security, preening government, and so forth. But he won’t get to do those things because he refused to condemn Nazis and keeps trying to obstruct the Russian investigation. Tax reform is harder than healthcare and they can’t pass it with just 50 votes in the Senate. The man isn’t focused on being president because you need the approval of the American to pass laws. Otherwise the house members up for re-election in a year won’t jump on the train. If there's a goal that will help everyone, you shouldn't be rooting for failure, right? I can't connect with your planet at all. They issued a statement on Charlottesville which I guess is what you're talking about, you must be extremely emotionally invested or think we're a certain kind of gullible sap to push this. The media is your enemy in that they are redirecting your outrage on shit that doesn't matter to prop up a one-party culture. This time last year you didn't think it was the job of the president to drop everything any time someone died to pop on national news and reassure people murder is bad, timed and worded to your same exacting standards, or else be of suspect character. Oblade, I’m a big boy and I know which media outlets are bad for me and which are not. And my anger and outrage are my own. The problem is you think I oppose Trump for irrational reasons, but I don’t. He and the GOP have pushed bills that will actively harm me and my family. They will limit our economic options and hurt our ability to get healthcare coverage. We have friends that feel less safe in the US than they have ever felt in their lives. None of these are abstract or ideological. Trump’s policies are bad for me, my wife and the people we care about. I don't really care who you "support" or "oppose," as I was talking about Bannon, although I'm not sure anyone wants you to have bad healthcare. But yes, you're a gainfully employed college graduate who was just insinuating something like POTUS supports Nazi violence, does that go in the rational pile too? There is overwhelming evidence that Trump is reluctant to condemn anyone who supports him, including violent Nazi and racists. We know this because he was asked several time on the day this happened to condemn them and failed to do so. Which resulted in the Nazis saying Trump is their guy. Because he wasn't taking questions at all, he was walking out of the room and desperate people shout their questions hoping to get a scoop from the president because it's their job. Then this gets innuendoed into silence = guilt... are you sure you know what the media is doing to you? + Show Spoiler +On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
You have a basic problem of viewing this in a binary state. It is either full support or full opposition. But that isn’t how this work. Trump may not openly support them, but he isn’t interested in openly condemning them. And being the leader of our country, that amounts to him being comfortable with Nazis and white supremacist existing openly in the US. Your opposition to Trump isn't complete? On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
And Bannon said his publication was the home of the alt right, which is this group of Nazis, racists and white supremacist. He is more than happy to accept their support. Bannon doesn't like the Republican party, likes a new real conservative non-Washington faction, I think xDaunt explained this to you before, everyone wants to be alt-right because it means group credibility, so white supremacists say they're alt-right and then get MSM interviews when otherwise they're nobodies that are rightfully ignored, whereas the "alt-right" base from Breitbart is people who want to burn down RINOs and they fight over the name. Oblade, never be confused in thinking that I need any of the conservatives(with the exception of Lord of Awesome) in this thread to explain people like Bannon to me. I am well read on him and may other actors in the White House. And I am completely opposed to Trump and his repugnant form of politics. He is a stain on that office. A bigoted con man who came to power by pandering to populist rhetoric and promising things he can never deliver. Same with the GOP and repealing the ACA. They are con men with no real plan or idea how to govern. So a minute after saying support isn't binary, your opposition to Trump is total, the other side has no good intent or ideas or actions. I do not know how you can make so many contributions to the thread year after year when everything's so simple and figured out. Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:
And it appears I hold the president to a higher standard than you. That he should condemn Nazis who claim to support him when asked the question. I guess you don’t, which is your choice.
I don't think so lowly of the president that I need to ask to begin with, get the idea... Nor do I think it's the job of the president to be on 24 hour Twitter call to respond to whatever the liberal echo chamber thinks is a pressing matter, or fault him for not responding fast enough when he wouldn't even know about the "controversy," or that just because some random schmuck shouts a question to the leader of the free world while he's walking out of the room he's entitled to time and an answer no matter whether it's if Trump likes white supremacists or BLTs. Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside). So in this case, would Trump be okay to respond like this? + Show Spoiler +
Oblade, Trump offers me nothing. Literally nothing. The man opposes all my views on every front. What part of that don’t you get? I’ve said this before, the GOP has never given me a reason to vote for them. Ever. Even in my local elections in my liberal state, the GOP candidates have always come up short of earning my support. Trump never even tried. I was not the voter he was going to make his path to the WH on and he has not interest ever earning my support.
The rest of your post is your standard whine about the liberal echo chamber. It would have some point if it wasn’t so hypocritical. You demand a level of self critique that you barely apply to yourself.
|
On August 16 2017 00:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside). The difference is that white supremacists have attacked us far more than Islamic terrorists have. Far, far more.
The difference is also in not wanted to empower a terrorist group by granting them legitimacy (especially in relation to their religion) and a bunch of white supremacists.
|
On August 16 2017 00:41 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside). The difference is that white supremacists have attacked us far more than Islamic terrorists have. Far, far more. The difference is also in not wanted to empower a terrorist group by granting them legitimacy (especially in relation to their religion) and a bunch of white supremacists.
The white nationalist groups are all saying that this is their moment. They believe it is their time. Which wouldn’t be as terrifying if the White House and Federal government was responding with “No, it isn’t your time.” But that isn’t happening. And these groups are violent.
|
On August 16 2017 00:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:41 Logo wrote:On August 16 2017 00:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside). The difference is that white supremacists have attacked us far more than Islamic terrorists have. Far, far more. The difference is also in not wanted to empower a terrorist group by granting them legitimacy (especially in relation to their religion) and a bunch of white supremacists. The white nationalist groups are all saying that this is their moment. They believe it is their time. Which wouldn’t be as terrifying if the White House and Federal government was responding with “No, it isn’t your time.” But that isn’t happening. And these groups are violent.
Yeah exactly. One group was looking for legitimacy in action and voice, and the other is looking for legitimacy through silence and lack of condemnation. Both should be denied what they're after.
|
When Attorney General Jeff Sessions was asked how he viewed the car attack in Charlottesville, Va., here's how he responded:
"It does meet the definition of domestic terrorism in our statute," he told ABC's Good Morning America.
That certainly seems to suggest the government is looking into a possible terrorism charge against the suspect, 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr. At Saturday's rally organized by white supremacists, a car slammed into counterprotesters, killing one and injuring 19.
But according to the Justice Department and legal analysts, it's simply not possible for the government to file charges of domestic terrorism, because no such criminal law exists.
The Patriot Act does define domestic terrorism, and under this designation, the Justice Department has broad powers to investigate, said Neal Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who served as former President Barack Obama's acting solicitor general and as the national security adviser to the Justice Department.
He said the government has three basic ways to approach the Charlottesville case.
"No. 1, this is a hate crime, under the hate crime statutes," he said. "The second is that this is a conspiracy to deprive individuals of civil rights."
Source
Seems convenient but it's the law.
The Trump administration on Wednesday will start to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico. And despite very tough talk about NAFTA during the campaign, it appears the administration has backed away from a major assault on the decades-old trade deal.
And that is a relief to businesses in all three countries.
During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump clearly tapped into frustration about workers who had lost jobs in manufacturing. And he painted NAFTA as one of the central villains responsible for stealing Americans jobs.
"NAFTA was the worst deal ever made in the history of the world," he said. "It was a one-way highway out of the United States."
Upon taking office, President Trump followed through on his pledge to scuttle another trade deal — the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But by April, it was becoming clear that NAFTA would be different.
"I was going to terminate NAFTA as of 2 or 3 days from now," Trump said, but, he said, the president of Mexico and the prime minister of Canada "called me and they said, 'Rather than terminating NAFTA, could you please renegotiate?' "
Source
I'm sure they begged him the way he states.
|
On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:32 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:13 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 23:44 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 23:23 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 22:49 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 22:43 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
No, tax reform, immigration, healthcare, jobs, trade, infrastructure, crime, national security, preening government, and so forth. But he won’t get to do those things because he refused to condemn Nazis and keeps trying to obstruct the Russian investigation. Tax reform is harder than healthcare and they can’t pass it with just 50 votes in the Senate. The man isn’t focused on being president because you need the approval of the American to pass laws. Otherwise the house members up for re-election in a year won’t jump on the train. If there's a goal that will help everyone, you shouldn't be rooting for failure, right? I can't connect with your planet at all. They issued a statement on Charlottesville which I guess is what you're talking about, you must be extremely emotionally invested or think we're a certain kind of gullible sap to push this. The media is your enemy in that they are redirecting your outrage on shit that doesn't matter to prop up a one-party culture. This time last year you didn't think it was the job of the president to drop everything any time someone died to pop on national news and reassure people murder is bad, timed and worded to your same exacting standards, or else be of suspect character. Oblade, I’m a big boy and I know which media outlets are bad for me and which are not. And my anger and outrage are my own. The problem is you think I oppose Trump for irrational reasons, but I don’t. He and the GOP have pushed bills that will actively harm me and my family. They will limit our economic options and hurt our ability to get healthcare coverage. We have friends that feel less safe in the US than they have ever felt in their lives. None of these are abstract or ideological. Trump’s policies are bad for me, my wife and the people we care about. I don't really care who you "support" or "oppose," as I was talking about Bannon, although I'm not sure anyone wants you to have bad healthcare. But yes, you're a gainfully employed college graduate who was just insinuating something like POTUS supports Nazi violence, does that go in the rational pile too? There is overwhelming evidence that Trump is reluctant to condemn anyone who supports him, including violent Nazi and racists. We know this because he was asked several time on the day this happened to condemn them and failed to do so. Which resulted in the Nazis saying Trump is their guy. Because he wasn't taking questions at all, he was walking out of the room and desperate people shout their questions hoping to get a scoop from the president because it's their job. Then this gets innuendoed into silence = guilt... are you sure you know what the media is doing to you? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wEc6JUDSv8 On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
You have a basic problem of viewing this in a binary state. It is either full support or full opposition. But that isn’t how this work. Trump may not openly support them, but he isn’t interested in openly condemning them. And being the leader of our country, that amounts to him being comfortable with Nazis and white supremacist existing openly in the US. Your opposition to Trump isn't complete? On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
And Bannon said his publication was the home of the alt right, which is this group of Nazis, racists and white supremacist. He is more than happy to accept their support. Bannon doesn't like the Republican party, likes a new real conservative non-Washington faction, I think xDaunt explained this to you before, everyone wants to be alt-right because it means group credibility, so white supremacists say they're alt-right and then get MSM interviews when otherwise they're nobodies that are rightfully ignored, whereas the "alt-right" base from Breitbart is people who want to burn down RINOs and they fight over the name. Oblade, never be confused in thinking that I need any of the conservatives(with the exception of Lord of Awesome) in this thread to explain people like Bannon to me. I am well read on him and may other actors in the White House. And I am completely opposed to Trump and his repugnant form of politics. He is a stain on that office. A bigoted con man who came to power by pandering to populist rhetoric and promising things he can never deliver. Same with the GOP and repealing the ACA. They are con men with no real plan or idea how to govern. So a minute after saying support isn't binary, your opposition to Trump is total, the other side has no good intent or ideas or actions. I do not know how you can make so many contributions to the thread year after year when everything's so simple and figured out. On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:
And it appears I hold the president to a higher standard than you. That he should condemn Nazis who claim to support him when asked the question. I guess you don’t, which is your choice.
I don't think so lowly of the president that I need to ask to begin with, get the idea... Nor do I think it's the job of the president to be on 24 hour Twitter call to respond to whatever the liberal echo chamber thinks is a pressing matter, or fault him for not responding fast enough when he wouldn't even know about the "controversy," or that just because some random schmuck shouts a question to the leader of the free world while he's walking out of the room he's entitled to time and an answer no matter whether it's if Trump likes white supremacists or BLTs. On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside). So in this case, would Trump be okay to respond like this? + Show Spoiler + Oblade, Trump offers me nothing. Literally nothing. The man opposes all my views on every front. What part of that don’t you get? I’ve said this before, the GOP has never given me a reason to vote for them. Ever. Even in my local elections in my liberal state, the GOP candidates have always come up short of earning my support. Trump never even tried. I was not the voter he was going to make his path to the WH on and he has not interest ever earning my support.
The extreme unlikelihood. I really don't care who you vote for but since you keep pressing the issue, the idea there's zero good in the other side makes me suspect something else is going on.
On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
The rest of your post is your standard whine about the liberal echo chamber.
The point has nothing to do with liberals, you latched onto a buzzword, Trump isn't on Twitter figuring out what controversies journalists are finding and bouncing back and forth and there's no mechanism for him to discover what fire is starting that he has to put out, and no way for him to respond in time so that when word finally gets to the team and he does what everyone was demanding they just go "Too late, your silence was a dogwhistle" anyway.
I don't believe this is standard or a whine, but anyway something's being common doesn't rebut it.
On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
It would have some point if it wasn’t so hypocritical. You demand a level of self critique that you barely apply to yourself.
Would you mind unpacking that, because it sounds a lot like you copied what someone just said about Danglars for bait and I don't see where you're coming from.
|
United States42017 Posts
I think if there's one thing we can definitely say is true about Trump it's that he is on Twitter refreshing what people are saying about him.
|
On August 16 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:
I think if there's one thing we can definitely say is true about Trump it's that he is on Twitter refreshing what people are saying about him.
We're dropping the glued to cable news narrative?
|
On August 16 2017 00:54 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:32 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:13 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 23:44 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 23:23 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 22:49 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
But he won’t get to do those things because he refused to condemn Nazis and keeps trying to obstruct the Russian investigation. Tax reform is harder than healthcare and they can’t pass it with just 50 votes in the Senate. The man isn’t focused on being president because you need the approval of the American to pass laws. Otherwise the house members up for re-election in a year won’t jump on the train. If there's a goal that will help everyone, you shouldn't be rooting for failure, right? I can't connect with your planet at all. They issued a statement on Charlottesville which I guess is what you're talking about, you must be extremely emotionally invested or think we're a certain kind of gullible sap to push this. The media is your enemy in that they are redirecting your outrage on shit that doesn't matter to prop up a one-party culture. This time last year you didn't think it was the job of the president to drop everything any time someone died to pop on national news and reassure people murder is bad, timed and worded to your same exacting standards, or else be of suspect character. Oblade, I’m a big boy and I know which media outlets are bad for me and which are not. And my anger and outrage are my own. The problem is you think I oppose Trump for irrational reasons, but I don’t. He and the GOP have pushed bills that will actively harm me and my family. They will limit our economic options and hurt our ability to get healthcare coverage. We have friends that feel less safe in the US than they have ever felt in their lives. None of these are abstract or ideological. Trump’s policies are bad for me, my wife and the people we care about. I don't really care who you "support" or "oppose," as I was talking about Bannon, although I'm not sure anyone wants you to have bad healthcare. But yes, you're a gainfully employed college graduate who was just insinuating something like POTUS supports Nazi violence, does that go in the rational pile too? There is overwhelming evidence that Trump is reluctant to condemn anyone who supports him, including violent Nazi and racists. We know this because he was asked several time on the day this happened to condemn them and failed to do so. Which resulted in the Nazis saying Trump is their guy. Because he wasn't taking questions at all, he was walking out of the room and desperate people shout their questions hoping to get a scoop from the president because it's their job. Then this gets innuendoed into silence = guilt... are you sure you know what the media is doing to you? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wEc6JUDSv8 On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
You have a basic problem of viewing this in a binary state. It is either full support or full opposition. But that isn’t how this work. Trump may not openly support them, but he isn’t interested in openly condemning them. And being the leader of our country, that amounts to him being comfortable with Nazis and white supremacist existing openly in the US. Your opposition to Trump isn't complete? On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
And Bannon said his publication was the home of the alt right, which is this group of Nazis, racists and white supremacist. He is more than happy to accept their support. Bannon doesn't like the Republican party, likes a new real conservative non-Washington faction, I think xDaunt explained this to you before, everyone wants to be alt-right because it means group credibility, so white supremacists say they're alt-right and then get MSM interviews when otherwise they're nobodies that are rightfully ignored, whereas the "alt-right" base from Breitbart is people who want to burn down RINOs and they fight over the name. Oblade, never be confused in thinking that I need any of the conservatives(with the exception of Lord of Awesome) in this thread to explain people like Bannon to me. I am well read on him and may other actors in the White House. And I am completely opposed to Trump and his repugnant form of politics. He is a stain on that office. A bigoted con man who came to power by pandering to populist rhetoric and promising things he can never deliver. Same with the GOP and repealing the ACA. They are con men with no real plan or idea how to govern. So a minute after saying support isn't binary, your opposition to Trump is total, the other side has no good intent or ideas or actions. I do not know how you can make so many contributions to the thread year after year when everything's so simple and figured out. On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:
And it appears I hold the president to a higher standard than you. That he should condemn Nazis who claim to support him when asked the question. I guess you don’t, which is your choice.
I don't think so lowly of the president that I need to ask to begin with, get the idea... Nor do I think it's the job of the president to be on 24 hour Twitter call to respond to whatever the liberal echo chamber thinks is a pressing matter, or fault him for not responding fast enough when he wouldn't even know about the "controversy," or that just because some random schmuck shouts a question to the leader of the free world while he's walking out of the room he's entitled to time and an answer no matter whether it's if Trump likes white supremacists or BLTs. On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside). So in this case, would Trump be okay to respond like this? + Show Spoiler + Oblade, Trump offers me nothing. Literally nothing. The man opposes all my views on every front. What part of that don’t you get? I’ve said this before, the GOP has never given me a reason to vote for them. Ever. Even in my local elections in my liberal state, the GOP candidates have always come up short of earning my support. Trump never even tried. I was not the voter he was going to make his path to the WH on and he has not interest ever earning my support. The extreme unlikelihood. I really don't care who you vote for but since you keep pressing the issue, the idea there's zero good in the other side makes me suspect something else is going on. Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
The rest of your post is your standard whine about the liberal echo chamber.
The point has nothing to do with liberals, you latched onto a buzzword, Trump isn't on Twitter figuring out what controversies journalists are finding and bouncing back and forth and there's no mechanism for him to discover what fire is starting that he has to put out, and no way for him to respond in time so that when word finally gets to the team and he does what everyone was demanding they just go "Too late, your silence was a dogwhistle" anyway. I don't believe this is standard or a whine, but anyway something's being common doesn't rebut it. Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
It would have some point if it wasn’t so hypocritical. You demand a level of self critique that you barely apply to yourself.
Would you mind unpacking that, because it sounds a lot like you copied what someone just said about Danglars for bait and I don't see where you're coming from.
Why is he on Twitter in the first place? Using his position of president? There's an official POTUS twitter handle he should be using. But then again, he can defile both by using his own, so this is fine I guess?
|
United States42017 Posts
On August 16 2017 00:58 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:
I think if there's one thing we can definitely say is true about Trump it's that he is on Twitter refreshing what people are saying about him. We're dropping the glued to cable news narrative?
No? A single human being is capable of monitoring Twitter and watching Fox and Friends. Think about it for a second. Do you think you could watch a tv show and also read Tweets in the same day? If so, why couldn't Trump?
|
On August 16 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:58 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:
I think if there's one thing we can definitely say is true about Trump it's that he is on Twitter refreshing what people are saying about him. We're dropping the glued to cable news narrative? No? A single human being is capable of monitoring Twitter and watching Fox and Friends. Think about it for a second. Do you think you could watch a tv show and also read Tweets in the same day? If so, why couldn't Trump?
I don't think he's doing either 24/7.
On August 16 2017 00:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:54 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:32 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:13 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 23:44 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 23:23 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 23:12 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
If there's a goal that will help everyone, you shouldn't be rooting for failure, right? I can't connect with your planet at all. They issued a statement on Charlottesville which I guess is what you're talking about, you must be extremely emotionally invested or think we're a certain kind of gullible sap to push this.
The media is your enemy in that they are redirecting your outrage on shit that doesn't matter to prop up a one-party culture. This time last year you didn't think it was the job of the president to drop everything any time someone died to pop on national news and reassure people murder is bad, timed and worded to your same exacting standards, or else be of suspect character. Oblade, I’m a big boy and I know which media outlets are bad for me and which are not. And my anger and outrage are my own. The problem is you think I oppose Trump for irrational reasons, but I don’t. He and the GOP have pushed bills that will actively harm me and my family. They will limit our economic options and hurt our ability to get healthcare coverage. We have friends that feel less safe in the US than they have ever felt in their lives. None of these are abstract or ideological. Trump’s policies are bad for me, my wife and the people we care about. I don't really care who you "support" or "oppose," as I was talking about Bannon, although I'm not sure anyone wants you to have bad healthcare. But yes, you're a gainfully employed college graduate who was just insinuating something like POTUS supports Nazi violence, does that go in the rational pile too? There is overwhelming evidence that Trump is reluctant to condemn anyone who supports him, including violent Nazi and racists. We know this because he was asked several time on the day this happened to condemn them and failed to do so. Which resulted in the Nazis saying Trump is their guy. Because he wasn't taking questions at all, he was walking out of the room and desperate people shout their questions hoping to get a scoop from the president because it's their job. Then this gets innuendoed into silence = guilt... are you sure you know what the media is doing to you? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wEc6JUDSv8 On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
You have a basic problem of viewing this in a binary state. It is either full support or full opposition. But that isn’t how this work. Trump may not openly support them, but he isn’t interested in openly condemning them. And being the leader of our country, that amounts to him being comfortable with Nazis and white supremacist existing openly in the US. Your opposition to Trump isn't complete? On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
And Bannon said his publication was the home of the alt right, which is this group of Nazis, racists and white supremacist. He is more than happy to accept their support. Bannon doesn't like the Republican party, likes a new real conservative non-Washington faction, I think xDaunt explained this to you before, everyone wants to be alt-right because it means group credibility, so white supremacists say they're alt-right and then get MSM interviews when otherwise they're nobodies that are rightfully ignored, whereas the "alt-right" base from Breitbart is people who want to burn down RINOs and they fight over the name. Oblade, never be confused in thinking that I need any of the conservatives(with the exception of Lord of Awesome) in this thread to explain people like Bannon to me. I am well read on him and may other actors in the White House. And I am completely opposed to Trump and his repugnant form of politics. He is a stain on that office. A bigoted con man who came to power by pandering to populist rhetoric and promising things he can never deliver. Same with the GOP and repealing the ACA. They are con men with no real plan or idea how to govern. So a minute after saying support isn't binary, your opposition to Trump is total, the other side has no good intent or ideas or actions. I do not know how you can make so many contributions to the thread year after year when everything's so simple and figured out. On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:
And it appears I hold the president to a higher standard than you. That he should condemn Nazis who claim to support him when asked the question. I guess you don’t, which is your choice.
I don't think so lowly of the president that I need to ask to begin with, get the idea... Nor do I think it's the job of the president to be on 24 hour Twitter call to respond to whatever the liberal echo chamber thinks is a pressing matter, or fault him for not responding fast enough when he wouldn't even know about the "controversy," or that just because some random schmuck shouts a question to the leader of the free world while he's walking out of the room he's entitled to time and an answer no matter whether it's if Trump likes white supremacists or BLTs. On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside). So in this case, would Trump be okay to respond like this? + Show Spoiler + Oblade, Trump offers me nothing. Literally nothing. The man opposes all my views on every front. What part of that don’t you get? I’ve said this before, the GOP has never given me a reason to vote for them. Ever. Even in my local elections in my liberal state, the GOP candidates have always come up short of earning my support. Trump never even tried. I was not the voter he was going to make his path to the WH on and he has not interest ever earning my support. The extreme unlikelihood. I really don't care who you vote for but since you keep pressing the issue, the idea there's zero good in the other side makes me suspect something else is going on. On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
The rest of your post is your standard whine about the liberal echo chamber.
The point has nothing to do with liberals, you latched onto a buzzword, Trump isn't on Twitter figuring out what controversies journalists are finding and bouncing back and forth and there's no mechanism for him to discover what fire is starting that he has to put out, and no way for him to respond in time so that when word finally gets to the team and he does what everyone was demanding they just go "Too late, your silence was a dogwhistle" anyway. I don't believe this is standard or a whine, but anyway something's being common doesn't rebut it. On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
It would have some point if it wasn’t so hypocritical. You demand a level of self critique that you barely apply to yourself.
Would you mind unpacking that, because it sounds a lot like you copied what someone just said about Danglars for bait and I don't see where you're coming from. Why is he on Twitter in the first place? Using his position of president? There's an official POTUS twitter handle he should be using. But then again, he can defile both by using his own, so this is fine I guess?
The only other president to use Twitter used more than one handle, don't worry about it.
|
On August 16 2017 01:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2017 00:58 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:
I think if there's one thing we can definitely say is true about Trump it's that he is on Twitter refreshing what people are saying about him. We're dropping the glued to cable news narrative? No? A single human being is capable of monitoring Twitter and watching Fox and Friends. Think about it for a second. Do you think you could watch a tv show and also read Tweets in the same day? If so, why couldn't Trump? I don't think he's doing either 24/7. Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 00:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 16 2017 00:54 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:32 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:13 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 23:44 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 23:23 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Oblade, I’m a big boy and I know which media outlets are bad for me and which are not. And my anger and outrage are my own. The problem is you think I oppose Trump for irrational reasons, but I don’t. He and the GOP have pushed bills that will actively harm me and my family. They will limit our economic options and hurt our ability to get healthcare coverage. We have friends that feel less safe in the US than they have ever felt in their lives. None of these are abstract or ideological. Trump’s policies are bad for me, my wife and the people we care about. I don't really care who you "support" or "oppose," as I was talking about Bannon, although I'm not sure anyone wants you to have bad healthcare. But yes, you're a gainfully employed college graduate who was just insinuating something like POTUS supports Nazi violence, does that go in the rational pile too? There is overwhelming evidence that Trump is reluctant to condemn anyone who supports him, including violent Nazi and racists. We know this because he was asked several time on the day this happened to condemn them and failed to do so. Which resulted in the Nazis saying Trump is their guy. Because he wasn't taking questions at all, he was walking out of the room and desperate people shout their questions hoping to get a scoop from the president because it's their job. Then this gets innuendoed into silence = guilt... are you sure you know what the media is doing to you? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wEc6JUDSv8 On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
You have a basic problem of viewing this in a binary state. It is either full support or full opposition. But that isn’t how this work. Trump may not openly support them, but he isn’t interested in openly condemning them. And being the leader of our country, that amounts to him being comfortable with Nazis and white supremacist existing openly in the US. Your opposition to Trump isn't complete? On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
And Bannon said his publication was the home of the alt right, which is this group of Nazis, racists and white supremacist. He is more than happy to accept their support. Bannon doesn't like the Republican party, likes a new real conservative non-Washington faction, I think xDaunt explained this to you before, everyone wants to be alt-right because it means group credibility, so white supremacists say they're alt-right and then get MSM interviews when otherwise they're nobodies that are rightfully ignored, whereas the "alt-right" base from Breitbart is people who want to burn down RINOs and they fight over the name. Oblade, never be confused in thinking that I need any of the conservatives(with the exception of Lord of Awesome) in this thread to explain people like Bannon to me. I am well read on him and may other actors in the White House. And I am completely opposed to Trump and his repugnant form of politics. He is a stain on that office. A bigoted con man who came to power by pandering to populist rhetoric and promising things he can never deliver. Same with the GOP and repealing the ACA. They are con men with no real plan or idea how to govern. So a minute after saying support isn't binary, your opposition to Trump is total, the other side has no good intent or ideas or actions. I do not know how you can make so many contributions to the thread year after year when everything's so simple and figured out. On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:
And it appears I hold the president to a higher standard than you. That he should condemn Nazis who claim to support him when asked the question. I guess you don’t, which is your choice.
I don't think so lowly of the president that I need to ask to begin with, get the idea... Nor do I think it's the job of the president to be on 24 hour Twitter call to respond to whatever the liberal echo chamber thinks is a pressing matter, or fault him for not responding fast enough when he wouldn't even know about the "controversy," or that just because some random schmuck shouts a question to the leader of the free world while he's walking out of the room he's entitled to time and an answer no matter whether it's if Trump likes white supremacists or BLTs. On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside). So in this case, would Trump be okay to respond like this? + Show Spoiler + Oblade, Trump offers me nothing. Literally nothing. The man opposes all my views on every front. What part of that don’t you get? I’ve said this before, the GOP has never given me a reason to vote for them. Ever. Even in my local elections in my liberal state, the GOP candidates have always come up short of earning my support. Trump never even tried. I was not the voter he was going to make his path to the WH on and he has not interest ever earning my support. The extreme unlikelihood. I really don't care who you vote for but since you keep pressing the issue, the idea there's zero good in the other side makes me suspect something else is going on. On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
The rest of your post is your standard whine about the liberal echo chamber.
The point has nothing to do with liberals, you latched onto a buzzword, Trump isn't on Twitter figuring out what controversies journalists are finding and bouncing back and forth and there's no mechanism for him to discover what fire is starting that he has to put out, and no way for him to respond in time so that when word finally gets to the team and he does what everyone was demanding they just go "Too late, your silence was a dogwhistle" anyway. I don't believe this is standard or a whine, but anyway something's being common doesn't rebut it. On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
It would have some point if it wasn’t so hypocritical. You demand a level of self critique that you barely apply to yourself.
Would you mind unpacking that, because it sounds a lot like you copied what someone just said about Danglars for bait and I don't see where you're coming from. Why is he on Twitter in the first place? Using his position of president? There's an official POTUS twitter handle he should be using. But then again, he can defile both by using his own, so this is fine I guess? The only other president to use Twitter used more than one handle, don't worry about it.
I give up.
|
(CNN)A former Trump campaign volunteer offered to set up a meeting between campaign officials for then-candidate Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin last March, according to a source that reviewed a March 2016 email from the campaign aide -- but that meeting was dismissed by campaign leadership and Trump was advised not to do it.
In a March 2016 email, Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos offered to set up a meeting between top Russian officials and top Trump campaign officials, under the subject line "Meeting with Russian Leadership -- Including Putin," according to the source.
The email from Papadopoulos was first reported by The Washington Post Monday evening. The Post also reported that Papadopoulos made at least six requests for meetings between top campaign officials and Russian officials over the course of the campaign, but that they were roundly rejected by several members of the campaign.
Papadopoulos did not immediately respond to CNN's requests for comment.
Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has come under increasing scrutiny in recent weeks, as federal agents searched his Virginia home and removed evidence. Manafort was a part of Donald Trump Jr.'s June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer and a Russian-American lobbyist, and has given contemporaneous notes he took of that meeting to investigators.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/george-papadopoulos-russia-trump/index.html
|
On August 15 2017 23:52 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 22:49 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 22:43 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 22:20 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 22:06 oBlade wrote:Does this hurt the president or fans of manufacturing? On August 15 2017 15:07 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Sure he gives terrible advice to the President that delayed/weakened DJT's response to Nazi terrorism, but Bannon sure does stick it to the Libs!
Of course that doesn't really matter, with DJTs poll numbers going where they are going Bannon is doomed. Controversial chief political strategists get axed below 35%. For example, who? DJT created the position of White House Chief Strategist for Bannon, we aren't in a campaign, and no president has gone below 35% so your post isn't adding up. On August 15 2017 15:07 Wulfey_LA wrote:
I mean seriously, what can Bannon point to (besides the 2016 electoral map) to show that his grand political strategy is working? It's not Bannon's strategy, it's the president's, which you can verify if you go back and study 30 years of Trump, they just found each other and agree. Since he's president now, the goal isn't to win a popularity contest of political hackery , it's to actually do good things, get enough achievements in three to three and a half years to take to the American people in the next election and say this is what we've done and it's good, and this is what's to come. Also, if you know DJT he doesn't care about being unpopular if he's right, thrives on haters. It's true anyway that being right isn't the same as being popular and he ribbed politicians for that over the years. Like not condemn violence by Nazis? No, tax reform, immigration, healthcare, jobs, trade, infrastructure, crime, national security, preening government, and so forth. But he won’t get to do those things because he refused to condemn Nazis and keeps trying to obstruct the Russian investigation. Tax reform is harder than healthcare and they can’t pass it with just 50 votes in the Senate. The man isn’t focused on being president because you need the approval of the American to pass laws. Otherwise the house members up for re-election in a year won’t jump on the train. If there's a goal that will help everyone, you shouldn't be rooting for failure, right? I can't connect with your planet at all. They issued a statement on Charlottesville which I guess is what you're talking about, you must be extremely emotionally invested or think we're a certain kind of gullible sap to push this. The media is your enemy in that they are redirecting your outrage on shit that doesn't matter to prop up a one-party culture. This time last year you didn't think it was the job of the president to drop everything any time someone died to pop on national news and reassure people murder is bad, timed and worded to your same exacting standards, or else be of suspect character. What I think you fail to realize is that no one is rooting for the failure of the system or the government to address the issues at hand, people are rooting for the person at the head of it all to realize that he is not fit for the job, and that he needs to step aside to let someone else try. You and many others may say that he hasn't been given enough time or that he hasn't done that bad of a job yet, and that is your opinion which you are entitled to, but there are also people who feel that they have seen enough. The problem with the response to the attack is that the same people that jeered at the previous president for not calling Islamic terrorism by name on one or two occasions, are scoffing at calls for this president to call this domestic terrorism. I didn't expect him to make a statement on it willingly, but when he was asked the question multiple times I expect him, as the president, to answer it. He had two chances to do that immediately following his statements, and he failed to do so. Watch the press conference if you haven't already. And if you need a comparison, look at his response to the terrorist attack on Bastille day in Nice, France last year. look at the difference in tone and anger. look at how much more he appears to care for one more than the other. and you might say, "but trainrunnef look at the difference in body count!" and to that i will respond with the Louvre attack where he immediately tweeted, and called out the infamous "radical muslim terrorists" for an attack that had 0 deaths... You can say that you dont expect him to condemn every single murder, and that may in fact be a reasonable thing, but when he is choosing which attacks to condemn harshly and which attacks to make tepid statements, his intentions become very clear. This is what so many people are up in arms about. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/donald-trump-responds-bastille-day-911398http://video.foxnews.com/v/5036375820001/?#sp=show-clipsThis one has a transcript http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/287847-trump-bastille-day-terrorist-attack-horrifichttp://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/trump-tweet-quebec-louvre/index.html
Oblade... id like a response in case you missed it.
|
United States42017 Posts
On August 16 2017 01:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2017 00:58 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:
I think if there's one thing we can definitely say is true about Trump it's that he is on Twitter refreshing what people are saying about him. We're dropping the glued to cable news narrative? No? A single human being is capable of monitoring Twitter and watching Fox and Friends. Think about it for a second. Do you think you could watch a tv show and also read Tweets in the same day? If so, why couldn't Trump? I don't think he's doing either 24/7.
You're right. He probably has to sleep.
I guess I didn't think of that. You win. Obviously. Because my claim was that Trump was on Twitter but now I think about it, only people who never sleep are on Twitter.
You got me.
|
On August 16 2017 01:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 01:06 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2017 00:58 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:
I think if there's one thing we can definitely say is true about Trump it's that he is on Twitter refreshing what people are saying about him. We're dropping the glued to cable news narrative? No? A single human being is capable of monitoring Twitter and watching Fox and Friends. Think about it for a second. Do you think you could watch a tv show and also read Tweets in the same day? If so, why couldn't Trump? I don't think he's doing either 24/7. On August 16 2017 00:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 16 2017 00:54 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:32 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:13 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2017 23:44 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
I don't really care who you "support" or "oppose," as I was talking about Bannon, although I'm not sure anyone wants you to have bad healthcare. But yes, you're a gainfully employed college graduate who was just insinuating something like POTUS supports Nazi violence, does that go in the rational pile too? There is overwhelming evidence that Trump is reluctant to condemn anyone who supports him, including violent Nazi and racists. We know this because he was asked several time on the day this happened to condemn them and failed to do so. Which resulted in the Nazis saying Trump is their guy. Because he wasn't taking questions at all, he was walking out of the room and desperate people shout their questions hoping to get a scoop from the president because it's their job. Then this gets innuendoed into silence = guilt... are you sure you know what the media is doing to you? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wEc6JUDSv8 On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
You have a basic problem of viewing this in a binary state. It is either full support or full opposition. But that isn’t how this work. Trump may not openly support them, but he isn’t interested in openly condemning them. And being the leader of our country, that amounts to him being comfortable with Nazis and white supremacist existing openly in the US. Your opposition to Trump isn't complete? On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
And Bannon said his publication was the home of the alt right, which is this group of Nazis, racists and white supremacist. He is more than happy to accept their support. Bannon doesn't like the Republican party, likes a new real conservative non-Washington faction, I think xDaunt explained this to you before, everyone wants to be alt-right because it means group credibility, so white supremacists say they're alt-right and then get MSM interviews when otherwise they're nobodies that are rightfully ignored, whereas the "alt-right" base from Breitbart is people who want to burn down RINOs and they fight over the name. Oblade, never be confused in thinking that I need any of the conservatives(with the exception of Lord of Awesome) in this thread to explain people like Bannon to me. I am well read on him and may other actors in the White House. And I am completely opposed to Trump and his repugnant form of politics. He is a stain on that office. A bigoted con man who came to power by pandering to populist rhetoric and promising things he can never deliver. Same with the GOP and repealing the ACA. They are con men with no real plan or idea how to govern. So a minute after saying support isn't binary, your opposition to Trump is total, the other side has no good intent or ideas or actions. I do not know how you can make so many contributions to the thread year after year when everything's so simple and figured out. On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:
And it appears I hold the president to a higher standard than you. That he should condemn Nazis who claim to support him when asked the question. I guess you don’t, which is your choice.
I don't think so lowly of the president that I need to ask to begin with, get the idea... Nor do I think it's the job of the president to be on 24 hour Twitter call to respond to whatever the liberal echo chamber thinks is a pressing matter, or fault him for not responding fast enough when he wouldn't even know about the "controversy," or that just because some random schmuck shouts a question to the leader of the free world while he's walking out of the room he's entitled to time and an answer no matter whether it's if Trump likes white supremacists or BLTs. On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside). So in this case, would Trump be okay to respond like this? + Show Spoiler + Oblade, Trump offers me nothing. Literally nothing. The man opposes all my views on every front. What part of that don’t you get? I’ve said this before, the GOP has never given me a reason to vote for them. Ever. Even in my local elections in my liberal state, the GOP candidates have always come up short of earning my support. Trump never even tried. I was not the voter he was going to make his path to the WH on and he has not interest ever earning my support. The extreme unlikelihood. I really don't care who you vote for but since you keep pressing the issue, the idea there's zero good in the other side makes me suspect something else is going on. On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
The rest of your post is your standard whine about the liberal echo chamber.
The point has nothing to do with liberals, you latched onto a buzzword, Trump isn't on Twitter figuring out what controversies journalists are finding and bouncing back and forth and there's no mechanism for him to discover what fire is starting that he has to put out, and no way for him to respond in time so that when word finally gets to the team and he does what everyone was demanding they just go "Too late, your silence was a dogwhistle" anyway. I don't believe this is standard or a whine, but anyway something's being common doesn't rebut it. On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
It would have some point if it wasn’t so hypocritical. You demand a level of self critique that you barely apply to yourself.
Would you mind unpacking that, because it sounds a lot like you copied what someone just said about Danglars for bait and I don't see where you're coming from. Why is he on Twitter in the first place? Using his position of president? There's an official POTUS twitter handle he should be using. But then again, he can defile both by using his own, so this is fine I guess? The only other president to use Twitter used more than one handle, don't worry about it. I give up.
Bad faith discussions are exhausting. I theorized that a long time ago that if a man in a white hood burnt a cross on Obama's lawn, Obade would ask if the man was being ironic. My opinion is unchanged.
|
On August 16 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 01:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 16 2017 01:06 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2017 00:58 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:
I think if there's one thing we can definitely say is true about Trump it's that he is on Twitter refreshing what people are saying about him. We're dropping the glued to cable news narrative? No? A single human being is capable of monitoring Twitter and watching Fox and Friends. Think about it for a second. Do you think you could watch a tv show and also read Tweets in the same day? If so, why couldn't Trump? I don't think he's doing either 24/7. On August 16 2017 00:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 16 2017 00:54 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:32 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:13 oBlade wrote:On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
There is overwhelming evidence that Trump is reluctant to condemn anyone who supports him, including violent Nazi and racists. We know this because he was asked several time on the day this happened to condemn them and failed to do so. Which resulted in the Nazis saying Trump is their guy. Because he wasn't taking questions at all, he was walking out of the room and desperate people shout their questions hoping to get a scoop from the president because it's their job. Then this gets innuendoed into silence = guilt... are you sure you know what the media is doing to you? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wEc6JUDSv8 On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
You have a basic problem of viewing this in a binary state. It is either full support or full opposition. But that isn’t how this work. Trump may not openly support them, but he isn’t interested in openly condemning them. And being the leader of our country, that amounts to him being comfortable with Nazis and white supremacist existing openly in the US. Your opposition to Trump isn't complete? On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote:
And Bannon said his publication was the home of the alt right, which is this group of Nazis, racists and white supremacist. He is more than happy to accept their support. Bannon doesn't like the Republican party, likes a new real conservative non-Washington faction, I think xDaunt explained this to you before, everyone wants to be alt-right because it means group credibility, so white supremacists say they're alt-right and then get MSM interviews when otherwise they're nobodies that are rightfully ignored, whereas the "alt-right" base from Breitbart is people who want to burn down RINOs and they fight over the name. Oblade, never be confused in thinking that I need any of the conservatives(with the exception of Lord of Awesome) in this thread to explain people like Bannon to me. I am well read on him and may other actors in the White House. And I am completely opposed to Trump and his repugnant form of politics. He is a stain on that office. A bigoted con man who came to power by pandering to populist rhetoric and promising things he can never deliver. Same with the GOP and repealing the ACA. They are con men with no real plan or idea how to govern. So a minute after saying support isn't binary, your opposition to Trump is total, the other side has no good intent or ideas or actions. I do not know how you can make so many contributions to the thread year after year when everything's so simple and figured out. On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:
And it appears I hold the president to a higher standard than you. That he should condemn Nazis who claim to support him when asked the question. I guess you don’t, which is your choice.
I don't think so lowly of the president that I need to ask to begin with, get the idea... Nor do I think it's the job of the president to be on 24 hour Twitter call to respond to whatever the liberal echo chamber thinks is a pressing matter, or fault him for not responding fast enough when he wouldn't even know about the "controversy," or that just because some random schmuck shouts a question to the leader of the free world while he's walking out of the room he's entitled to time and an answer no matter whether it's if Trump likes white supremacists or BLTs. On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside). So in this case, would Trump be okay to respond like this? + Show Spoiler + Oblade, Trump offers me nothing. Literally nothing. The man opposes all my views on every front. What part of that don’t you get? I’ve said this before, the GOP has never given me a reason to vote for them. Ever. Even in my local elections in my liberal state, the GOP candidates have always come up short of earning my support. Trump never even tried. I was not the voter he was going to make his path to the WH on and he has not interest ever earning my support. The extreme unlikelihood. I really don't care who you vote for but since you keep pressing the issue, the idea there's zero good in the other side makes me suspect something else is going on. On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
The rest of your post is your standard whine about the liberal echo chamber.
The point has nothing to do with liberals, you latched onto a buzzword, Trump isn't on Twitter figuring out what controversies journalists are finding and bouncing back and forth and there's no mechanism for him to discover what fire is starting that he has to put out, and no way for him to respond in time so that when word finally gets to the team and he does what everyone was demanding they just go "Too late, your silence was a dogwhistle" anyway. I don't believe this is standard or a whine, but anyway something's being common doesn't rebut it. On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
It would have some point if it wasn’t so hypocritical. You demand a level of self critique that you barely apply to yourself.
Would you mind unpacking that, because it sounds a lot like you copied what someone just said about Danglars for bait and I don't see where you're coming from. Why is he on Twitter in the first place? Using his position of president? There's an official POTUS twitter handle he should be using. But then again, he can defile both by using his own, so this is fine I guess? The only other president to use Twitter used more than one handle, don't worry about it. I give up. Bad faith discussions are exhausting. I theorized that a long time ago that if a man in a white hood burnt a cross on Obama's lawn, Obade would ask if the man was being ironic. My opinion is unchanged.
It's like getting trapped into having a conversation with Danglars. You're not going to get anywhere. Banging your head against a stone wall.
|
On August 16 2017 01:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 01:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 16 2017 01:06 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2017 00:58 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:
I think if there's one thing we can definitely say is true about Trump it's that he is on Twitter refreshing what people are saying about him. We're dropping the glued to cable news narrative? No? A single human being is capable of monitoring Twitter and watching Fox and Friends. Think about it for a second. Do you think you could watch a tv show and also read Tweets in the same day? If so, why couldn't Trump? I don't think he's doing either 24/7. On August 16 2017 00:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 16 2017 00:54 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:32 oBlade wrote:On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2017 00:13 oBlade wrote:[quote] Because he wasn't taking questions at all, he was walking out of the room and desperate people shout their questions hoping to get a scoop from the president because it's their job. Then this gets innuendoed into silence = guilt... are you sure you know what the media is doing to you? + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wEc6JUDSv8 [quote] Your opposition to Trump isn't complete? [quote] Bannon doesn't like the Republican party, likes a new real conservative non-Washington faction, I think xDaunt explained this to you before, everyone wants to be alt-right because it means group credibility, so white supremacists say they're alt-right and then get MSM interviews when otherwise they're nobodies that are rightfully ignored, whereas the "alt-right" base from Breitbart is people who want to burn down RINOs and they fight over the name. Oblade, never be confused in thinking that I need any of the conservatives(with the exception of Lord of Awesome) in this thread to explain people like Bannon to me. I am well read on him and may other actors in the White House. And I am completely opposed to Trump and his repugnant form of politics. He is a stain on that office. A bigoted con man who came to power by pandering to populist rhetoric and promising things he can never deliver. Same with the GOP and repealing the ACA. They are con men with no real plan or idea how to govern. So a minute after saying support isn't binary, your opposition to Trump is total, the other side has no good intent or ideas or actions. I do not know how you can make so many contributions to the thread year after year when everything's so simple and figured out. On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote:
And it appears I hold the president to a higher standard than you. That he should condemn Nazis who claim to support him when asked the question. I guess you don’t, which is your choice.
I don't think so lowly of the president that I need to ask to begin with, get the idea... Nor do I think it's the job of the president to be on 24 hour Twitter call to respond to whatever the liberal echo chamber thinks is a pressing matter, or fault him for not responding fast enough when he wouldn't even know about the "controversy," or that just because some random schmuck shouts a question to the leader of the free world while he's walking out of the room he's entitled to time and an answer no matter whether it's if Trump likes white supremacists or BLTs. On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote:
There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside). So in this case, would Trump be okay to respond like this? + Show Spoiler + Oblade, Trump offers me nothing. Literally nothing. The man opposes all my views on every front. What part of that don’t you get? I’ve said this before, the GOP has never given me a reason to vote for them. Ever. Even in my local elections in my liberal state, the GOP candidates have always come up short of earning my support. Trump never even tried. I was not the voter he was going to make his path to the WH on and he has not interest ever earning my support. The extreme unlikelihood. I really don't care who you vote for but since you keep pressing the issue, the idea there's zero good in the other side makes me suspect something else is going on. On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
The rest of your post is your standard whine about the liberal echo chamber.
The point has nothing to do with liberals, you latched onto a buzzword, Trump isn't on Twitter figuring out what controversies journalists are finding and bouncing back and forth and there's no mechanism for him to discover what fire is starting that he has to put out, and no way for him to respond in time so that when word finally gets to the team and he does what everyone was demanding they just go "Too late, your silence was a dogwhistle" anyway. I don't believe this is standard or a whine, but anyway something's being common doesn't rebut it. On August 16 2017 00:40 Plansix wrote:
It would have some point if it wasn’t so hypocritical. You demand a level of self critique that you barely apply to yourself.
Would you mind unpacking that, because it sounds a lot like you copied what someone just said about Danglars for bait and I don't see where you're coming from. Why is he on Twitter in the first place? Using his position of president? There's an official POTUS twitter handle he should be using. But then again, he can defile both by using his own, so this is fine I guess? The only other president to use Twitter used more than one handle, don't worry about it. I give up. Bad faith discussions are exhausting. I theorized that a long time ago that if a man in a white hood burnt a cross on Obama's lawn, Obade would ask if the man was being ironic. My opinion is unchanged. It's like getting trapped into having a conversation with Danglars. You're not going to get anywhere. Banging your head against a stone wall.
I can shit post with the best of them, so I shouldn't throw to many stones. Plus there is an entire thread to be caddy and talk shit about other politics thread posters.
|
|
|
Understandable, but they're just gonna read it anyway, so might as well be straightforward. The mods can only rebuke me. It'll be like how trump rebuked the white supremacists. Except the mods here act quicker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/O8LdPNL.png)
