|
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. |
Ok, Session is now claiming that some lawsuits brought by the Texas AG are “work product” and he can’t discuss it. This was followed by three attorneys yelling “That isn’t work product!” Sessions is going to cost us some billing hours today.
|
On October 19 2017 03:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 19 2017 02:09 PoulsenB wrote:On October 19 2017 02:01 LegalLord wrote:
Plenty of shitty, counterproductive protests back then too. If anyone wants a graphic representation of this post, just search Google Images for "low quality bait" The fact that you see it as a bait is more indicative of your own political bend than of any actual baiting. Any desire to idolize the Civil Rights Movement and say that anything they did was good because it worked overall doesn't address the reality that much of what happened back then was a failure as well. The way people feel about police shootings and BLM-esque strategies are not necessarily the same. It's perfectly possible to agree with one's end goals - and be willing to do something about it (most significantly perhaps, to vote sympathetically) - but to be rightfully disgusted with the shittiness of the movement and the desire to create a "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality in every situation possible. Lets get real for a second LL; you say you are a Russian national living in the US. Where did you receive your primary education? Russia or the US? Because you have a lot of strong opinions about the really specific parts of the history of a country you claim to have not grown up in.
The fact that you feel the need to consistently try to frame things as "you don't know the things I know because I'm an American and you're not" says all that needs to be said. I see no reason to consider your question as anything but the same thing you've been at for a while: trying to frame anything and everything you possibly could as "but Russia!" in order to simplify you own perception of things. And that in mind, I see no merit in answering your question. It's clearly part of a character attack rather than any meaningful discussion.
|
Good that this mystery has finally been cleared up
|
You know, though it was a completely and utterly deplorable move, Trump's brief "Ted's dad killed Kennedy" conspiratard train was pretty funny.
|
On October 19 2017 03:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 03:02 Plansix wrote:On October 19 2017 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 19 2017 02:09 PoulsenB wrote:On October 19 2017 02:01 LegalLord wrote:
Plenty of shitty, counterproductive protests back then too. If anyone wants a graphic representation of this post, just search Google Images for "low quality bait" The fact that you see it as a bait is more indicative of your own political bend than of any actual baiting. Any desire to idolize the Civil Rights Movement and say that anything they did was good because it worked overall doesn't address the reality that much of what happened back then was a failure as well. The way people feel about police shootings and BLM-esque strategies are not necessarily the same. It's perfectly possible to agree with one's end goals - and be willing to do something about it (most significantly perhaps, to vote sympathetically) - but to be rightfully disgusted with the shittiness of the movement and the desire to create a "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality in every situation possible. Lets get real for a second LL; you say you are a Russian national living in the US. Where did you receive your primary education? Russia or the US? Because you have a lot of strong opinions about the really specific parts of the history of a country you claim to have not grown up in. The fact that you feel the need to consistently try to frame things as "you don't know the things I know because I'm an American and you're not" says all that needs to be said. I see no reason to consider your question as anything but the same thing you've been at for a while: trying to frame anything and everything you possibly could as "but Russia!" in order to simplify you own perception of things. And that in mind, I see no merit in answering your question. It's clearly part of a character attack rather than any meaningful discussion.
It isn’t a character attack. It is more that you have stronger opinions about specific points in US history than I do about any other country on the planet. And I was going to be a history teacher. I simply cannot imagine having such a strong opinion about the history of protest in a country I wasn’t raised in and had literally zero connection to. It’s like me having really strong opinions about classism in the UK or the Troubles in Ireland.
|
On October 19 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 03:15 LegalLord wrote:On October 19 2017 03:02 Plansix wrote:On October 19 2017 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 19 2017 02:09 PoulsenB wrote:On October 19 2017 02:01 LegalLord wrote:
Plenty of shitty, counterproductive protests back then too. If anyone wants a graphic representation of this post, just search Google Images for "low quality bait" The fact that you see it as a bait is more indicative of your own political bend than of any actual baiting. Any desire to idolize the Civil Rights Movement and say that anything they did was good because it worked overall doesn't address the reality that much of what happened back then was a failure as well. The way people feel about police shootings and BLM-esque strategies are not necessarily the same. It's perfectly possible to agree with one's end goals - and be willing to do something about it (most significantly perhaps, to vote sympathetically) - but to be rightfully disgusted with the shittiness of the movement and the desire to create a "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality in every situation possible. Lets get real for a second LL; you say you are a Russian national living in the US. Where did you receive your primary education? Russia or the US? Because you have a lot of strong opinions about the really specific parts of the history of a country you claim to have not grown up in. The fact that you feel the need to consistently try to frame things as "you don't know the things I know because I'm an American and you're not" says all that needs to be said. I see no reason to consider your question as anything but the same thing you've been at for a while: trying to frame anything and everything you possibly could as "but Russia!" in order to simplify you own perception of things. And that in mind, I see no merit in answering your question. It's clearly part of a character attack rather than any meaningful discussion. It isn’t a character attack. It is more that you have stronger opinions about specific points in US history than I do about any other country on the planet. And I was going to be a history teacher. I simply cannot imagine having such a strong opinion about the history of protest in a country I wasn’t raised in and had literally zero connection to. It’s like me having really strong opinions about classism in the UK or the Troubles in Ireland.
Well it's your choice what you choose to care about. Not sure what else there is to say, how much you do or don't care about things that happen in any given country is your problem.
|
On October 19 2017 03:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On October 19 2017 03:15 LegalLord wrote:On October 19 2017 03:02 Plansix wrote:On October 19 2017 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 19 2017 02:09 PoulsenB wrote:On October 19 2017 02:01 LegalLord wrote:
Plenty of shitty, counterproductive protests back then too. If anyone wants a graphic representation of this post, just search Google Images for "low quality bait" The fact that you see it as a bait is more indicative of your own political bend than of any actual baiting. Any desire to idolize the Civil Rights Movement and say that anything they did was good because it worked overall doesn't address the reality that much of what happened back then was a failure as well. The way people feel about police shootings and BLM-esque strategies are not necessarily the same. It's perfectly possible to agree with one's end goals - and be willing to do something about it (most significantly perhaps, to vote sympathetically) - but to be rightfully disgusted with the shittiness of the movement and the desire to create a "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality in every situation possible. Lets get real for a second LL; you say you are a Russian national living in the US. Where did you receive your primary education? Russia or the US? Because you have a lot of strong opinions about the really specific parts of the history of a country you claim to have not grown up in. The fact that you feel the need to consistently try to frame things as "you don't know the things I know because I'm an American and you're not" says all that needs to be said. I see no reason to consider your question as anything but the same thing you've been at for a while: trying to frame anything and everything you possibly could as "but Russia!" in order to simplify you own perception of things. And that in mind, I see no merit in answering your question. It's clearly part of a character attack rather than any meaningful discussion. It isn’t a character attack. It is more that you have stronger opinions about specific points in US history than I do about any other country on the planet. And I was going to be a history teacher. I simply cannot imagine having such a strong opinion about the history of protest in a country I wasn’t raised in and had literally zero connection to. It’s like me having really strong opinions about classism in the UK or the Troubles in Ireland. Well it's your choice what you choose to care about. Not sure what else there is to say, how much you do or don't care about things that happen in any given country is your problem.
I’m talking about history. An era I couldn’t live through and can only gain an understand of through education and study. All I want to know is where you obtained your viewpoint on the civil rights movement in the US since you are not from the US. This is the very foundation of discussion and viewpoints, since we did not all obtain our points of view from the same pool of knowledge.
|
United States43854 Posts
On October 19 2017 03:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 01:12 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2017 00:59 Introvert wrote:
still so vague. these calls should be perrsonal but I guess we need a transcript? I don't doubt he used those words, but that's not the important part. thid congresswoman seems off her rocker so idk. This entire thing could be avoided had Trump not seen the need to brag about how much he cared about the troops and how much better he was than the past Presidents. It's an absurd situation. In the UK we had a minor controversy when Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote a letter of condolence to the mother of a soldier killed in action and called her "Mrs James", not "Mrs Janes". The difference is Gordon Brown apologized, called her to express his regret, and is half blind. People capable of expressing humility don't run into these issues. We don't need to dismember the entire transcript and try and prove once and for all who was in the right. Who is in the right isn't the issue, nobody thinks that Trump was deliberately trying to upset the widow, no more than anyone thinks that Brown got the name wrong as an intentional slight. He just needs to apologize and move the hell on. I don't think Trump brought up this particular story. And we're still dancing around what else he said or what the mother said before that maybe he responded to badly. He could have said it in the most callous way possible, but I don't know for sure. So far we have this one sentence, right? Maybe two? And we've seen plenty of gold star families say things that one side or another regards as untrue, but we give them a pass. The fact that the Congresswoman even said anything is what's giving me the most suspicion here. I don't discount the possibility but I simply need more than this.
She's a grieving widow, the core reason she's upset is nothing that Trump did or said, it's that her husband is dead. That's what is at the bottom of this. The question is whether Trump has the tact and emotional intelligence to understand that the way you win this fight is by backing down. He doesn't need to "beat" the widow with transcripts etc, he needs to show compassion.
|
On October 19 2017 03:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 03:04 Introvert wrote:On October 19 2017 01:12 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2017 00:59 Introvert wrote:
still so vague. these calls should be perrsonal but I guess we need a transcript? I don't doubt he used those words, but that's not the important part. thid congresswoman seems off her rocker so idk. This entire thing could be avoided had Trump not seen the need to brag about how much he cared about the troops and how much better he was than the past Presidents. It's an absurd situation. In the UK we had a minor controversy when Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote a letter of condolence to the mother of a soldier killed in action and called her "Mrs James", not "Mrs Janes". The difference is Gordon Brown apologized, called her to express his regret, and is half blind. People capable of expressing humility don't run into these issues. We don't need to dismember the entire transcript and try and prove once and for all who was in the right. Who is in the right isn't the issue, nobody thinks that Trump was deliberately trying to upset the widow, no more than anyone thinks that Brown got the name wrong as an intentional slight. He just needs to apologize and move the hell on. I don't think Trump brought up this particular story. And we're still dancing around what else he said or what the mother said before that maybe he responded to badly. He could have said it in the most callous way possible, but I don't know for sure. So far we have this one sentence, right? Maybe two? And we've seen plenty of gold star families say things that one side or another regards as untrue, but we give them a pass. The fact that the Congresswoman even said anything is what's giving me the most suspicion here. I don't discount the possibility but I simply need more than this. She's a grieving widow, the core reason she's upset is nothing that Trump did or said, it's that her husband is dead. That's what is at the bottom of this. The question is whether Trump has the tact and emotional intelligence to understand that the way you win this fight is by backing down. He doesn't need to "beat" the widow with transcripts etc, he needs to show compassion.
That's hard when he has the a level of empathy comparable to that of a particularly smooth rock.
Couple that with an ego that won't let any perceived slight go, and he is an absolute Trainwreck for a situation like this.
|
On October 19 2017 03:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 03:04 Introvert wrote:On October 19 2017 01:12 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2017 00:59 Introvert wrote:
still so vague. these calls should be perrsonal but I guess we need a transcript? I don't doubt he used those words, but that's not the important part. thid congresswoman seems off her rocker so idk. This entire thing could be avoided had Trump not seen the need to brag about how much he cared about the troops and how much better he was than the past Presidents. It's an absurd situation. In the UK we had a minor controversy when Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote a letter of condolence to the mother of a soldier killed in action and called her "Mrs James", not "Mrs Janes". The difference is Gordon Brown apologized, called her to express his regret, and is half blind. People capable of expressing humility don't run into these issues. We don't need to dismember the entire transcript and try and prove once and for all who was in the right. Who is in the right isn't the issue, nobody thinks that Trump was deliberately trying to upset the widow, no more than anyone thinks that Brown got the name wrong as an intentional slight. He just needs to apologize and move the hell on. I don't think Trump brought up this particular story. And we're still dancing around what else he said or what the mother said before that maybe he responded to badly. He could have said it in the most callous way possible, but I don't know for sure. So far we have this one sentence, right? Maybe two? And we've seen plenty of gold star families say things that one side or another regards as untrue, but we give them a pass. The fact that the Congresswoman even said anything is what's giving me the most suspicion here. I don't discount the possibility but I simply need more than this. She's a grieving widow, the core reason she's upset is nothing that Trump did or said, it's that her husband is dead. That's what is at the bottom of this. The question is whether Trump has the tact and emotional intelligence to understand that the way you win this fight is by backing down. He doesn't need to "beat" the widow with transcripts etc, he needs to show compassion.
So far he's only responded to Wilson, yes? Maybe most people wouldn't respond this way but so far he hasn't said anything about the mother. I don't know, if crazy lady in Congress accused me of such a thing I might say something
edit: I don't count referencing the mother except in passing as really responding to her. He's not going after her.
|
Why do you keep saying the congresswoman is crazy?
|
On October 19 2017 04:42 Plansix wrote:
Why do you keep saying the congresswoman is crazy?
I'm reading her quotes. Plus she's on the impeach train right? Close enough. Vehemently anti Trump Democrat congressperson. Not using the word "crazy" won't grant her any credibility.
|
On October 19 2017 04:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 03:36 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2017 03:04 Introvert wrote:On October 19 2017 01:12 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2017 00:59 Introvert wrote:
still so vague. these calls should be perrsonal but I guess we need a transcript? I don't doubt he used those words, but that's not the important part. thid congresswoman seems off her rocker so idk. This entire thing could be avoided had Trump not seen the need to brag about how much he cared about the troops and how much better he was than the past Presidents. It's an absurd situation. In the UK we had a minor controversy when Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote a letter of condolence to the mother of a soldier killed in action and called her "Mrs James", not "Mrs Janes". The difference is Gordon Brown apologized, called her to express his regret, and is half blind. People capable of expressing humility don't run into these issues. We don't need to dismember the entire transcript and try and prove once and for all who was in the right. Who is in the right isn't the issue, nobody thinks that Trump was deliberately trying to upset the widow, no more than anyone thinks that Brown got the name wrong as an intentional slight. He just needs to apologize and move the hell on. I don't think Trump brought up this particular story. And we're still dancing around what else he said or what the mother said before that maybe he responded to badly. He could have said it in the most callous way possible, but I don't know for sure. So far we have this one sentence, right? Maybe two? And we've seen plenty of gold star families say things that one side or another regards as untrue, but we give them a pass. The fact that the Congresswoman even said anything is what's giving me the most suspicion here. I don't discount the possibility but I simply need more than this. She's a grieving widow, the core reason she's upset is nothing that Trump did or said, it's that her husband is dead. That's what is at the bottom of this. The question is whether Trump has the tact and emotional intelligence to understand that the way you win this fight is by backing down. He doesn't need to "beat" the widow with transcripts etc, he needs to show compassion. So far he's only responded to Wilson, yes? Maybe most people wouldn't respond this way but so far he hasn't said anything about the mother. I don't know, if crazy lady in Congress accused me of such a thing I might say somethingedit: I don't count referencing the mother except in passing as really responding to her. He's not going after her.
The mother said she was offended by Trump and that he said what the Congresswoman claimed so I'm not sure what else you need. Trump's side of these arguments usually doesn't turn out well either.
|
On October 19 2017 04:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 04:42 Plansix wrote:
Why do you keep saying the congresswoman is crazy? I'm reading her quotes. Plus she's on the impeach train right? Close enough. Vehemently anti Trump Democrat congressperson. Not using the word "crazy" won't grant her any credibility.
Ok, that clears that up. You might want to consider a new word for people who disagree with you. But maybe you don't care about credibility.
|
On October 19 2017 04:47 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 04:34 Introvert wrote:On October 19 2017 03:36 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2017 03:04 Introvert wrote:On October 19 2017 01:12 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2017 00:59 Introvert wrote:
still so vague. these calls should be perrsonal but I guess we need a transcript? I don't doubt he used those words, but that's not the important part. thid congresswoman seems off her rocker so idk. This entire thing could be avoided had Trump not seen the need to brag about how much he cared about the troops and how much better he was than the past Presidents. It's an absurd situation. In the UK we had a minor controversy when Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote a letter of condolence to the mother of a soldier killed in action and called her "Mrs James", not "Mrs Janes". The difference is Gordon Brown apologized, called her to express his regret, and is half blind. People capable of expressing humility don't run into these issues. We don't need to dismember the entire transcript and try and prove once and for all who was in the right. Who is in the right isn't the issue, nobody thinks that Trump was deliberately trying to upset the widow, no more than anyone thinks that Brown got the name wrong as an intentional slight. He just needs to apologize and move the hell on. I don't think Trump brought up this particular story. And we're still dancing around what else he said or what the mother said before that maybe he responded to badly. He could have said it in the most callous way possible, but I don't know for sure. So far we have this one sentence, right? Maybe two? And we've seen plenty of gold star families say things that one side or another regards as untrue, but we give them a pass. The fact that the Congresswoman even said anything is what's giving me the most suspicion here. I don't discount the possibility but I simply need more than this. She's a grieving widow, the core reason she's upset is nothing that Trump did or said, it's that her husband is dead. That's what is at the bottom of this. The question is whether Trump has the tact and emotional intelligence to understand that the way you win this fight is by backing down. He doesn't need to "beat" the widow with transcripts etc, he needs to show compassion. So far he's only responded to Wilson, yes? Maybe most people wouldn't respond this way but so far he hasn't said anything about the mother. I don't know, if crazy lady in Congress accused me of such a thing I might say somethingedit: I don't count referencing the mother except in passing as really responding to her. He's not going after her. The mother said she was offended by Trump and that he said what the Congresswoman claimed so I'm not sure what else you need. Trump's side of these arguments usually doesn't turn out well either.
I'm not going to accept what any of them say. And we still only have like one line of what Trump said. Everyone believed this before the mother or the widow said anything. And we don't have a 100% success rate with families here either. I mean if we are all supposed to move on from these tragedies then it is odd someone said something to the press. I dont have much more to say on this until we actually know something for real.
On October 19 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 04:47 Introvert wrote:On October 19 2017 04:42 Plansix wrote:
Why do you keep saying the congresswoman is crazy? I'm reading her quotes. Plus she's on the impeach train right? Close enough. Vehemently anti Trump Democrat congressperson. Not using the word "crazy" won't grant her any credibility. Ok, that clears that up. You might want to consider a new word for people who disagree with you. But maybe you don't care about credibility.
nah, reading her statements I think my use of the word in some posts is definitely defensible.
|
On October 19 2017 04:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 04:47 Doodsmack wrote:On October 19 2017 04:34 Introvert wrote:On October 19 2017 03:36 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2017 03:04 Introvert wrote:On October 19 2017 01:12 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2017 00:59 Introvert wrote:
still so vague. these calls should be perrsonal but I guess we need a transcript? I don't doubt he used those words, but that's not the important part. thid congresswoman seems off her rocker so idk. This entire thing could be avoided had Trump not seen the need to brag about how much he cared about the troops and how much better he was than the past Presidents. It's an absurd situation. In the UK we had a minor controversy when Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote a letter of condolence to the mother of a soldier killed in action and called her "Mrs James", not "Mrs Janes". The difference is Gordon Brown apologized, called her to express his regret, and is half blind. People capable of expressing humility don't run into these issues. We don't need to dismember the entire transcript and try and prove once and for all who was in the right. Who is in the right isn't the issue, nobody thinks that Trump was deliberately trying to upset the widow, no more than anyone thinks that Brown got the name wrong as an intentional slight. He just needs to apologize and move the hell on. I don't think Trump brought up this particular story. And we're still dancing around what else he said or what the mother said before that maybe he responded to badly. He could have said it in the most callous way possible, but I don't know for sure. So far we have this one sentence, right? Maybe two? And we've seen plenty of gold star families say things that one side or another regards as untrue, but we give them a pass. The fact that the Congresswoman even said anything is what's giving me the most suspicion here. I don't discount the possibility but I simply need more than this. She's a grieving widow, the core reason she's upset is nothing that Trump did or said, it's that her husband is dead. That's what is at the bottom of this. The question is whether Trump has the tact and emotional intelligence to understand that the way you win this fight is by backing down. He doesn't need to "beat" the widow with transcripts etc, he needs to show compassion. So far he's only responded to Wilson, yes? Maybe most people wouldn't respond this way but so far he hasn't said anything about the mother. I don't know, if crazy lady in Congress accused me of such a thing I might say somethingedit: I don't count referencing the mother except in passing as really responding to her. He's not going after her. The mother said she was offended by Trump and that he said what the Congresswoman claimed so I'm not sure what else you need. Trump's side of these arguments usually doesn't turn out well either. I'm not going to accept what any of them say. And we still only have like one line of what Trump said. Everyone believed this before the mother or the widow said anything. And we don't have a 100% success rate with families here either. I mean if we are all supposed to move on from these tragedies then it is odd someone said something to the press. I dont have much more to say on this until we actually know something for real. Could it be that people believe it at face value because of all the other times we've seen Trump be a complete dick?
Insulting veterans, gold star families. Its not like this would be isolated case contrary to Trumps usual character.
|
On October 19 2017 04:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 04:47 Doodsmack wrote:On October 19 2017 04:34 Introvert wrote:On October 19 2017 03:36 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2017 03:04 Introvert wrote:On October 19 2017 01:12 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2017 00:59 Introvert wrote:
still so vague. these calls should be perrsonal but I guess we need a transcript? I don't doubt he used those words, but that's not the important part. thid congresswoman seems off her rocker so idk. This entire thing could be avoided had Trump not seen the need to brag about how much he cared about the troops and how much better he was than the past Presidents. It's an absurd situation. In the UK we had a minor controversy when Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote a letter of condolence to the mother of a soldier killed in action and called her "Mrs James", not "Mrs Janes". The difference is Gordon Brown apologized, called her to express his regret, and is half blind. People capable of expressing humility don't run into these issues. We don't need to dismember the entire transcript and try and prove once and for all who was in the right. Who is in the right isn't the issue, nobody thinks that Trump was deliberately trying to upset the widow, no more than anyone thinks that Brown got the name wrong as an intentional slight. He just needs to apologize and move the hell on. I don't think Trump brought up this particular story. And we're still dancing around what else he said or what the mother said before that maybe he responded to badly. He could have said it in the most callous way possible, but I don't know for sure. So far we have this one sentence, right? Maybe two? And we've seen plenty of gold star families say things that one side or another regards as untrue, but we give them a pass. The fact that the Congresswoman even said anything is what's giving me the most suspicion here. I don't discount the possibility but I simply need more than this. She's a grieving widow, the core reason she's upset is nothing that Trump did or said, it's that her husband is dead. That's what is at the bottom of this. The question is whether Trump has the tact and emotional intelligence to understand that the way you win this fight is by backing down. He doesn't need to "beat" the widow with transcripts etc, he needs to show compassion. So far he's only responded to Wilson, yes? Maybe most people wouldn't respond this way but so far he hasn't said anything about the mother. I don't know, if crazy lady in Congress accused me of such a thing I might say somethingedit: I don't count referencing the mother except in passing as really responding to her. He's not going after her. The mother said she was offended by Trump and that he said what the Congresswoman claimed so I'm not sure what else you need. Trump's side of these arguments usually doesn't turn out well either. I'm not going to accept what any of them say. And we still only have like one line of what Trump said. Everyone believed this before the mother or the widow said anything. And we don't have a 100% success rate with families here either. I mean if we are all supposed to move on from these tragedies then it is odd someone said something to the press. I dont have much more to say on this until we actually know something for real. Show nested quote +On October 19 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:On October 19 2017 04:47 Introvert wrote:On October 19 2017 04:42 Plansix wrote:
Why do you keep saying the congresswoman is crazy? I'm reading her quotes. Plus she's on the impeach train right? Close enough. Vehemently anti Trump Democrat congressperson. Not using the word "crazy" won't grant her any credibility. Ok, that clears that up. You might want to consider a new word for people who disagree with you. But maybe you don't care about credibility. nah, reading her statements I think my use of the word in some posts is definitely defensible.
Ignoring the dem congresswoman's take is fine; but I see no reason to ignore the statement from the family members of the deceased. And like others say, it's not like this would be at all atypical of trump. There's more than enough evidence to conclude it's likely it happend; getting to beyond a reasonable doubt (might've already been met really) or some further proof standard perhaps not.
|
I love that some folks have gone to full “asking for receipts” with this Trump phone call. Until we have a full audio recording independently reviewed by an approved neutral mediator with no political affiliations, it is impossible to tell what is real. Forget good faith, we need prima facie evidence.
|
On October 19 2017 05:10 Plansix wrote:
I love that some folks have gone to full “asking for receipts” with this Trump phone call. Until we have a full audio recording independently reviewed by an approved neutral mediator with no political affiliations, it is impossible to tell what is real. Forget good faith, we need prima facie evidence.
We just need trump to release his proof! I expect people to start demanding that any second now
|
On October 19 2017 05:10 Plansix wrote:
I love that some folks have gone to full “asking for receipts” with this Trump phone call. Until we have a full audio recording independently reviewed by an approved neutral mediator with no political affiliations, it is impossible to tell what is real. Forget good faith, we need prima facie evidence.
As if we haven't been at this exact location in a Trump 72 hour news cycle shit fest once a week for the last 7 months before.
Stage 1: something horrible Trump says comes out, it demeans the Office of the Presidency and reveals his despicable character
Stage 2 (~12 hours): cultists pretend it is fake news until more confirmation (it was a Democrat who said it!)
Stage 3 (~18 hours): DJT lies about substance of statement
Stage 4 (~24 hours): further eyewitnesses come forwards contradicting DJT (cultists play epistemological games and pretend we haven't had this cycle before [WE ARE HERE])
Stage 5 (~48 hours): DJT confirms original statement in hate tweet
Stage 6 (~72 hours): anti-anti-Trump attacks media for focusing on terrible thing Trump says and cultists wash whole thing from their memory
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
