|
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 January 03 2018 21:48 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2018 12:26 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 10:14 micronesia wrote:
Danglers, while few users will be surprised, it's quite telling that you danced around the questions again without answering, all while throwing shot after shot at me even though I haven't really disagreed with you about your overarching criticism of liberals creating the current environment. When you are willing to actually answer my questions I'll have to change my opinion that you don't have conversations here in good faith. Here we are again. I really don’t think you have special privilege to butt in and say I’m being unfair to liberals (assaigning them undue blame for the circumstances behind Trump’s election). You demand I answer to the spread of fault. Bahh. Go ahead and say you breathe the rarified air and divine my intentions to absolve Trump voters. I hold that you’ve said some very silly things and try to call others to account. Give a more full explanation next time. All this sophomoric focus on your perceptions is unbecoming of you. Here's two questions. 1) How long do you think you can go without attacking anyone indirectly or directly in this thread? Literally every single post has an attack of some sort. 2) Can you just chill for a week or so? If you do, I'm sure nothing negative will happen.
Bro, you're missing the point. The latest brouhaha was a guy that thought noting that reactions of outrage feeds Trump implied that I was excusing the responsibility of Trump for his own messages or assigning too little responsibility to voters for sending him to office. I answered that he threw all the nuance out the window, because I'm clearly counseling a positive course of action for liberals since they have a deliberate provoker in the White House, and he thinks I'm absolving the president of personal responsibility. If he never got the nuance in the first place, I'm very disinclined to answer future stupidly phrased questions that preassume I said something I didn't.
On January 03 2018 09:14 micronesia wrote:
Danglers is there anything in this universe that you don't blame the liberals for?
Two questions mustaju:
1. How long do you read back before deciding that someone is more responsible than others for attacking in the thread?
2. Will you add something constructively to the discussion instead of accusing people of bad faith? Take your pick. If you need some prompting, knowing what you know of Trump, do you think liberals angry with the use of the term "rocket man" encourage or discourage his continued use of it?
|
I’d be angry if he started using racial slurs on the daily too but i don’t think that’s a very good reason to say ‘maybe stop getting so angry about it and he’ll stop.’
he’s the president of the united states, not a high school bully. why would you treat him like one? and do you think treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is truly the best course of action?
you’re pretending to offer counsel and say the obvious question is unwarranted but it’s not. at what point do you stop blaming the liberals? I would’ve imagined this is a bridge too far. No, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. This would seem to be apparent, first because he’s (debatably) a grown man and president of the united states, but more obviously because he’s been doing it since before he started campaigning. But perhaps it’s not apparent to all.
|
Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”, according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian.
Bannon, speaking to author Michael Wolff, warned that the investigation into alleged collusion with the Kremlin will focus on money laundering and predicted: “They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”
Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, reportedly based on more than 200 interviews with the president, his inner circle and players in and around the administration, is one of the most eagerly awaited political books of the year. In it, Wolff lifts the lid on a White House lurching from crisis to crisis amid internecine warfare, with even some of Trump’s closest allies expressing contempt for him.
Bannon, who was chief executive of the Trump campaign in its final three months, then White House chief strategist for seven months before returning to the rightwing Breitbart News, is a central figure in the nasty, cutthroat drama, quoted extensively, often in salty language.
He is particularly scathing about a June 2016 meeting involving Trump’s son Donald Jr, son-in-law Jared Kushner, then campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York. A trusted intermediary had promised documents that would “incriminate” rival Hillary Clinton but instead of alerting the FBI to a potential assault on American democracy by a foreign power, Trump Jr replied in an email: “I love it.”
The meeting was revealed by the New York Times in July last year, prompting Trump Jr to say no consequential material was produced. Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked mockingly: “The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers.
“Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”
Bannon went on, Wolff writes, to say that if any such meeting had to take place, it should have been set up “in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet with these people”. Any information, he said, could then be “dump[ed] … down to Breitbart or something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication”.
Bannon added: “You never see it, you never know it, because you don’t need to … But that’s the brain trust that they had.”
Special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed last May, following Trump’s dismissal of FBI director James Comey, to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election. This has led to the indictments of four members of Trump’s inner circle, including Manafort and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to money laundering charges; Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. In recent weeks Bannon’s Breitbart News and other conservative outlets have accused Mueller’s team of bias against the president.
Trump predicted in an interview with the New York Times last week that the special counsel was “going to be fair”, though he also said the investigation “makes the country look very bad”. The president and his allies deny any collusion with Russia and the Kremlin has denied interfering.
Bannon has criticised Trump’s decision to fire Comey. In Wolff’s book, obtained by the Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller in New England, he suggests White House hopes for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced.
“You realise where this is going,” he is quoted as saying. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”
Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kushner property empire. Bannon continues: “It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They’re going to go right through that. They’re going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me.”
He insists that he knows no Russians, will not be a witness, will not hire a lawyer and will not appear on national television answering questions.
Fire and Fury will be published next week. Wolff is a prominent media critic and columnist who has written for the Guardian and is a biographer of Rupert Murdoch. He previously conducted interviews for the Hollywood Reporter with Trump in June 2016 and Bannon a few months later.
He told the Guardian in November that to research the book, he showed up at the White House with no agenda but wanting to “find out what the insiders were really thinking and feeling”. He enjoyed extraordinary access to Trump and senior officials and advisers, he said, sometimes at critical moments of the fledgling presidency.
The rancour between Bannon and “Javanka” – Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump – is a recurring theme of the book. Kushner and Ivanka are Jewish. Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, is quoted as saying: “It is a war between the Jews and the non-Jews.”
Trump is not spared. Wolff writes that Thomas Barrack Jr, a billionaire who is one of the president’s oldest associates, allegedly told a friend: “He’s not only crazy, he’s stupid.”
Source
|
On January 03 2018 23:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2018 21:48 mustaju wrote:On January 03 2018 12:26 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 10:14 micronesia wrote:
Danglers, while few users will be surprised, it's quite telling that you danced around the questions again without answering, all while throwing shot after shot at me even though I haven't really disagreed with you about your overarching criticism of liberals creating the current environment. When you are willing to actually answer my questions I'll have to change my opinion that you don't have conversations here in good faith. Here we are again. I really don’t think you have special privilege to butt in and say I’m being unfair to liberals (assaigning them undue blame for the circumstances behind Trump’s election). You demand I answer to the spread of fault. Bahh. Go ahead and say you breathe the rarified air and divine my intentions to absolve Trump voters. I hold that you’ve said some very silly things and try to call others to account. Give a more full explanation next time. All this sophomoric focus on your perceptions is unbecoming of you. Here's two questions. 1) How long do you think you can go without attacking anyone indirectly or directly in this thread? Literally every single post has an attack of some sort. 2) Can you just chill for a week or so? If you do, I'm sure nothing negative will happen. Bro, you're missing the point. The latest brouhaha was a guy that thought noting that reactions of outrage feeds Trump implied that I was excusing the responsibility of Trump for his own messages or assigning too little responsibility to voters for sending him to office. I answered that he threw all the nuance out the window, because I'm clearly counseling a positive course of action for liberals since they have a deliberate provoker in the White House, and he thinks I'm absolving the president of personal responsibility. If he never got the nuance in the first place, I'm very disinclined to answer future stupidly phrased questions that preassume I said something I didn't. Show nested quote +On January 03 2018 09:14 micronesia wrote:
Danglers is there anything in this universe that you don't blame the liberals for? Two questions mustaju: 1. How long do you read back before deciding that someone is more responsible than others for attacking in the thread? 2. Will you add something constructively to the discussion instead of accusing people of bad faith? Take your pick. If you need some prompting, knowing what you know of Trump, do you think liberals angry with the use of the term "rocket man" encourage or discourage his continued use of it?
You claim you're not doing the thing that you then proceed to do in your second question. "I'm not suggesting Trump isn't responsible for his own actions, or the voters like me are responsible for putting him there, but do you think the liberals being angry encourages him?"
I'd love to ignore Trump, Danglars, and not have to be angry about the things the President does. And I do more often than you might think. But my ignoring is A) not going to stop him from doing anything -- to answer your ridiculously loaded rhetorical question that negates all your pleas of innocence -- and B) it wouldn't really stop the other people in the world, like nation leaders, from not ignoring the President of the United States..
I'm sorry it clearly embarrasses you, but you seem to be angry at the wrong people about it. As usual. You voted for him, and he's an embarrassment. Well, sadly, it seems that's just really not going to leave any worthy impression on you. You still seem to think the people who didn't vote for him are the ones with the problem. For reasons that you will immediately contradict.
Somehow, the guy you voted for making a world-wide embarrassment of himself is... our fault. We make him do it. It's not what you're saying, but hey, shouldn't we ask ourselves if it's true? We, and by we I'm pretty much just going to claim the non-GOP section of Western Civilization, should just ignore the President of the United States, that you voted for. I'm so sorry we screwed up, Danglars. JfC.
|
On January 03 2018 23:14 brian wrote:
I’d be angry if he started using racial slurs on the daily too but i don’t think that’s a very good reason to say ‘maybe stop getting so angry about it and he’ll stop.’
he’s the president of the united states, not a high school bully. why would you treat him like one? and do you think treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is truly the best course of action?
you’re pretending to offer counsel and say the obvious question is unwarranted but it’s not. at what point do you stop blaming the liberals? I would’ve imagined this is a bridge too far. No, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. This would seem to be apparent since he’s been doing it since before he started campaigning. But perhaps it’s not apparent to all.
1. You're pretending to offer counsel.
2. You're really just blaming liberals.
3. It's not liberal's fault he can't help himself from name calling.
The logical leaps are very athletic of you. Have you ever engaged on twitter with a twitter troll? Tell me, did responding with outrage and demands to stop ever yield that kind of behavior change you asked for? Do you think repeated demands (I guess you're referring to Pocahontas as some kind of 'racial slur,' but I really have no idea) are likely to get less of the behavior or more of the behavior?
|
On January 03 2018 23:28 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2018 23:02 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 21:48 mustaju wrote:On January 03 2018 12:26 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 10:14 micronesia wrote:
Danglers, while few users will be surprised, it's quite telling that you danced around the questions again without answering, all while throwing shot after shot at me even though I haven't really disagreed with you about your overarching criticism of liberals creating the current environment. When you are willing to actually answer my questions I'll have to change my opinion that you don't have conversations here in good faith. Here we are again. I really don’t think you have special privilege to butt in and say I’m being unfair to liberals (assaigning them undue blame for the circumstances behind Trump’s election). You demand I answer to the spread of fault. Bahh. Go ahead and say you breathe the rarified air and divine my intentions to absolve Trump voters. I hold that you’ve said some very silly things and try to call others to account. Give a more full explanation next time. All this sophomoric focus on your perceptions is unbecoming of you. Here's two questions. 1) How long do you think you can go without attacking anyone indirectly or directly in this thread? Literally every single post has an attack of some sort. 2) Can you just chill for a week or so? If you do, I'm sure nothing negative will happen. Bro, you're missing the point. The latest brouhaha was a guy that thought noting that reactions of outrage feeds Trump implied that I was excusing the responsibility of Trump for his own messages or assigning too little responsibility to voters for sending him to office. I answered that he threw all the nuance out the window, because I'm clearly counseling a positive course of action for liberals since they have a deliberate provoker in the White House, and he thinks I'm absolving the president of personal responsibility. If he never got the nuance in the first place, I'm very disinclined to answer future stupidly phrased questions that preassume I said something I didn't. On January 03 2018 09:14 micronesia wrote:
Danglers is there anything in this universe that you don't blame the liberals for? Two questions mustaju: 1. How long do you read back before deciding that someone is more responsible than others for attacking in the thread? 2. Will you add something constructively to the discussion instead of accusing people of bad faith? Take your pick. If you need some prompting, knowing what you know of Trump, do you think liberals angry with the use of the term "rocket man" encourage or discourage his continued use of it? You claim you're not doing the thing that you then proceed to do in your second question. "I'm not suggesting Trump isn't responsible for his own actions, or the voters like me are responsible for putting him there, but do you think the liberals being angry encourages him?" I'd love to ignore Trump, Danglars, and not have to be angry about the things the President does. And I do more often than you might think. But my ignoring is A) not going to stop him from doing anything -- to answer your ridiculously loaded rhetorical question that negates all your pleas of innocence -- and B) it wouldn't really stop the other people in the world, like nation leaders, from not ignoring the President of the United States.. I'm sorry it clearly embarrasses you, but you seem to be angry at the wrong people about it. As usual. You voted for him, and he's an embarrassment. Well, sadly, it seems that's just really not going to leave any worthy impression on you. You still seem to think the people who didn't vote for him are the ones with the problem. For reasons that you will immediately contradict. Somehow, the guy you voted for making a world-wide embarrassment of himself is... our fault. We make him do it. It's not what you're saying, but hey, shouldn't we ask ourselves if it's true? We, and by we I'm pretty much just going to claim the non-GOP section of Western Civilization, should just ignore the President of the United States, that you voted for. I'm so sorry we screwed up, Danglars. JfC.
Leporello, you might need to reread my post for the second question. You put something in quotation marks, but I think you're confused at someone else who might want an answer. You don't have to accept my explanations to answer the question.
Secondly, the question wasn't pointed at you as an individual choosing to ignore or not ignore, but liberals (or leftists, or Democrats, or whatever you want to put there) as a collective. There's a lot of shared media outlets to discuss this topic and influence others.
|
On January 03 2018 23:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2018 23:14 brian wrote:
I’d be angry if he started using racial slurs on the daily too but i don’t think that’s a very good reason to say ‘maybe stop getting so angry about it and he’ll stop.’
he’s the president of the united states, not a high school bully. why would you treat him like one? and do you think treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is truly the best course of action?
you’re pretending to offer counsel and say the obvious question is unwarranted but it’s not. at what point do you stop blaming the liberals? I would’ve imagined this is a bridge too far. No, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. This would seem to be apparent since he’s been doing it since before he started campaigning. But perhaps it’s not apparent to all. 1. You're pretending to offer counsel. 2. You're really just blaming liberals. 3. It's not liberal's fault he can't help himself from name calling. The logical leaps are very athletic of you. Have you ever engaged on twitter with a twitter troll? Tell me, did responding with outrage and demands to stop ever yield that kind of behavior change you asked for? Do you think repeated demands (I guess you're referring to Pocahontas as some kind of 'racial slur,' but I really have no idea) are likely to get less of the behavior or more of the behavior?
If I ignore a twitter troll it ends there, he is after all just a twitter troll.
Your talking about the fucking President. Hes not going to go away when you ignore him. His policy's are not going to go away when you ignore him. The corruption and incompetence of his administration is not going to go away if you ignore him.
And you still haven't answered any of the questions about who is responsible but that is normal for you, blame the 'enemy' and run away from responsibility over and over again.
|
I find it more simple and more likely that Trump’s tweets are his genuine thoughts and are not motivated by the reaction. He says those things because he’s just that stupid. To claim the response perpetuates him is just to take the focus off Trump and put it on liberals, based on the 4D chess theory that liberals’ response lays a significant role in what Trump says.
Focusing on liberals is the most common argument by Trump voters since he began his run. It’s the way in which they rationalize their pick.
|
The break up between these two should make political history.
|
"He's not only crazy, he's stupid"
Harsh but fair, I suppose. Anyone have any idea who the Democrats are gonna dig up to run against this guy for 2020?
|
On January 03 2018 23:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2018 23:28 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 23:14 brian wrote:
I’d be angry if he started using racial slurs on the daily too but i don’t think that’s a very good reason to say ‘maybe stop getting so angry about it and he’ll stop.’
he’s the president of the united states, not a high school bully. why would you treat him like one? and do you think treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is truly the best course of action?
you’re pretending to offer counsel and say the obvious question is unwarranted but it’s not. at what point do you stop blaming the liberals? I would’ve imagined this is a bridge too far. No, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. This would seem to be apparent since he’s been doing it since before he started campaigning. But perhaps it’s not apparent to all. 1. You're pretending to offer counsel. 2. You're really just blaming liberals. 3. It's not liberal's fault he can't help himself from name calling. The logical leaps are very athletic of you. Have you ever engaged on twitter with a twitter troll? Tell me, did responding with outrage and demands to stop ever yield that kind of behavior change you asked for? Do you think repeated demands (I guess you're referring to Pocahontas as some kind of 'racial slur,' but I really have no idea) are likely to get less of the behavior or more of the behavior? If I ignore a twitter troll it ends there, he is after all just a twitter troll. Your talking about the fucking President. Hes not going to go away when you ignore him. His policy's are not going to go away when you ignore him. The corruption and incompetence of his administration is not going to go away if you ignore him. And you still haven't answered any of the questions about who is responsible but that is normal for you, blame the 'enemy' and run away from responsibility over and over again.
I'm talking about his twitter activity. I assert that much of it is just like a normal twitter troll. If you think the President's twitter behavior is better than a twitter troll, then MAGA for you I suppose. The rest of your post made no sense. Is his policies, corruption, and incompetence due to his twitter activities or something? Is it causative or something? I wasn't aware we were talking about his administration broadly.
|
On January 03 2018 23:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”, according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian.
Bannon, speaking to author Michael Wolff, warned that the investigation into alleged collusion with the Kremlin will focus on money laundering and predicted: “They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.”
Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, reportedly based on more than 200 interviews with the president, his inner circle and players in and around the administration, is one of the most eagerly awaited political books of the year. In it, Wolff lifts the lid on a White House lurching from crisis to crisis amid internecine warfare, with even some of Trump’s closest allies expressing contempt for him.
Bannon, who was chief executive of the Trump campaign in its final three months, then White House chief strategist for seven months before returning to the rightwing Breitbart News, is a central figure in the nasty, cutthroat drama, quoted extensively, often in salty language.
He is particularly scathing about a June 2016 meeting involving Trump’s son Donald Jr, son-in-law Jared Kushner, then campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York. A trusted intermediary had promised documents that would “incriminate” rival Hillary Clinton but instead of alerting the FBI to a potential assault on American democracy by a foreign power, Trump Jr replied in an email: “I love it.”
The meeting was revealed by the New York Times in July last year, prompting Trump Jr to say no consequential material was produced. Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked mockingly: “The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers.
“Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”
Bannon went on, Wolff writes, to say that if any such meeting had to take place, it should have been set up “in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet with these people”. Any information, he said, could then be “dump[ed] … down to Breitbart or something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication”.
Bannon added: “You never see it, you never know it, because you don’t need to … But that’s the brain trust that they had.”
Special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed last May, following Trump’s dismissal of FBI director James Comey, to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election. This has led to the indictments of four members of Trump’s inner circle, including Manafort and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to money laundering charges; Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. In recent weeks Bannon’s Breitbart News and other conservative outlets have accused Mueller’s team of bias against the president.
Trump predicted in an interview with the New York Times last week that the special counsel was “going to be fair”, though he also said the investigation “makes the country look very bad”. The president and his allies deny any collusion with Russia and the Kremlin has denied interfering.
Bannon has criticised Trump’s decision to fire Comey. In Wolff’s book, obtained by the Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller in New England, he suggests White House hopes for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced.
“You realise where this is going,” he is quoted as saying. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.”
Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kushner property empire. Bannon continues: “It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They’re going to go right through that. They’re going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me.”
He insists that he knows no Russians, will not be a witness, will not hire a lawyer and will not appear on national television answering questions.
Fire and Fury will be published next week. Wolff is a prominent media critic and columnist who has written for the Guardian and is a biographer of Rupert Murdoch. He previously conducted interviews for the Hollywood Reporter with Trump in June 2016 and Bannon a few months later.
He told the Guardian in November that to research the book, he showed up at the White House with no agenda but wanting to “find out what the insiders were really thinking and feeling”. He enjoyed extraordinary access to Trump and senior officials and advisers, he said, sometimes at critical moments of the fledgling presidency.
The rancour between Bannon and “Javanka” – Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump – is a recurring theme of the book. Kushner and Ivanka are Jewish. Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, is quoted as saying: “It is a war between the Jews and the non-Jews.”
Trump is not spared. Wolff writes that Thomas Barrack Jr, a billionaire who is one of the president’s oldest associates, allegedly told a friend: “He’s not only crazy, he’s stupid.” Source
|
On January 03 2018 23:44 Doodsmack wrote:
I find it more simple and more likely that Trump’s tweets are his genuine thoughts and are not motivated by the reaction. He says those things because he’s just that stupid. To claim the response perpetuates him is just to take the focus off Trump and put it on liberals, based on the 4D chess theory that liberals’ response lays a significant role in what Trump says.
Focusing on liberals is the most common argument by Trump voters since he began his run. It’s the way in which they rationalize their pick.
I don't know what "genuine thoughts" means in the context of "rocket man" and "Pocahontas." He genuinely thinks Kim Jong Un is an Elton John song? He genuinely thinks Elizabeth Warren was actually named after a 17th century native American woman?
I don't think addressing the response-to-tweet/tweet phenomenon unhelpfully takes the focus off anything important. People here are generally smart enough to know the tweets are dumb, inflammatory, unpresidential, and won't forget about all that just because the conversation went to why Trump likes stirring the pot. You might just hold a lower opinion of the average TL poster than I do. Or maybe you think a narrow focus on "This just in: Trump's tweeting is bad" is the only possible discussion to be had on Trump's tweeting?
|
On January 03 2018 23:44 Doodsmack wrote:
I find it more simple and more likely that Trump’s tweets are his genuine thoughts and are not motivated by the reaction. He says those things because he’s just that stupid. To claim the response perpetuates him is just to take the focus off Trump and put it on liberals, based on the 4D chess theory that liberals’ response lays a significant role in what Trump says.
Focusing on liberals is the most common argument by Trump voters since he began his run. It’s the way in which they rationalize their pick.
Yeah, it seems unlikely to me that tweets issued 8 minutes after a topic shows up on Fox and Friends are anything but the actions of a stupid whiny oldmanchild rather than a way to create tears.
And he keeps doing them because they get lots of retweets and feed his ego. Even if the retweets are derisive and/or robots.
|
|
|
On January 03 2018 23:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2018 23:35 Gorsameth wrote:On January 03 2018 23:28 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 23:14 brian wrote:
I’d be angry if he started using racial slurs on the daily too but i don’t think that’s a very good reason to say ‘maybe stop getting so angry about it and he’ll stop.’
he’s the president of the united states, not a high school bully. why would you treat him like one? and do you think treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is truly the best course of action?
you’re pretending to offer counsel and say the obvious question is unwarranted but it’s not. at what point do you stop blaming the liberals? I would’ve imagined this is a bridge too far. No, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. This would seem to be apparent since he’s been doing it since before he started campaigning. But perhaps it’s not apparent to all. 1. You're pretending to offer counsel. 2. You're really just blaming liberals. 3. It's not liberal's fault he can't help himself from name calling. The logical leaps are very athletic of you. Have you ever engaged on twitter with a twitter troll? Tell me, did responding with outrage and demands to stop ever yield that kind of behavior change you asked for? Do you think repeated demands (I guess you're referring to Pocahontas as some kind of 'racial slur,' but I really have no idea) are likely to get less of the behavior or more of the behavior? If I ignore a twitter troll it ends there, he is after all just a twitter troll. Your talking about the fucking President. Hes not going to go away when you ignore him. His policy's are not going to go away when you ignore him. The corruption and incompetence of his administration is not going to go away if you ignore him. And you still haven't answered any of the questions about who is responsible but that is normal for you, blame the 'enemy' and run away from responsibility over and over again. I'm talking about his twitter activity. I assert that much of it is just like a normal twitter troll. If you think the President's twitter behavior is better than a twitter troll, then MAGA for you I suppose. The rest of your post made no sense. Is his policies, corruption, and incompetence due to his twitter activities or something? Is it causative or something? I wasn't aware we were talking about his administration broadly.
Are you trying to imply there is a difference between his actions on Twitter and his actions everywhere else?
And still ignoring the blame.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 03 2018 23:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2018 21:48 mustaju wrote:On January 03 2018 12:26 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 10:14 micronesia wrote:
Danglers, while few users will be surprised, it's quite telling that you danced around the questions again without answering, all while throwing shot after shot at me even though I haven't really disagreed with you about your overarching criticism of liberals creating the current environment. When you are willing to actually answer my questions I'll have to change my opinion that you don't have conversations here in good faith. Here we are again. I really don’t think you have special privilege to butt in and say I’m being unfair to liberals (assaigning them undue blame for the circumstances behind Trump’s election). You demand I answer to the spread of fault. Bahh. Go ahead and say you breathe the rarified air and divine my intentions to absolve Trump voters. I hold that you’ve said some very silly things and try to call others to account. Give a more full explanation next time. All this sophomoric focus on your perceptions is unbecoming of you. Here's two questions. 1) How long do you think you can go without attacking anyone indirectly or directly in this thread? Literally every single post has an attack of some sort. 2) Can you just chill for a week or so? If you do, I'm sure nothing negative will happen. Bro, you're missing the point. The latest brouhaha was a guy that thought noting that reactions of outrage feeds Trump implied that I was excusing the responsibility of Trump for his own messages or assigning too little responsibility to voters for sending him to office. I answered that he threw all the nuance out the window, because I'm clearly counseling a positive course of action for liberals since they have a deliberate provoker in the White House, and he thinks I'm absolving the president of personal responsibility. If he never got the nuance in the first place, I'm very disinclined to answer future stupidly phrased questions that preassume I said something I didn't. Show nested quote +On January 03 2018 09:14 micronesia wrote:
Danglers is there anything in this universe that you don't blame the liberals for? Two questions mustaju: 1. How long do you read back before deciding that someone is more responsible than others for attacking in the thread? 2. Will you add something constructively to the discussion instead of accusing people of bad faith? Take your pick. If you need some prompting, knowing what you know of Trump, do you think liberals angry with the use of the term "rocket man" encourage or discourage his continued use of it?
Gladly, after you answer mine in some more detail. Firstly, I am not missing any points, because by re-reading, you will find that I did not ask anything related to the content of the attack of my fellow forum-goer, but rather the form. I would very much like to know why your course of action is to attack, when that mode of discourse does not lead to any reasonable discussion, nor can I imagine that it helps to do anything but make people take you less seriously when you would actually be able to voice a point.
I know Cernovich and his ilk promote this terrible sort of always attack, never defend type of expression, but I never saw it in action before visiting this thread, and specifically, reading you. I would very much love to be proven wrong, say, by a demonstration of engagement, with no grievances. Can you answer my two questions within these parameters? If not, I'm honestly worried for you.
|
I feel like he genuinely got surprised that everyone's "riding the edge" was really just going as far as they had to in order to cover their asses.
It's sad, but it's also kinda funny.
|
|
|
On January 04 2018 00:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2018 23:54 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 23:35 Gorsameth wrote:On January 03 2018 23:28 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 23:14 brian wrote:
I’d be angry if he started using racial slurs on the daily too but i don’t think that’s a very good reason to say ‘maybe stop getting so angry about it and he’ll stop.’
he’s the president of the united states, not a high school bully. why would you treat him like one? and do you think treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is truly the best course of action?
you’re pretending to offer counsel and say the obvious question is unwarranted but it’s not. at what point do you stop blaming the liberals? I would’ve imagined this is a bridge too far. No, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. This would seem to be apparent since he’s been doing it since before he started campaigning. But perhaps it’s not apparent to all. 1. You're pretending to offer counsel. 2. You're really just blaming liberals. 3. It's not liberal's fault he can't help himself from name calling. The logical leaps are very athletic of you. Have you ever engaged on twitter with a twitter troll? Tell me, did responding with outrage and demands to stop ever yield that kind of behavior change you asked for? Do you think repeated demands (I guess you're referring to Pocahontas as some kind of 'racial slur,' but I really have no idea) are likely to get less of the behavior or more of the behavior? If I ignore a twitter troll it ends there, he is after all just a twitter troll. Your talking about the fucking President. Hes not going to go away when you ignore him. His policy's are not going to go away when you ignore him. The corruption and incompetence of his administration is not going to go away if you ignore him. And you still haven't answered any of the questions about who is responsible but that is normal for you, blame the 'enemy' and run away from responsibility over and over again. I'm talking about his twitter activity. I assert that much of it is just like a normal twitter troll. If you think the President's twitter behavior is better than a twitter troll, then MAGA for you I suppose. The rest of your post made no sense. Is his policies, corruption, and incompetence due to his twitter activities or something? Is it causative or something? I wasn't aware we were talking about his administration broadly. Are you trying to imply there is a difference between his actions on Twitter and his actions everywhere else? And still ignoring the blame.
Yes. Twitter is a social media platform famous for it's trolls. The President, through his subordinates in the executive branch and his party, agitates for policy and runs his bureaucracy. Social media is not the same thing as the executive branch of the American republic. Acting like ignoring his twitter trolling would be like ignoring his policies and administrative incompetence proves you're incompetent at analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
