Official Donny, Drumpf, Trump Thread

[Beebs52]

All y'all better get your peeps out to vote, I guess. Electoral college still exists, so there's that.

[tlynn78]

This part says it all for me..

"At this point, the only argument in Trump’s defense is one that I would regard as fairly plausible: Trump was, once again, blustering about a subject he didn’t understand, while insisting that he knew it better than anyone else".

Yup. This is a president who prefers the Cliffs Notes version of any report that crosses his desk. Can't be bothered with details. And who quite obviously gave a rather wooden reading off a teleprompter of words he didn't write and as such, came off extremely insincere, like a middle grade student being forced to give an oral report in front of the whole class. Yes, all presidents have speechwriters, but most are adept at making the viewer believe that the words are coming from the heart. Probably because they've taken the time to really go over the speech numerous times. If Trump looked this address over more than once I'd be astounded. I did not get even a hint of a notion that these words were coming from the heart. Honestly, at this point, I'm not totally convinced that he has one.

I just can't for the life of me understand how anyone cannot admit that his rhetoric has at least stoked the fires of these individuals. Yes, they were predisposed to commit these atrocities. Yes, a pretty good chance that they would eventually carry them out. But Trump's loose cannon words, spoken without any thought given as to the effect they might have on these unstable slimebags, were like giving them the Presidential Seal of Approval.


But hey, at least he made it to Dayton instead of Toledo.

We all have things that will forever remain a mystery.

[flockofseagulls104]

Wow. I guess Robert Tracinski nailed it. I finally found my way through all his convolutions of facts and logic and figured it out. I was very dizzy, but I think I got it. He's from Charlottesville and he knows everything and everybody and their thoughts and motives. And he just knows what everyone else doesn't. Just like someone else who lives here.

[Bob78164]

Not surprising. No response to the Charlottesville Lie.

Added for emphasis:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-let-g ... 1565132175

The problem with Trump's eventual version of his statement, which pretty much ignores what he actually said and the ease with which he switched from talking about one group of people to another is that these "fine people" don't seem to exist. I've seen hundreds of pictures of the Charlottesville protest, and I can't seem to find a whole lot of "fine people" in them. Now you would think that out of all these people with all their cellphones and only a handful of neo-Nazi thugs making trouble that there would be oodles of images they would have posted on social media by know of grandma, grandpa and the grandchildren holding up pictures of Robert E. Lee. It's no surprise that Prager comes up with this nonsense now, after most people's memories of the actual images have faded somewhat.

Here's an article that nails all this "fine people" nonsense, both on the facts and on the words Trump used.

https://thebulwark.com/the-charlottesville-hoax-hoax/

So the best light one can put on Donny's words is that he hadn't done enough homework to know that the only people there that night to defend monuments to the traitors who rebelled against America in order to defend the institution of chattel slavery were in fact the white supremacists. And if he's going to say that there were "very fine people on both sides," he sure as hell had an obligation to get that detail right. --Bob

[BackInTex]

I just can't for the life of me understand how anyone cannot admit that his rhetoric has at least stoked the fires of these individuals. Yes, they were predisposed to commit these atrocities. Yes, a pretty good chance that they would eventually carry them out. But Trump's Obama's loose cannon words, spoken without any thought given as to the effect they might have on these unstable slimebags, were like giving them the Presidential Seal of Approval.

I've looked but did not find your similar post on July 8, 2016 or July 28, 2016 (or shortly thereafter). Did someone remove it?

But hey, at least he made it to Dayton instead of Toledo.

Good thing he didn't get directions from Biden or he'd of gone to Houston & Michigan.

[Bob78164]

I just can't for the life of me understand how anyone cannot admit that his rhetoric has at least stoked the fires of these individuals. Yes, they were predisposed to commit these atrocities. Yes, a pretty good chance that they would eventually carry them out. But Trump's Obama's loose cannon words, spoken without any thought given as to the effect they might have on these unstable slimebags, were like giving them the Presidential Seal of Approval.

I've looked but did not find your similar post on July 8, 2016 or July 28, 2016 (or shortly thereafter). Did someone remove it?

But hey, at least he made it to Dayton instead of Toledo.

Good thing he didn't get directions from Biden or he'd of gone to Houston & Michigan.

You're gonna have to explain that one for me. What words did President Obama use that are remotely equivalent to calling Mexican immigrants "criminals and rapists"? What words did he use that are remotely equivalent to calling the supporters of American traitors and defenders of chattel slavery, supporters who also happened to be neo-Nazis and white supremacists, "very fine people"? What words did he use that are remotely equivalent to condoning an audience member's suggestion that the solution to illegal immigration is to "shoot them"? Because I'd really like to know your definition of moral equivalence here. --Bob

[Estonut]

Not surprising. No response to the Charlottesville Lie.

Added for emphasis:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-let-g ... 1565132175

The problem with Trump's eventual version of his statement, which pretty much ignores what he actually said and the ease with which he switched from talking about one group of people to another is that these "fine people" don't seem to exist. I've seen hundreds of pictures of the Charlottesville protest, and I can't seem to find a whole lot of "fine people" in them. Now you would think that out of all these people with all their cellphones and only a handful of neo-Nazi thugs making trouble that there would be oodles of images they would have posted on social media by know of grandma, grandpa and the grandchildren holding up pictures of Robert E. Lee. It's no surprise that Prager comes up with this nonsense now, after most people's memories of the actual images have faded somewhat.

Here's an article that nails all this "fine people" nonsense, both on the facts and on the words Trump used.

https://thebulwark.com/the-charlottesville-hoax-hoax/

So the best light one can put on Donny's words is that he hadn't done enough homework to know that the only people there that night to defend monuments to the traitors who rebelled against America in order to defend the institution of chattel slavery were in fact the white supremacists. And if he's going to say that there were "very fine people on both sides," he sure as hell had an obligation to get that detail right.

Well, at least according to one guy who writes for an 8-month old website created specifically as an anti-Trump vehicle.

[silverscreenselect]

Wow. I guess Robert Tracinski nailed it. I finally found my way through all his convolutions of facts and logic and figured it out. I was very dizzy, but I think I got it. He's from Charlottesville and he knows everything and everybody and their thoughts and motives. And he just knows what everyone else doesn't. Just like someone else who lives here.

As opposed to people like you who know that Trump has to be thinking benign thoughts all the time because he couldn't possibly be a racist.

[silverscreenselect]

Well, at least according to one guy who writes for an 8-month old website created specifically as an anti-Trump vehicle.

Esto, you're big on demanding proof of claims. Where are all the "very fine" people who were protesting peacefully at Charlottesville. Surely some of them left a social media record. But the only people we see are the not-so-fine neo-Nazis and assorted other white supremacists carrying on.

[T_Bone0806]

I just can't for the life of me understand how anyone cannot admit that his rhetoric has at least stoked the fires of these individuals. Yes, they were predisposed to commit these atrocities. Yes, a pretty good chance that they would eventually carry them out. But Trump's Obama's loose cannon words, spoken without any thought given as to the effect they might have on these unstable slimebags, were like giving them the Presidential Seal of Approval.

I've looked but did not find your similar post on July 8, 2016 or July 28, 2016 (or shortly thereafter). Did someone remove it?

But hey, at least he made it to Dayton instead of Toledo.

Good thing he didn't get directions from Biden or he'd of gone to Houston & Michigan.

BiT, I didn't think you were a believer in whataboutism, but nevertheless..

Just clarify a couple of things, so that I know what I'm arguing about, or even agreeing with...

Am I to assume the implication is that Obama issued some previous rhetoric that you feel inspired the killing/persecution of police officers? If so, please refresh my memory, what did he say? I found his condemnation of the Dallas shootings after the fact, but not something that might give me an idea of why you might have responded as you did. I'm not being a wise guy, I'm legitimately curious. Either way, it doesn't change my feelings on Mr. Trump's off the cuff words, both spoken and tweeted. Anyone in his position must realize the impact his words make. He doesn't ever seem to consider the possible consequences of his words.

As for Joe Biden, well...let's just say he wouldn't be my first choice to carry the banner. Like Trump, his brain seems to disconnect at inopportune times.

[T_Bone0806]

This part says it all for me..

"At this point, the only argument in Trump’s defense is one that I would regard as fairly plausible: Trump was, once again, blustering about a subject he didn’t understand, while insisting that he knew it better than anyone else".

Yup. This is a president who prefers the Cliffs Notes version of any report that crosses his desk. Can't be bothered with details. And who quite obviously gave a rather wooden reading off a teleprompter of words he didn't write and as such, came off extremely insincere, like a middle grade student being forced to give an oral report in front of the whole class. Yes, all presidents have speechwriters, but most are adept at making the viewer believe that the words are coming from the heart. Probably because they've taken the time to really go over the speech numerous times. If Trump looked this address over more than once I'd be astounded. I did not get even a hint of a notion that these words were coming from the heart. Honestly, at this point, I'm not totally convinced that he has one.

I just can't for the life of me understand how anyone cannot admit that his rhetoric has at least stoked the fires of these individuals. Yes, they were predisposed to commit these atrocities. Yes, a pretty good chance that they would eventually carry them out. But Trump's loose cannon words, spoken without any thought given as to the effect they might have on these unstable slimebags, were like giving them the Presidential Seal of Approval.


But hey, at least he made it to Dayton instead of Toledo.

We all have things that will forever remain a mystery.

Just as long as you and Beebs know that, despite not seeing eye-to-eye on political matters, I still love yas.

[Beebs52]

This part says it all for me..

"At this point, the only argument in Trump’s defense is one that I would regard as fairly plausible: Trump was, once again, blustering about a subject he didn’t understand, while insisting that he knew it better than anyone else".

Yup. This is a president who prefers the Cliffs Notes version of any report that crosses his desk. Can't be bothered with details. And who quite obviously gave a rather wooden reading off a teleprompter of words he didn't write and as such, came off extremely insincere, like a middle grade student being forced to give an oral report in front of the whole class. Yes, all presidents have speechwriters, but most are adept at making the viewer believe that the words are coming from the heart. Probably because they've taken the time to really go over the speech numerous times. If Trump looked this address over more than once I'd be astounded. I did not get even a hint of a notion that these words were coming from the heart. Honestly, at this point, I'm not totally convinced that he has one.

I just can't for the life of me understand how anyone cannot admit that his rhetoric has at least stoked the fires of these individuals. Yes, they were predisposed to commit these atrocities. Yes, a pretty good chance that they would eventually carry them out. But Trump's loose cannon words, spoken without any thought given as to the effect they might have on these unstable slimebags, were like giving them the Presidential Seal of Approval.


But hey, at least he made it to Dayton instead of Toledo.

We all have things that will forever remain a mystery.

Just as long as you and Beebs know that, despite not seeing eye-to-eye on political matters, I still love yas.

It's all good.

[tlynn78]

We all have things that will forever remain a mystery.

Just as long as you and Beebs know that, despite not seeing eye-to-eye on political matters, I still love yas.

It's all good.

Mwah! Not to be confused with muahahaha.

Jeopardy last night, the question about how to spell 'the sound a kiss makes.. My son: I thought it was m-u-a-h? Me: No, that's how you spell the beginning of evil laughter. We're an odd family. My son: Oh ... yeah.

[BackInTex]

BiT, I didn't think you were a believer in whataboutism, but nevertheless..

I don't like the term. The term is meant to deflect and to minimize challenges to someone's stated position or argument because they can't reconcile a current position with where they historically have been. It's akin to dismissing history in the evaluation of or as a perspective of current events. I only use the term against those that first used it to counter arguments against their positions (the whatabout Bobs an SSS).

Just clarify a couple of things, so that I know what I'm arguing about, or even agreeing with...

Am I to assume the implication is that Obama issued some previous rhetoric that you feel inspired the killing/persecution of police officers? If so, please refresh my memory, what did he say? I found his condemnation of the Dallas shootings after the fact, but not something that might give me an idea of why you might have responded as you did.

Obama took the side against law enforcement in almost every nationally reported case where a person of color was involved. From the opening event where he said the "police acted stupidly" (Henry Gates case) he always sided against the police, sending his DOJ buddies to investigate local police. He may not have sowed the seeds distrust and hatred towards the police, but he watered them.

I'm not being a wise guy, I'm legitimately curious.

I believe that.

Anyone in his position must realize the impact his words make. He doesn't ever seem to consider the possible consequences of his words.

Obama was in the position and I felt the same way. I often feel the way you do about many things Trump says (mostly the ad hominem attacks on other politicians). I'm not a fan of many of the things Trump says. But I also know that many of the things he says are deliberately reported out of context and paraphrased to mean something he did not mean, and the mischaracterizations of his words are repeated extensively by the media, other politicians, and several here that incite the hate Trump is accusing of inciting. His words, his meanings are not inciting the hate you see, it is the repeated mischaracterizations that are intentionally fueling the hate, on both sides. And I'm sick and tired of it.

[Bob78164]

Obama took the side against law enforcement in almost every nationally reported case where a person of color was involved. From the opening event where he said the "police acted stupidly" (Henry Gates case) he always sided against the police, sending his DOJ buddies to investigate local police. He may not have sowed the seeds distrust and hatred towards the police, but he watered them.

So he's supposed to be silent even when he thinks (as do I) that the police acted wrongly? And you're equating his statements to Donny smirking when a supporter calls from the crowd, "Shoot them!"? --Bob

[silvercamaro]

Obama took the side against law enforcement in almost every nationally reported case where a person of color was involved. From the opening event where he said the "police acted stupidly" (Henry Gates case) he always sided against the police, sending his DOJ buddies to investigate local police. He may not have sowed the seeds distrust and hatred towards the police, but he watered them.

So he's supposed to be silent even when he thinks (as do I) that the police acted wrongly? And you're equating his statements to Donny smirking when a supporter calls from the crowd, "Shoot them!"? --Bob

So says the guy who, at least as recently as February and March of this year, repeatedly insisted that "the opposition must be bulldozed." Yeah, bulldozers are a wonderful and violent way to eliminate people who disagree with Bob, because the victims can be killed and buried in one efficient operation. Then, if the bulldozer operator ever were to be held accountable, a better than average lawyer can argue in defense, "Your honor, my client didn't kill anyone. The dirt did it!"

[BackInTex]

Obama took the side against law enforcement in almost every nationally reported case where a person of color was involved. From the opening event where he said the "police acted stupidly" (Henry Gates case) he always sided against the police, sending his DOJ buddies to investigate local police. He may not have sowed the seeds distrust and hatred towards the police, but he watered them.

So he's supposed to be silent even when he thinks (as do I) that the police acted wrongly?

He should be silent until all the facts are in, not commenting before are during the investigations.

And you're equating his statements to Donny smirking when a supporter calls from the crowd, "Shoot them!"? --Bob

I will equate it to his silence when BLM marchers chanted "Death to pigs.", "Fry 'em like bacon", and essentially called for the attacks on the police. These protests were all over the county, on the news, watering the seeds of hate and distrust of the police, and yet Obama choose to be silent on them, yet to comment on a single arrest of a black man breaking and entering (yes his own home but they had no way of knowing that at the time).

[Bob78164]

Obama took the side against law enforcement in almost every nationally reported case where a person of color was involved. From the opening event where he said the "police acted stupidly" (Henry Gates case) he always sided against the police, sending his DOJ buddies to investigate local police. He may not have sowed the seeds distrust and hatred towards the police, but he watered them.

So he's supposed to be silent even when he thinks (as do I) that the police acted wrongly? And you're equating his statements to Donny smirking when a supporter calls from the crowd, "Shoot them!"? --Bob

So says the guy who, at least as recently as February and March of this year, repeatedly insisted that "the opposition must be bulldozed." Yeah, bulldozers are a wonderful and violent way to eliminate people who disagree with Bob, because the victims can be killed and buried in one efficient operation. Then, if the bulldozer operator ever were to be held accountable, a better than average lawyer can argue in defense, "Your honor, my client didn't kill anyone. The dirt did it!"

I'm pretty sure I was careful to say "politically bulldozed," precisely to avoid this argument. --Bob

[jarnon]

I'm pretty sure I was careful to say "politically bulldozed," precisely to avoid this argument. --Bob

A quick check shows Bob used the word about six times. Once he said "politically," and in most of the others it was obvious that's what he meant.

[BackInTex]

.... and in most of the others it was obvious that's what he meant.

We can't use that phrase, "obvious that's what he meant". Bob does not use the concept when applying it others, so let's not use it for him. If Bob means something, Bob says (or types) it.

[silverscreenselect]

Obama took the side against law enforcement in almost every nationally reported case where a person of color was involved. From the opening event where he said the "police acted stupidly" (Henry Gates case) he always sided against the police, sending his DOJ buddies to investigate local police. He may not have sowed the seeds distrust and hatred towards the police, but he watered them.

Sending in federal investigators is not "siding against the police," unless they are found to have done something wrong. That's the function of the Department of Justice (at least it was, up until Trump) to ensure the civil rights of everyone. And that's especially the case when law enforcement authorities are alleged to be in the wrong.

And Obama didn't "sow the seeds of distrust" or "water them." Black people were well aware of what could happen in encounters with the police long before that. What happened under his administration was calling public attention to it. It's similar to these instances that get caught on social media in which darker skinned people are harassed in all sorts of public situations. Those incidents didn't start in the last two years. The only thing that's changed is that now almost anyone has the ability to record the incidents when they happen and post them on social media. If we had smartphones and Twitter, you'd have seen these things happening 20, 30, 50 years ago.

[Bob78164]

I often feel the way you do about many things Trump says (mostly the ad hominem attacks on other politicians). I'm not a fan of many of the things Trump says.

It looks like the Nebraska Republican Party disagrees with you. It seems to think all of its officeholders should support Donny no matter what he says or does, or if they're not willing to do that, then they should leave the Party.

I wonder how many Nebraska Republican voters will take that invitation to heart and accept it. --Bob

[T_Bone0806]

Just as long as you and Beebs know that, despite not seeing eye-to-eye on political matters, I still love yas.

It's all good.

Mwah! Not to be confused with muahahaha.

Jeopardy last night, the question about how to spell 'the sound a kiss makes.. My son: I thought it was m-u-a-h? Me: No, that's how you spell the beginning of evil laughter. We're an odd family. My son: Oh ... yeah.

I'm in the Mwah! camp as well. The exclamation point must be included, of course.

[T_Bone0806]

First of all, thanks for the clarification. I'm at the point where my memories need to be poked with a stick to shake them loose..unless it's something from 50 years ago..I'm usually good on that

Obama took the side against law enforcement in almost every nationally reported case where a person of color was involved. From the opening event where he said the "police acted stupidly" (Henry Gates case) he always sided against the police, sending his DOJ buddies to investigate local police. He may not have sowed the seeds distrust and hatred towards the police, but he watered them.

"On July 22, President Barack Obama said about the incident, "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately." Law enforcement organizations and members objected to Obama's comments and criticized his handling of the issue. In the aftermath, Obama stated that he regretted his comments and hoped that the situation could become a "teachable moment". On July 24, Obama invited both parties to the White House to discuss the issue over beer, and on July 30, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden joined Crowley and Gates in a private, cordial meeting in a courtyard near the White House Rose Garden; this became known colloquially as the 'Beer Summit'."


His initial words were ill-chosen, I won't disagree. But he did admit his regrets after the fact and attempted to at least partially improve the situation. I have yet to see or hear Trump issue a single mea culpa on anything, other than perhaps his regrets over the appointments of people who incurred his wrath by being "disloyal" in some manner. This is in keeping with his raging narcissism...he is incapable of admitting any missteps or responsibility for the results of those missteps. If Obama painted all law enforcement personnel as racially biased, then he was very very wrong and deserved any criticism thrown at him. No one who is not in law enforcement..or military service..can understand the type of pressure, especially when confronted with having to make life and death split second decisions, these men and women are under. But it should be quite obvious that racial profiling, and decisions made as a result of that profiling, does indeed exist and in a more than "oh those incidences are few and far between" manner. Racism is still a thing...unfortunately, humanity will likely always have its "-isms", and I'm quite sure Obama has been on the receiving end of it more than once during his lifetime. But to your original point, a president's words need to be chosen very carefully, as they carry great weight to many. Obama seemed to be trying to do his best, albeit after the fact, while Trump read words from a teleprompter, which he MAYBE looked over once, if that, with all the enthusiasm of a kid being forced to eat his vegetables...and apparently not even thinking about what he was reading, considering his Dayton/Toledo mashup..

I often feel the way you do about many things Trump says (mostly the ad hominem attacks on other politicians). I'm not a fan of many of the things Trump says. But I also know that many of the things he says are deliberately reported out of context and paraphrased to mean something he did not mean, and the mischaracterizations of his words are repeated extensively by the media, other politicians, and several here that incite the hate Trump is accusing of inciting. His words, his meanings are not inciting the hate you see, it is the repeated mischaracterizations that are intentionally fueling the hate, on both sides. And I'm sick and tired of it.

This is where I STRONGLY disagree. But first, there are a couple of things in there where I do concur. There have been times, and my wife will verify, where I have said "They're making a big deal out of nothing here" or "I get what he was trying to say, although rather awkwardly, and he's not wrong". As far as the "out of context" and "paraphrasing" arguments, that's a game both sides have been playing since time immemorial. As is mischaracterization..all Democrats are Socialists or Democrats want to take away ALL your guns (hmm..whataboutism is harder to avoid than one would think ). And yes, we are unfortunately in the era of the almighty soundbite, and those soundbites must be of the man bites dog variety, as Don Henley informed us in "Dirty Laundry" many years ago. With the advent of 24-hour news outlets, it's a competition for attention and the more controversial the headline, the better. Which leads to the editorial slants tacked on to the stories by both sides. The days of Uncle Walter giving us just the facts on the CBS Evening News are history..that was truly "We report, you decide". Much of the media would love to get Trump in an inescapable pickle, I'm sure. But to paint Trump as a blameless martyr? No. His blasting anything that puts him in an unfavorable light, even those citing only cold, hard facts, as fake news, then ratcheting things up with his "enemy of the state" declarations (a very dangerous statement), drew a line in the sand that the press was only too happy to step over. No doubt much of the press didn't like him to begin with, then he upped the ante. Objectivity on either side is now an endangered species. Come back, Uncle Walter..we need you!

Out of context? Mischaracterized? In some cases, yes. But dangerous rhetoric is dangerous rhetoric, and the words are still his. Many of the things he says are designed to pander to his support base, get 'em jacked up...and/or are his attempts to be clever or funny..I personally find him neither, and his bull in a china shop politics and off the cuff tweets and rally remarks ARE incendiary, intentional or not, and I DO believe that they carry the power to give already mentally disturbed individuals perhaps that one little push into action. Mr. Trump has yet to acknowledge that and never will, as he believes he is infallible and will not accept any notion otherwise.

Finally (I know, at long last!), I obviously don't like the man. Never have, dating back to the days when he was hawking his Art Of The Deal on the talk show circuit. I am biased. I see a man who believes the press should be his own personal Al-Jazeera, that the Department of Justice serves him not the people, and wants to run the country like he is its CEO, whose every word is law and anything but 100% loyalty is not tolerated. A man who does not have a shred of the dignity and decorum I expect from the leader of our country and spends way too much time on Twitter slamming his perceived enemies on the emotional level of a middle grade student. And oh, yeah, I don't agree with most of his stated policies...the ones I can decipher, anyway. There is my disclaimer. I am biased.

Still, I stand by my opinion that his rhetoric is inflammatory, irresponsible, and potentially dangerous.

With all that, I'm done. I shall attempt to reenter my cave of non-involvement with political threads. I have tried to state my opinions to you and the other Bored conservatives with respect and hope I've accomplished that. You are all still my cyber family after all.

Peace out.

[jarnon]

Trump's Green New Deal: President reportedly considering buying Greenland