Trump just can't help himself

Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Yooper said:
I'm working from the position that you didn't intend for the resulting "conversation" to go this way. So in reply to your question, honestly, yes; from a reader's perspective it did seem to start provocatively and went "downhill" from there.

The opening is a huge assumption about what Trump is thinking (i.e., when you ascribe certainty of intent that's mind reading). And then the pump was further primed with the "violates the Constitution" bit; "violate" is quite the accusation. So while it was great to provide a link to the FAS (CRS) .pdf to support the assertion, the phrasing in presenting the link seemed a bit provocative (condescending?).

I have to say that my first read of your post had me thinking you were purposely waving raw meat in front of a bunch of hyenas. It took me two or three re-readings to get past presentation to that which was presented (which, btw, was really intriguing; as is the subject matter of most of your posts).

Cheers!

--- End of line (MCP)
Click to expand...

GASP. You just implied that Chris is a biased and otherwise lousy and ineffective communicator. We NEVER go there!
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Chris0nllyn said:
Since it appears that you believe Trump posts quotes he doesn't believe in, would you say that Trump does NOT believe that "He misled (Rep. Adam Schiff) MILLIONS of people for the sake of making the case for impeachment. Completely fabricated account out of thin air!" despite tweeting that quote?
Click to expand...

Dang...don't contortions like that hurt?
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Chris0nllyn said:
Why do YOU think he tweeted that quote and not any other quote that DOESN'T say there would be a civil war if Trump was removed from office?
Click to expand...


Ooh! I know! :howdy: Pick me! I know! :howdy:

Because one is favorable to him and the other is not.

And that is SO!!!!! different from every other politician or celebrity or human being on the planet! IMPEACH!!!!
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
Why do YOU think he tweeted that quote and not any other quote that DOESN'T say there would be a civil war if Trump was removed from office?
Click to expand...
The tweet you quoted DOESN'T say there would be a civil war if Trump is impeached, so I'm not sure I get your meaning.

The tweet you posted was Trump quoting someone else as saying there would be fracture in this nation (like the civil war) from which the nation will never heal.

This is why I asked you if you think what you said about the tweet accurately reflected the tweet. I was hoping that you were cut-and-pasting what someone else said about it, because what you stated it said was not what it said.

It's really good that you posted the tweet itself, because that helps people understand the hyperbole you were creating by comparing it to fact.

So, you ask me why I think he posted that quote? I think he was trying to stir up his base to agree that it will cause a fracture in this nation, and scare the opposition by having to acknowledge that people think it will cause that kind of fracture in our nation. That's why I think he posted that quote as a tweet.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Yooper said:
I'm working from the position that you didn't intend for the resulting "conversation" to go this way. So in reply to your question, honestly, yes; from a reader's perspective it did seem to start provocatively and went "downhill" from there.

The opening is a huge assumption about what Trump is thinking (i.e., when you ascribe certainty of intent that's mind reading). And then the pump was further primed with the "violates the Constitution" bit; "violate" is quite the accusation. So while it was great to provide a link to the FAS (CRS) .pdf to support the assertion, the phrasing in presenting the link seemed a bit provocative (condescending?).

I have to say that my first read of your post had me thinking you were purposely waving raw meat in front of a bunch of hyenas. It took me two or three re-readings to get past presentation to that which was presented (which, btw, was really intriguing; as is the subject matter of most of your posts).

Cheers!

--- End of line (MCP)
Click to expand...

I'll ask you the same question as above. Why do you think Trump would tweet a quote that he doesn't believe?

Second, I believe I said "arguably violates the Constitution" and pointed to the relevant clause and subsequent CRS paper that reinforces that statement. How does that "prime the pump" and warrant the posts from others herein? This is basic, high school level debate stuff. I said "arguably" and actually provided the facts around my assertion. How that, in any way, was provocative or condescending, I have not a clue.

Perhaps folks are way to used to hearing what they want and can't handle reasonably debating something they don't.

vraiblonde said:
Ooh! I know! :howdy: Pick me! I know! :howdy:

Because one is favorable to him and the other is not.

And that is SO!!!!! different from every other politician or celebrity or human being on the planet! IMPEACH!!!!
Click to expand...

There's plenty of favorable quotes out there that don't even mention a civil war though. He chose the one that did.

But hey, I'm sure he doesn't believe it, right?
 
Grumpy

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
Yooper said:
Two comments.

First, to say he "violates" the Constitution is to just another case of hyperbole to make what Trump said seem "criminal." But the purpose of the Clause you cited is to keep Schiff, in this case, immune from prosecution. It "arguably" doesn't prevent the executive or the judicial from necessarily making comments like Trump did. In fact, we see comments being made all the time; they're just phrased in a more clever, more ambiguous way so that one could get away with making them without accusations being made against the comment maker. Think "passive-aggressive." But another reason folks are getting their knickers in a twist is that it's Trump making the comments (yet again another case of #OrangemanBad). Do the same (or similar) rules apply to this idiot group of Congresspersons?

Second, speaking of "arguably" the CRS doc you posted via the FAS link makes the point:


My sense is that Schiff's asinine comments while "reading" the transcript (later stated by Schiff to be "parody") do not clearly fall under the category of "legislative act" in that he read something demonstrably false into the congressional record without stating at the time he was making a parody reading. Again, my sense (not being a lawyer, but someone trying to wind my way through the arcane world of "parliamentary procedure") is that Schiff opened himself up to legitimate criticism by doing what he did. Or are you saying that Schiff does, in fact, get "supercitizen" status?

Schiff wants folks to believe his immunity is absolute. It isn't. Bottom line, my sense is that Schiff's comments were outside the protections of this Clause and thus were fair game by the Executive.

Finally, a comment regarding how this thread (and many others) evolved. Yes, the back and forth here on the forum (and just about anywhere) are filled with silly comments. So if you want serious discussion post a serious thread. To start off the way you did invites "return fire" (not saying a serious well-thought out post won't get "return fire," but one can only control what one does...).

This is a shame because far too often potential great threads are ruined by an initial post that begs the question in a too apparently partisan manner. Rarely does a thread start with a thoughtful question or a well-stated position; more often than not the thread is started/written as a taunt. One forum member comes immediately to mind: posts interesting subjects used solely as a means to flog and provide an excuse to engage in ad hominem. It ain't limited to this supposedly right-leaning forum; the same takes place - unfortunately - EVERYWHERE. Sure, some folks see "middle school food fighting" as fun, but then we wonder why it's so hard for us citizens to have civil discussion these days?

--- End of line (MCP)
Click to expand...
^Good stuff
 
black dog

black dog

Free America
vraiblonde said:
Ooh! I know! :howdy: Pick me! I know! :howdy:

Because one is favorable to him and the other is not.

And that is SO!!!!! different from every other politician or celebrity or human being on the planet! IMPEACH!!!!
Click to expand...
today.jpg
 
kwillia

kwillia

n/a
vraiblonde said:
You know what I love about Awpitt (one of the things, anyway)? He can admit when he was wrong. When he shares information that is false or makes a statement based on that false information, he will say that he was wrong. And we all understand it's not him that was wrong, but the information source that was wrong. Or when he misspeaks because he misread something - he'll admit it so we can all move on.

Be like Awpitt.
Click to expand...
Same sentiment.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Chris0nllyn said:
There's plenty of favorable quotes out there that don't even mention a civil war though. He chose the one that did.
Click to expand...

So what? Does it bother you that some people think it's cause for civil war when a political party uses their power to overturn the will of the People and stage a coup against the President we elected?

That's a real question. You come across like you want our government to be overthrown and our election invalidated, like we're some third world shithole and not government of the people, by the people, for the people.

I get it: you don't like Trump. But do you think that is cause for our whole election system to be usurped by the losing party that refuses to accept the will of the People?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top