Wednesday, August 10, 2022
This rings True to me.
"My biggest issue with Donald Trump is that Trump loves people who love trump. Trump doesn't necessarily love Truth, where I think Ron De Santis loves Truth."
TJ Moe.
This short quote encapsulates what I lot of us think about Trump. It's clear that Trump's relationship with the Truth is elastic at best, nonexistent at worst. Trump is, and has been, out for what's best for him for his entire public life. Even though some of what he did when POTUS benefitted America and Americans, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that what's most important to Trump the politician is how he's percieved, and his legacy.
On a related front. If anyone thinks that Biden wasn't in the decision making loop regarding the raid on Trump's home in FL, then they're hopelessly naive or partisan. If anybody thinks that the judge who signed the search warrant wasn't at least partially motivated by his well documented dislke of Trump, then they're hopelessly naive or partisan. The reality is that this could have been handled in a lower profile manner than it was, and it's not unrasonable to think that the entire thing was just about piling more negative press on Trump to keep him from running in '24. If this raid doesn't result in swift prosecution and conviction, then I'm confident that it will backfire badly and make Biden look even worse than he does.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
"If anyone thinks that Biden wasn't in the decision making loop regarding the raid on Trump's home in FL, then they're hopelessly naive or partisan. If anybody thinks that the judge who signed the search warrant wasn't at least partially motivated by his well documented dislke of Trump..."
More unsupported gossip and slander. It MAY be true, either of these, but it's also entirely possible that it's false. What is DEFINITELY true is that YOU do not know either of these statements to be true. You're passing on petty partisan gossip and slander KNOWING that you don't know them to be true.
Think about that there sitting in your glass house, gossip boy.
You acknowledge the reality that Trump is deeply corrupt and dishonest, uncaring about truth at all which is known by observation. And yet, you proceed to make known false claims (ie, you do not know they are true) as if you're any better than Trump.
We see.
Repent.
"The reality is that this could have been handled in a lower profile manner than it was, and it's not unrasonable to think that the entire thing was just about piling more negative press on Trump .."
I doubt seriously that you know what the reality is in this case. It's more of a hunch on your part based on your well-documented distaste and contempt for the free press.
But you're assuming some negative partisan Miss deeds done here. Why is it not precisely as likely that these are people who are concerned about the law and about our free Republic and free Republic and recognize that trump is behaving in a way and and encouraging his followers to behave in such a way as to be a threat to our free RepublicIf that is what is happening, doing a Highly visible raid could help deter future bad deeds from people thinking like trump does. Why do you assume ill will or Partisanship?
I never seen anyone provide anything akin to evidence to lend credence to that which "rings true" to them about Trump. It's absurd. How can one even do so without him expressing that he's as depicted in this quote. It's TDS and nothing more.
"Even though some of what he did when POTUS benefitted America and Americans..."
"Some" of what he did??? We both acknowledge that not all he's done was great, good or the best move. But you want to diminish his record as only comprised of "some" of what he did was beneficial? That's absurd. I'd wager that to weigh his pros versus cons would reverse that assertion to "some of what he didn't wasn't all that great". That is, his pluses far outnumber his minuses as president.
"I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that what's most important to Trump the politician is how he's percieved, and his legacy."
I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that one's legacy and how their work is perceived...that one wishes to be regarded as having made a significant and tangible positive difference...is as common as armpit hair. How is this a significant negative which should influence one's support for any politician, unless again, a politician is confirmed as having expressed that he doesn't care about anything else? Do you have any evidence this is true of Trump, or is it just a feeling?
And what if that is the result of knowing that one did good work and feels it would be unjust if he was not regarded well? This is absurdity and I believe...truly believe...it is nothing more than the desire to not be seen as a raving, unthinking Trump supporter lefties want us to believe Trump supporters are.
Do you not love people who love you? I do. I prefer there were more of them and what I do can add or subtract from that total. I hope that people who love me do so because they believe I do the right things in life, based on what I believe are the right things I should be doing. How is this different from you and what makes you think it's not how Trump operates. He clearly began and continued doing things differently and mostly good things resulted. Thus, he'd be justified in hoping that people love him accordingly. This is scraping the barrel looking for reasons to justify a negative opinion of the man. The guy's imperfect. No one dares argue that. But he's effective and too many won't give him props for it. It's OK, Craig. You don't have to love him. But stop pretending he's worse than he is.
As to this raid, I offer this from American Thinker:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/08/donald_trump_must_be_the_2024_republican_nominee.html
This raid is just another in the long list of Democrat crimes against America. It's interesting in the article how it describes the futility of the action given Trump's authority with regard to classified docs which Hillary never had and for which her residence was never raided by federal agents. That sort of thing only happens to those opposed to the agenda of the Dems. With that in mind, I offer an apology for agreeing with Trump about the leftist media being the enemy of the people. He was wrong. The fact is the entirety of the left is the real enemy of the people, starting with Dems in Congress and the White House, and filtering down to every schmuck who supports and votes for them.
As opposed to your final thought, I'm of the mind that this action will backfire regardless of the outcome, and far more likely if Trump IS prosecuted and convicted. Honest people of character will not put up with it.
"More unsupported gossip and slander."
No, it's called opinion.
"It's more of a hunch on your part based on your well-documented distaste and contempt for the free press."
1. No, it's literally reality that the FBI could have handled it in a lower profile manner.
2. When you claim that something is "well documented", then don't provide any documentation, it just makes you look like a delusional idiot.
"But you're assuming some negative partisan Miss deeds done here."
No. I think that choosing to go to a judge who's publicly expressed his dislike for Trump is a sleazy but legal way to get a warrant. The fact that the FBI chose the easy, low road to get a warrant might be legal. It's just horrible optics.
"Why do you assume ill will or Partisanship?"
Since you haven't proven ANY of the claims in the run on sentence preceding this question, I'll not waste my time with that. I will say that when the judge who signed the warrant has a history of publicly bashing Trump, that "ill will" is a reasonable conclusion to draw.
Now, I can't help but consider the multiple "charges" that have been brought against trump and either been proven false (Russiagate) or not proven at all, when I assess this event.
The problem with this kind of thing is that the more times y'all scream about Trump did this, that, or the other, (without actually proving any of the claims to be True) the less credibility y'all have.
Art,
Are you familiar with the term "rings true", and how it's used? If I need to explain it, let me know.
Yes, some of what Trump did benefited America/Americans, some of what Trump did harmed America/Americans, I'm sorry that this somehow offends you.
I'd argue that his failure to even attempt to tackle the spending cuts needed to attempt to get the massive budget crisis we're in outweighs many of his successes.
"And what if that is the result of knowing that one did good work and feels it would be unjust if he was not regarded well?"
Because he's apparently incapable of comprehending that his own actions contribute to people "not regarding him well". Because any time someone has to spend time and effort to tell others how great they are, I tune them out. Look at how much time Dan spends telling us about all the wonderful things he and his church do, do you really believe him? Or does his continued insistence on trumpeting his good works make you suspicious.
"How is this a significant negative which should influence one's support for any politician, unless again, a politician is confirmed as having expressed that he doesn't care about anything else?"
Because I compare Trump and his focus on his image against some of the much more accomplished presidents, and I see people Like Truman, Eisenhower, FDR, Lincoln, Washington, and others who were much less concerned about their image. It's called humility, it used to be considered a virtue.
"Do you have any evidence this is true of Trump, or is it just a feeling?"
I can look at Trump's public life, and I can draw reasonable conclusions.
"And what if that is the result of knowing that one did good work and feels it would be unjust if he was not regarded well?"
What if? Holy crap, we can play the "what if " game all sorts of ways. The reality is that if Trump did some things that are of a lasting good for America, then he'll get his due after the dust clears. Look at Jefferson. He took all sorts of crap for the Louisiana Purchase, at the time. Yet those criticisms were proven wrong without Jefferson having to say or do much of anything. Trump has done nothing on that scale.
"Do you not love people who love you?"
Interesting question. If one looks to scripture this concept wouldn't be supported. I guess it hinges on what "love" looks like. Personally, people who constantly tell me how great I am and what wonderful things I'm doing don't strike me a particularly loving. People who overemphasize my positives and minimize my negatives don't strike me as particularly loving. But that's just me. Of course I like it when my achievements are recognized, but I also expect the same people who recognize my success to hold me accountable when I'm not successful and to point out when I'm not doing my best.
"But stop pretending he's worse than he is."
Interesting that pointing out his flaws is "pretending that he's worse than he is", but focusing on and inflating his successes (pretending that he's better than he is) is perfectly normal.
I think that this post is interesting because both Dan and Art have jumped to conclusions based on their respective views of Trump, rather than on what I've actually said.
I've jumped to not one conclusion other than saying that I see no reason to suggest that the judge, the various investigators of the FBI, other legal authorities or the Biden administration are illegally faking an investigation when there was no justification for it. That is, I'm not buying into any of the conspiracy theories and slander of those on the right like Craig.
Craig, on the other hand, is SPECIFICALLY jumping to a conclusion, saying that ANYONE who doesn't agree with his unproven hunch that he does NOT know to be factual is being naive, meaning Craig has jumped to the conclusion that this is a fake warrant issued for partisan reasons.
Understand the difference between looking at the data and recognizing it vs your jumping to unproven conclusions?
"Are you familiar with the term "rings true", and how it's used?"
Yeah, Craig. I do. It means that what was expressed sounds true, that while not having definite proof, it sounds like it's likely true. Unfortunately, in this situation it's a very leftist level "ring"...a disparaging statement those who think it "rings true" want to believe it's true, while having no legit reason to suppose it can be. But there's actually two sentiments expressed to which the "rings true" might be applied...that is, perhaps to both or meant only for the one or the other. No matter...let's look at both:
1. "My biggest issue with Donald Trump is that Trump loves people who love trump."
This is presented as a truth claim, for which no one can insist that it's true...or even "rings true"...without some basis in fact. It also necessarily means that he doesn't like people who don't love him. This also is stated with no evidence in support. But here's the more important thing that those who say such things ignore: it is natural for anyone to love people who love them. I doubt one could find too many who don't feel naturally disposed toward kinder regard for those who love them. It's a desperately hypocritical statement meant to disparage Trump for something common to most all of us to one degree or another...a weak attempt add something to his negative column. Indeed, I would wager you count no one as a friend who doesn't like you. Should it be held against you as a "biggest issue"? How absurd.
There are a number of stories about Trump which especially makes this line absolute crap. Here are two:
---There was a story of some sick kid who needed what was only available in this country, but to fly him here required doing so with medical equipment on board. He offered up a plane as his own cost to bring him to one of our hospitals and I've heard no reports of what the kid or the kid's parents thought of Trump before he offered to help.
---Then there's the story of Jennifer Hudson's family members being murdered and Trump provided free hotel rooms to accommodate them for as long as her and other surviving members needed it. Again, no report of Hudson's opinion of Trump prior to his offer.
2. "Trump doesn't necessarily love Truth, where I think Ron De Santis loves Truth."
Again, where's the proof of this? That he, as a business man who markets his brand would exaggerate or speak in hyperbole means he hates truth? This simply moves me to once again demand where he's "lied" about something that has any significance to anything. Yet every boast he makes about himself simply is manifestation of being secure in his own skin. If anything, it suggests sinful pride rather than a problem with the truth. I've yet to hear one example of something he's said as president which gives me pause in the way the typical and routine lies of the left do. If we insist on using the term "lie", then we still must consider which lie matters...which lie leaves us thinking "oh...he's destroying our nation with such falsehood!!!"
"Yes, some of what Trump did benefited America/Americans, some of what Trump did harmed America/Americans, I'm sorry that this somehow offends you."
But that's not what you said. You simply said "some" of what he did benefited the nation, and that suggests far less than acknowledging his was a better than average presidency. It's what you say about someone who is more of a failure... a consolation. It's cheap praise for someone who is worthy of better. And you cover it by suggesting the spending issue overshadows the many good things he did. You choose to give that more importance to diminish his beneficial achievements.
I regard his presidency as cut short by the stolen election. Not too many presidents are graded highly who only got four years to do what they intended, though this guy did quite a bit in that time, much of which so many said he could never accomplish at all. Those things some would criticize him may have been his focus in a second term. My problem with you is that you don't seem as objective in your opinion of him as you'd like to project, because of his manner, while I'm well aware of his shortcomings and believe in the aggregate he was a better than average president, to say the least, and likely would have gotten more done without all the bullshit he had to overcome to do anything, and certainly with four more years.
"Because he's apparently incapable of comprehending that his own actions contribute to people "not regarding him well"."
I have a hard time believing he hasn't heard it more than once. But at the same time, so what? Should he be worrying about it, or getting the job done? And again, how is this different than anyone else when confronting a segment of the population in opposition? This is just superficial crap and it's more an indictment of those who make more of it than it is, than of him and how he responds. Yeah...I'd prefer he not waste his time on such drivel. But he's Donald Trump. One must take the bad with the good, especially when there's so much more good.
"Because any time someone has to spend time and effort to tell others how great they are, I tune them out."
A wise move, especially in favor of noting what they do. Which is what I've always done. He's a blowhard. I don't freakin' care. I look at his body of work and judge according to that.
"Look at how much time Dan spends telling us about all the wonderful things he and his church do, do you really believe him? Or does his continued insistence on trumpeting his good works make you suspicious."
No, because the reason Dan does it is crystal clear: to cover for the immorality he supports and enables and regards as good things God would bless. He does it to appear "Christian" in spite of his anti-Christian behaviors.
"Because I compare Trump and his focus on his image against some of the much more accomplished presidents, and I see people Like Truman, Eisenhower, FDR, Lincoln, Washington, and others who were much less concerned about their image. It's called humility, it used to be considered a virtue."
Again, I too would prefer a more humble guy. But that's not his style and it has no real bearing on his "greatness" as a president. Again, too much is made of it and given the consequences of that, it's far more shameful than his faults. (By the way, FDR was a scumbag and doesn't belong in that list.)
"I can look at Trump's public life, and I can draw reasonable conclusions."
Look more deeply.
"What if? Holy crap, we can play the "what if " game all sorts of ways."
Step off, dude. You're doing the same thing in the other direction. Why not just join the crowd, say you hate his tweets and leave it at that! You speculate about that for which you have no solid proof and there's something wrong with me for speculating possibly explanations? Good gosh!
" Personally, people who constantly tell me how great I am and what wonderful things I'm doing don't strike me a particularly loving."
I'm not talking about "yes men". I'm talking about those who love you. Do you not love them? You said Trump loves those who love him. Do you not love those who love you?
"Interesting that pointing out his flaws is "pretending that he's worse than he is", but focusing on and inflating his successes (pretending that he's better than he is) is perfectly normal."
I'm not ignoring his flaws, and I'm not attempting to use his good work to diminish any of them or his work that was not so good. And I'm certainly not "inflating" his successes, but only defending him in the fact of focus on his shortcomings, as if his shortcomings are more worthy of our focus...reminding detractors of every extreme of those accomplishments and successes as it's the only fair way to judge a guy...by his entire record. His second term should have been automatic based on his record but for all those who focused on bullshit and continue to do so.
I haven't jumped to any conclusions. I've simply responded to what you actually said.
So here's what I expected to happen if it turns out true that trump was was Stephen nuclear related literature related secrets to take to his house.
1. People like you who send the worst of professionals the professionals, the judge the judge and others involved, and smeared their names... that people like you would apologize for being a giant ass-wipe, presuming that you knew the hearts and motivations of people you don't know about circumstances you are entirely ignorant about.
2. That you will acknowledge your gossip and slander and stupidly false witness to be exactly those things and apologize.
3. That conservatives in positions of power - GOP congress people, right wing commentators and media - will likewise apologize and acknowledge their stupidly false claims and accusations.
4. That they will also acknowledge their slander and false witness was wrong, but dangerously wrong, deliberately stirring up division that could lead to more violence.
5. Those people should then resign in shame and strongly encourage any Trump and Trump-like support and ideas be purged from the GOP because it is such a threat.
6. That people like you would apply serious pressure on these leaders to apologize and resign.
Something pretty close to that. Your repentance will be meaningless if appropriate action does not follow.
IF it is the case that Trump stole nuclear secrets, will you say now that you will apologize for your slander?
So here's what I expected to happen if it turns out true that trump was was Stephen nuclear related literature related secrets to take to his house.
1. People like you who slandered and presumed the worst of the professionals, the judge and others involved, and smeared their names... that people like you would apologize for being a giant ass-wipe, presuming that you knew the hearts and motivations of people you don't know about circumstances you are entirely ignorant about.
2. That you will acknowledge your gossip and slander and stupidly false witness to be exactly those things and apologize.
3. That conservatives in positions of power - GOP congress people, right wing commentators and media - will likewise apologize and acknowledge their stupidly false claims and accusations.
4. That they will also acknowledge their slander and false witness was not only wrong, but dangerously wrong, deliberately stirring up division that could lead to more violence.
5. Those people should then resign in shame and strongly encourage any Trump and Trump-like support and ideas be purged from the GOP because it is such a threat.
6. That people like you would apply serious pressure on these leaders to apologize and resign.
Something pretty close to that. Your repentance will be meaningless if appropriate action does not follow.
IF it is the case that Trump stole nuclear secrets, will you say now that you will apologize for your slander?
[With typos fixed...]
Oh, and if it turns out that Trump DID steal nuclear secrets and Trump's response is (as he's already done) to say, IT'S A PLANT! ...you all need to ask yourself which is more likely: That this openly greedy, dishonest and corrupt pervert who has a history of skirting laws to get away with activities that enrich him.. if NOW he's telling the truth or that multiple justice professionals with a history of decency and public service are in a conspiracy to dishonestly frame this idiot pervert.
If you think the latter, you're nearly completely enchanted by the dark side.
Save yourself.
On another note, Marshal...
"People who overemphasize my positives and minimize my negatives don't strike me as particularly loving. But that's just me."
Yes. That's just you. Rational people know that love and support go hand-in-hand. Which is not to say that sometimes your failures would not be pointed out, but generally, yes. People who love you WILL encourage you and support and cheer you on.
What a deviant version of love you have. This explains and says so much about you and your positions.
"I think that this post is interesting because both Dan and Art have jumped to conclusions based on their respective views of Trump..."
So, is it safe to say that if the stolen nuclear information is correct, that you jumped to some conclusions about the FBI and the judge based upon partisan bias and dislike for the media and perceived liberals?
"So, is it safe to say that if the stolen nuclear information is correct, that you jumped to some conclusions about the FBI and the judge based upon partisan bias and dislike for the media and perceived liberals?"
1. This "stolen nuclear information" is (at best) years out of date and useless.
2. If this "stolen nuclear information" was so critical and dangerous, then why did the administration and the FBI allow it to sit there for over a year before the got all worked up.
3. If the "stolen nuclear information" actually amounts to something then I will (as I have in the past) modify my position based on newer information.
4. No, it's safe to say that my opinions were based on the information available at the time I wrote the post, and that my opinions are subject to change based on additional information as it's released.
5. Given the Judge's public dislike of Trump, It's safe to assume that he's anti Trump and that his feelings about Trump made him sympathetic to the FBI's request. I don't "perceive" him as liberal, I think it's sage to say that he's vocally anti Trump. As for the Biden administration, I think it's safe to refer to them as "liberal".
"that multiple justice professionals with a history of decency and public service are in a conspiracy to dishonestly frame this idiot pervert."
This is quote an unsupported claim. To claim that every single individual involved in this episode is a "justice professionals with a history of decency and public service" without a shred of evidence is quite a leap.
I think that it's reasonable to consider the reality that the last "smoking gun" that the left leveled at Trump (the Russia dossier and related allegations) has been thoroughly debunked and was based on false claims by "justice professionals". Given that reality, I'm not sure it's a stretch to be skeptical about this as well.
Of course, Trump's automatic response of being framed for everything, comes off as a bit paranoid. Unfortunately, he has been framed and it's not 100% unjustified.
"What a deviant version of love you have. This explains and says so much about you and your positions."
1. Try reading the names on the comments.
2. No, acknowledging that love isn't automatically supporting, encouraging, and accepting everything someone does isn't deviant at all.
3. Being sycophantic, is not the same as being loving.
1. Incoherent gibberish.
2. I regularly acknowledge my errors, correct facts as they become available, and apologize where necessary.
3. I don;t speak for or control anyone but myself. Personally, I'd find this bit of hypocritical theater more convincing if you called for the left to do the same thing. For example, if these "nuclear secrets" end up being not as important as you believe them to be (based on what specific information I have no idea), will you do what you demand of others? Have you acknowledged the fact that the whole Trump/Russia thing was false and that the investigation was based on false testimony to a judge?
4. This is just stupid and absurd coming from someone who was silent regarding violence threatened towards SCOTUS judges, and actual violence against crisis pregnancy centers. Especially in light of Schumer calling for violence, and the Biden administration refusing to follow federal law regarding protection of SCOTUS.
5. Because the 1st amendment protection of free speech means nothing when Dan gets going.
6. Again, absurd.
"Oh, and if it turns out that Trump DID steal nuclear secrets"
1. Given that we don't know specifically what was found, this seems a bit hysterical.
2. As POTUS Trump has the authority to classify and declassify anything. Are you certain that trump didn't declassify the documents in question while he was in office?
1. Since I've not done any of those things, I have nothing to apologize for. But as a general rule, I have a history of acknowledging, correcting, and apologizing when appropriate. Since I don't have control of anyone else, nor do your standards apply to anyone else, I don't understand your obsession with demanding that I do things that are impossible.
"I've jumped to not one conclusion other than saying that I see no reason to suggest that the judge, the various investigators of the FBI, other legal authorities or the Biden administration are illegally faking an investigation when there was no justification for it."
OK, because you'd never let your hatred for Trump color your thinking or your response.
Of course, that ignores the reality that this has already happened once, and you never managed to acknowledge that reality.
Art,
I appreciate you taking to time to repeat your self and your talking points. They haven't been convincing before, they likely won't now.
What's interesting here is that in all of the rush to bitch at me for having an opinion that is different, we're ignoring the bigger picture.
There are two possible scenarios at play here.
1. This situation is every bit as serious as the leftist/anti Trump folks want to to be. If they're right, then we will shortly see indictments, trials, and convictions. Obviously that would mean the end of Trump politically.
2. This is Trump/Russia 2.0 and it's all bullshit. If this scenario plays out then Joe Biden has just guaranteed Trump a win in '24, and that the DOJ and the FBI will undergo a major overhaul during Trump's second term.
Of course, there's the most likely option.
3. This all amounts to nothing in the end. The "nuclear secrets" end up being some mundane, unimportant documents like the schedule of who is assigned the nuclear football of something similar. The rest of this is a minor disagreement between the Trump team and the national archives, that is the equivalent of an overdue library book. If this happens, the left will continue to pretend as if Trump committed treason, and took up arms to overthrow the government, while the Trump fans will keep up the "He was framed" chants. Ultimately, the media will push forward the narrative that Trump was guilty of heinous crimes, and portray everyone who disagrees as crazy and complicit.
It's amusing to me, how much of this conversation is based on assumptions. Certainly my original comment was based on assumptions based on what had been reported at the time. I do think that my assumption that Biden signed off on this, is very reasonable and highly likely. It is inconceivable to me that the DOJ would stage something like this without Biden being in the loop. It's also inconceivable to me that this couldn't have been done just as effectively in a lower key manner. It seems clear that they knew that Trump was in NY, and that they could have handled it differently. But, since I wasn't there, I'm drawing conclusions based on the history of the players. I'm also trying to avoid jumping to either extreme, which clearly bothers both of you.
So, if it's OK with y'all I'll try to think for myself, draw my own conclusions, ignore the vitriol, and try not to worry about if I can perform well enough to be loved.
"I appreciate you taking to time to repeat your self and your talking points. They haven't been convincing before, they likely won't now."
And I appreciate the snark in your claim to appreciate my taking that time. But I have to say nothing you've said is convincing, either, but mostly due to the insignificance of most of it with regard to whether or not Trump should get another term. It's really been not much better than "Orange Man Bad" for the most part. The only questions that matter are, were things better during and because of Trump's presidency than they were during Obama's, and were they better than they are now? While I fully acknowledge he's imperfect, it seems quite clear that he must be for you to give him the proper degree of recognition for his work...which is not manifested in "some" things he did was beneficial. Could he have done better? Of whom is such a question not inappropriate? But we certainly know what "worse" looks like and it took place before and after him...especially after. But your focus on what doesn't matter is why we have Biden and all the crap that has come with it. And it doesn't matter when matched any Dem who might be put up against him.
If he had not been jobbed, we'd not be having this discussion and his record would be assessed more honestly without all the useless crap about who he might love or how much he cares about truth. And I'd wager the overall state of the nation would be in far better shape had there not been so much attention on the superficial. So, your condescension aside, I hope when the time comes I'll be hearing a much more substantive argument for any candidate running against him in the primaries than what's been presented thus far.
As to your last comment of August 12, 2022 at 11:48 AM, I find it reasoned, until you get to the part that I'm bothered by any of that which refers to the raid. Not in the least. Like you, I prefer to withhold judgement until all the facts are in (assuming we actually get to hear/see them), but do not feel I can be denied the right to speculate on what we do know. The feds could have handled every raid they've perpetrated against Trump-connected persons and supporters than they have. Which of them needed mid-night raids to take them into custody? Which of them need to be shackled at the ankles? Which of them couldn't be allowed to put on a pair of pants before further humiliating them in public? Given the last six years, it's hard not to think this raid on Trump's home is just more of the same Dem nonsense.
"As POTUS Trump has the authority to classify and declassify anything. Are you certain that trump didn't declassify the documents in question while he was in office?"
Stop. Think this is over. Are you saying that you think it's actually a possibility that the FBI got reports that trump took unclassified documents related to nuclear weapons somehow in some form, and they DID NOT CHECK to see if they were declassified or classified.?!
That they just went in willy nilly and asked for a warrant WITHOUT considering whether or not it was classified or not classified?!!
AND, a judge looked at this and that judge, too, did not ask are these classified or not classified??!!
Is that really what you want to say? Do you understand why that's irrational and unlikely as hell?
Do you not see how this shows a partisan bigotry and blindness on your part?
"I'm also trying to avoid jumping to either extreme, which clearly bothers both of you."
Your presumptions that the FBI, the Biden administration and the judge involved are all corrupt (faking an unjustified "raid" is corrupt) IS an extreme position.
That you don't understand the extreme nature of your slander is part of the problem.
When people like Trump and you slander professionals for doing their job, people can get hurt.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/12/politics/fbi-threats-maralago-trump-search/index.html
THAT is why these slanderous false charges are dangerous and extreme. Modern conservatives are sowing division based on their endless false claims and slander and are likely to reap the civil war their extremists and white nationalists want so very much.
"Stop. Think this is over"
No, you stop and answer the question before you pull this bullshit. You answer the question as asked, before you even think about expecting me to answer your random musings.
Where did I say specifically that anyone was "corrupt"? Since I haven't said that I see no reason to take you seriously. The reality is that the Judge is on record as being anti-Trump, and it's not unusual for prosecutors to "judge shop" in order to get warrants approved with less scrutiny. The notion that it's "corrupt" for the DOJ and Biden to be in the loop on a decision of this magnitude doesn't imply "corrupt" at all.
Where specifically have I "slandered" any specific journalist?
Draw the specific, direct, line between some alleged "slander" and some specific incident of "violence" against a specific journalist?
But hey, if dodging questions, making shit up, and ad hom attacks is your substitute for rational dialogue that's cool. Just don't expect great results.
Answer your question first? Again, this is not brain surgery, man.
""As POTUS Trump has the authority to classify and declassify anything. Are you certain that trump didn't declassify the documents in question while he was in office?"
The ONLY POSSIBLE answer to this is, "WE DO NOT KNOW." You don't need to ask me a question like this, there IS NO answer to it. Am I certain that he didn't declassify them? I DO NOT KNOW. That is the ONLY answer to that question. Since there is only one answer, there's no point in asking it.
Now that I've answered a question with only one answer, you can answer my question:
Are you saying that you think it's actually a possibility that the FBI got reports that trump took unclassified documents related to nuclear weapons somehow in some form, and they DID NOT CHECK to see if they were declassified or classified?!
This is not a "random musing." The dumbass Trumpworld defenders of Trump are making these unsupported and dangerous accusations against a wide variety of professionals doing their job, slandering them with their stupidly false insinuations. Endangering them as we have seen the predictable threats to the FBI that followed Trump and the GOP's attacks on these professionals. You all are making these slanderous charges so it's a perfectly reasonable question that perfectly reasonable people understand: It is SO unlikely that the judge and professionals in charge of this didn't stop to check to see if they were unclassified or not as to be inane in the supposition.
And to be clear: I'm not someone (as a more progressive person) who automatically trusts the FBI or law enforcement groups. But neither am I one to assume that they are stupid.
And you make the suggestion that these people are corrupt when you suggest that they are deliberately trying to make Trump look bad for baseless partisan pettiness. You know, like all that conservative ass-wipes in Congress who are even now promising to start investigations and conduct raids against political enemies NOT because they have ANY data to support the raid, but for the basest partisan revenge.
Can you condemn these dangerous promises of revenge from the GOP and its lawless allies? These are dangerous responses you all are promoting. Can you recognize that there are, even now, an increase in threats of violence to the FBI based upon Trump's false claims of a "raid" and Trump's and your type of attacks on the alleged corruption of these professionals?
Craig...
"Where specifically have I "slandered" any specific journalist?"
Also Craig...
"the media will push forward the narrative that Trump was guilty of heinous crimes, and portray everyone who disagrees as crazy and complicit."
I, for one, never SAID you had slandered one specific journalist. THAT IS THE POINT. You and Trump and your ilk ENDLESSLY condemn the media or the MSM or professional journalists as a group and then, when right wing violence is inflicted upon or threatened against journalists, you all act like you have no accountability for it.
The false claims and endless slander against the media, against the FBI (in this case in question) and against any who dare to disagree with or raise concerns about Trump and his ilk of GOP/"conservatives," are planting seeds of violence. Open your eyes.
Are you not aware of violence threatened and acted upon against journalists? Against the FBI?
Tell me that you're ignorant of these realities and I can educate you, but I can't believe you're ignorant of these realities.
More of your people threatening decent people doing their jobs...
"Since the FBI search of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate on Monday, researchers who track extremism have sounded the alarm about an escalation of violent rhetoric from the far-right, including talk of another "civil war" and threats against federal law enforcement.
By Thursday, an attempted attack on an FBI field office in Cincinnati appeared to underscore the real danger behind those threats, particularly given a digital trail of ominous posts that were left under the name of the suspect. "
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1117275044/an-attempted-attack-on-an-fbi-office-raises-concerns-about-violent-far-right-rhe
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-lawmaker-says-notified-fbi-174446950.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/03/journalism-us-threats-press-freedom/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/11/fbi-building-breach-armed/
Anyone want to take bets that the assault on the Capitol today was from a crazed right winger?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/police-man-killed-himself-after-ramming-us-capitol-barrier/2022/08/14/f34c6e28-1bd8-11ed-9ce6-68253bd31864_story.html
Craig...
"The reality is that the Judge is on record as being anti-Trump"
See, here is the difference between your "reality," and actual reality. You almost certainly can't find any support that this judge was "anti-Trump." He may be anti-corruption and Trump is an utterly corrupt man, or he can be opposed to indecency and vast dishonesty... but being opposed to people for their dangerous dishonesty and corruption and anti-liberty values does not mean they oppose the pervert in possession of those behaviors and traits. It just means they're good people not willing to be silent in the face of dangerous lies.
You can't support this claim. Just a fact.
"Answer your question first?"
Yes, it seems like common courtesy to answer the question before you start throwing shit up against the wall to see what sticks.
"The ONLY POSSIBLE answer to this is, "WE DO NOT KNOW.""
Yes it is. Yet you seem to ma making assumptions about the contents of the material based on something, when the reality is that you have absolutely no idea what was collected. You just conclude that what ever it was must be as bad as it could possibly be based on "WE DO NOT KNOW".
"Are you saying that you think it's actually a possibility that the FBI got reports that trump took unclassified documents related to nuclear weapons somehow in some form, and they DID NOT CHECK to see if they were declassified or classified?!"
No.
"Can you recognize that there are, even now, an increase in threats of violence to the FBI based upon Trump's false claims of a "raid" and Trump's and your type of attacks on the alleged corruption of these professionals?"
As soon as you acknowledge the threats and attempted assassination of SCOTUS justices after Roe was overturned, and the threats of violence against the jurors in the Floyd and Rittenhouse cases. I usually don't pay much attention the what the fringe crazies do, nor comment about them. But I've been plenty clear in the past that threats of violence against government officials or representatives in order to influence outcomes of things are reprehensible. Why would I repeat myself?
"THAT IS THE POINT."
Yes it is the point, that I haven't done what you claimed I've done. Yet you pretend otherwise.
"You and Trump and your ilk ENDLESSLY condemn the media or the MSM or professional journalists as a group and then, when right wing violence is inflicted upon or threatened against journalists, you all act like you have no accountability for it."
Do you know what the word "endlessly" means? Can you provide proof of this absurd claim? What specific "right wing" violence has been perpetrated against "journalists" that can be traced to something I've said? No, I'm not accountable for something I have absolutely no responsibility for.
"Are you not aware of violence threatened and acted upon against journalists? Against the FBI?"
I haven't seen anything specific, but given the examples set over the last few years, threatening violence is becoming more commonplace on all sides. Find, charge, try, and convict those responsible. Don't suggest infringing on the free speech rights of others.
I guess stories about the "attempted kidnapping" of Whitmer and the FBI's complicity in the "plot" is just more "slander".
The problem is that when you run out of substance, you resort to accusing others of all sorts of things that you can't actually prove.
I've seen FB posts by the judge that would indicate that he's anti Trump. I'm not going to dredge them up. Especially since you've chosen to misinterpret my point in bringing it up.
Again, my point is that "judge shopping" when seeking warrants is a long time practice used by LE/Prosecutors to get warrants when their evidence might not be enough to really justify one, or when they want one quickly. It's not illegal, unethical, or anything else. In this case, it gives it a higher degree of appearance of being politically motivated.
It's not slander to point out the reality that an anti Trump judge is more likely to sign off on a warrant in an investigation of Trump than an pro Trump judge.
Again, you lie. You were caught in the lie. You don't even try to support the stupidly false claim. You were caught not supporting the false claim. And you don't have the decency or honor or intellectual integrity to admit you were wrong.
Shame.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, the vague and nonspecific lying claim trope. As ineffective, and useless as always.
I know other people like this. Anytime anyone says anything that might be wrong (at least from their perspective) or that they don't like, they automatically assume that the person is lying. Their default setting is to assume that the person in question has intentionally ignored the objective Truth, and chosen to lie instead. What a sad and pathetic way to go through life. Especially when it's always something vague and nonspecific.
It is a lie that this judge is "anti-Trump." You have provided no support for such a bullshit claim and when called on it, you just said, "I read it on FB..." with NO support for that claim. Just your empty lying word which is worthless.
Again, being opposed to those who engage in corruption and dishonesty and perversion is not "anti-That-Person." It's pro-Justice, Pro-decency, Pro-honesty.
So not only are you a base and bad liar, your lies are putting you on the side against honesty, decency and justice.
Get on the right side. Repent. This realm of lies and "alternative facts" that you and the modern "conservative" movement will be clear to all one day for the perversion against justice and decency that they are.
You want to PROVE that your attack on this judge is justified? PROVIDE SUPPORT.
Until then, you're just a liar in the vein of Trump and other perverted heathens.
I understand now. It's a lie because you decided that my being to busy to dig up what I've seen makes it a lie. It's not a lie because you've proven it to be false. Your little semantic games, certainly don't make it a lie.
But, keep up the ad hom attacks, false claims, and general bullshit. It's kind of amusing.
Post a Comment