Trump MAGAthread VI

[Gauthier]

Are you relying on some other information besides that linked, to assert that Loomer was paid?

Manufactured news, yes. Astroturfing, yes. Paid protest?

"I'll pay someone $1000 to disrupt this" isn't paid protest?

After all the right-wing ranting about George Soros paying $1500 a week. Amusing.

[Ifreann]

Trump Attorney: The President Is Not Under Investigation

WASHINGTON — An attorney for President Trump was adamant on Sunday that the president is not under investigation, despite the president’s tweets this week referring to one as a "witch hunt."

“Let me be clear here,” said Jay Sekulow, a member of the president’s legal team, on NBC's “Meet The Press.” “The president is not and has not been under investigation for obstruction."

On Friday morning, President Trump sent a tweet that seemed to confirm that he was under scrutiny, writing, “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt.”

But Sekulow claimed the president wasn’t referring to an actual investigation in the message, but instead a news report about one.

“The tweet from the president was in response to the five anonymous sources purportedly leaking info to the Washington Post,” he said, referring to the Post’s report this week that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the election, now also includes a look at whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

“He's not afraid of the investigation — there is no investigation,” Sekulow said, adding, “there is not an investigation of the President of the United States, period.”

Sekulow on Sunday also acknowledged that the president was “fully aware that if in fact he took this action, he would see a lengthening" of the amount of time it would take to get through the Russia investigation if James Comey was removed as FBI director, but still decided to move forward with firing Comey because he "thought it was in the best interest of the American people."

Also on Sunday's “Meet The Press,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla, noted that “one thing we’ve learned from the testimony of multiple people now is the president is pretty fired up about this" and doesn't believe that he did anything wrong. The president “wants people to say that," he said.

Rubio is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is doing its own probe into Russian election interference. He maintained that the president’s actions won’t prevent any of the investigations from proceeding, and that getting to the bottom of what happened would benefit all involved, including President Trump.

“This is is going to move forward,” he said. “We are going to get the full truth out there. I believe this is the thing that could happen for the president.”

I hope for his sake Sekulow got paid in advance.

[Vassenor]

#satire: New Floor Added To White House To Accommodate Everyone’s Lawyers

[Ifreann]

#satire: New Floor Added To White House To Accommodate Everyone’s Lawyers

Might not be a bad idea...

[Gauthier]

#satire: New Floor Added To White House To Accommodate Everyone’s Lawyers

Might not be a bad idea...

Until the lawyers turn into a life cell simulation.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Trump Attorney: The President Is Not Under Investigation

WASHINGTON — An attorney for President Trump was adamant on Sunday that the president is not under investigation, despite the president’s tweets this week referring to one as a "witch hunt."

“Let me be clear here,” said Jay Sekulow, a member of the president’s legal team, on NBC's “Meet The Press.” “The president is not and has not been under investigation for obstruction."

On Friday morning, President Trump sent a tweet that seemed to confirm that he was under scrutiny, writing, “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt.”

But Sekulow claimed the president wasn’t referring to an actual investigation in the message, but instead a news report about one.

“The tweet from the president was in response to the five anonymous sources purportedly leaking info to the Washington Post,” he said, referring to the Post’s report this week that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the election, now also includes a look at whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

“He's not afraid of the investigation — there is no investigation,” Sekulow said, adding, “there is not an investigation of the President of the United States, period.”

Sekulow on Sunday also acknowledged that the president was “fully aware that if in fact he took this action, he would see a lengthening" of the amount of time it would take to get through the Russia investigation if James Comey was removed as FBI director, but still decided to move forward with firing Comey because he "thought it was in the best interest of the American people."

Also on Sunday's “Meet The Press,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla, noted that “one thing we’ve learned from the testimony of multiple people now is the president is pretty fired up about this" and doesn't believe that he did anything wrong. The president “wants people to say that," he said.

Rubio is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is doing its own probe into Russian election interference. He maintained that the president’s actions won’t prevent any of the investigations from proceeding, and that getting to the bottom of what happened would benefit all involved, including President Trump.

“This is is going to move forward,” he said. “We are going to get the full truth out there. I believe this is the thing that could happen for the president.”

I swear, I saw a youtube title that said that the investigation was over beacuse he called it a "Witch Hunt".

[Galloism]

#satire: New Floor Added To White House To Accommodate Everyone’s Lawyers

Labeling it clearly as satire spoils the fun.

[Thermodolia]

Trump Attorney: The President Is Not Under Investigation

WASHINGTON — An attorney for President Trump was adamant on Sunday that the president is not under investigation, despite the president’s tweets this week referring to one as a "witch hunt."

“Let me be clear here,” said Jay Sekulow, a member of the president’s legal team, on NBC's “Meet The Press.” “The president is not and has not been under investigation for obstruction."

On Friday morning, President Trump sent a tweet that seemed to confirm that he was under scrutiny, writing, “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt.”

But Sekulow claimed the president wasn’t referring to an actual investigation in the message, but instead a news report about one.

“The tweet from the president was in response to the five anonymous sources purportedly leaking info to the Washington Post,” he said, referring to the Post’s report this week that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the election, now also includes a look at whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

“He's not afraid of the investigation — there is no investigation,” Sekulow said, adding, “there is not an investigation of the President of the United States, period.”

Sekulow on Sunday also acknowledged that the president was “fully aware that if in fact he took this action, he would see a lengthening" of the amount of time it would take to get through the Russia investigation if James Comey was removed as FBI director, but still decided to move forward with firing Comey because he "thought it was in the best interest of the American people."

Also on Sunday's “Meet The Press,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla, noted that “one thing we’ve learned from the testimony of multiple people now is the president is pretty fired up about this" and doesn't believe that he did anything wrong. The president “wants people to say that," he said.

Rubio is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is doing its own probe into Russian election interference. He maintained that the president’s actions won’t prevent any of the investigations from proceeding, and that getting to the bottom of what happened would benefit all involved, including President Trump.

“This is is going to move forward,” he said. “We are going to get the full truth out there. I believe this is the thing that could happen for the president.”

You got to be kidding me

[AiliailiA]

This is a crazy thought, it's not really serious but it's not just a joke either. I'll just throw it out there:

What if none of @realDonaldTrump's tweets are actually from him? What if they are all from his 11 year old son Barron Trump?

Maybe not exactly that, but seriously a lot of what we think we know about Trump's thinking and intentions comes from his Twitter feed. Those statements from his Twitter account often contradict actions and statements from Trump's administration, and from Trump himself, but note: Trump in interviews and public statements follows and supports what @realDonaldTrump wrote. His poor staff are strewn about before and behind, they're dumped on by twitter or called on to try to spin the dumb twitter opinions after the fact. But Donald Trump himself always follows and stands by what @realDonaldTrump wrote. Donald Trump gets dumped on (contradicted and refuted) by his own Twitter, but he never dumps on it.

The effect of the @realDonaldTrump twitter is to massively distract critics of the Administration from what the Administration actually does or is thinking of doing, setting those critics up for irrelevancy if it later turns out the twitter account was ... well, bogus. Lies. Chickenfeed for a mainstream media too chicken to dig deeper, and too lazy to reach for anything but the low hanging fruit offered. The cost to Donald Trump's own credibility that he sometimes, vaguely and with all the appearance of lying backed up in spoken words what @realDonaldTrump wrote ... that cost might be worth paying, if Trump later emerges as a deep strategic thinker who just lied to everyone for a while, to deceive the enemies of America.

The real President Trump wouldn't need to be much better than (what we believe is) President Trump, for that to work. It just takes a clean break, a dramatic turn of events lead by Trump (say, invasion of the DPRK) and the announcement that all that Twitter nonsense and nonsense vaguely worded by Trump himself in interviews and public statements, was all just misdirection aimed at America's enemies. The original Trumpists would be gratified, the Republican party would be terrified, and Democrats and most of the media who paid so much attention to the Tweets would be humiliated and rendered nearly irrelevant in whatever criticisms they have of what President Trump does then.

Wouldn't it take a genius to deceive the people the media and the congress so thoroughly? No, it wouldn't. It would require only the low cunning of a career liar, to come up with this plan. Let someone else write the tweets, someone with fanatical allegiance to Trump but perfectly ignorant of what is actually being talked about in the White House, and generally rather ignorant of Constitution, law, history and even details of the day's news stories. Let that person write the Tweets, and then Trump pretends in public that he's the dumbass who wrote them. It doesn't require genius to lie (it's mostly practice), and the easiest lie to tell is "I'm really stupid". Critics are very willing to believe that, they start out trying to prove it and all the fake-stupid interviewee has to do is avoid saying anything smart.


I think after all, Trump's twitter gimp is not Barron. It may be some other 11 year old, but not the son young enough to be Donald Trump's great-grandson. A good fraction of the ridicule that is currently directed at Trump (deservedly, if he really is the author of @realDonaldTrump tweets) would divert to the real author if that turns out to be someone else. Trump would not do that to his own son.

[Philjia]

This is a crazy thought, it's not really serious but it's not just a joke either. I'll just throw it out there:

What if none of @realDonaldTrump's tweets are actually from him? What if they are all from his 11 year old son Barron Trump?

Maybe not exactly that, but seriously a lot of what we think we know about Trump's thinking and intentions comes from his Twitter feed. Those statements from his Twitter account often contradict actions and statements from Trump's administration, and from Trump himself, but note: Trump in interviews and public statements follows and supports what @realDonaldTrump wrote. His poor staff are strewn about before and behind, they're dumped on by twitter or called on to try to spin the dumb twitter opinions after the fact. But Donald Trump himself always follows and stands by what @realDonaldTrump wrote. Donald Trump gets dumped on (contradicted and refuted) by his own Twitter, but he never dumps on it.

The effect of the @realDonaldTrump twitter is to massively distract critics of the Administration from what the Administration actually does or is thinking of doing, setting those critics up for irrelevancy if it later turns out the twitter account was ... well, bogus. Lies. Chickenfeed for a mainstream media too chicken to dig deeper, and too lazy to reach for anything but the low hanging fruit offered. The cost to Donald Trump's own credibility that he sometimes, vaguely and with all the appearance of lying backed up in spoken words what @realDonaldTrump wrote ... that cost might be worth paying, if Trump later emerges as a deep strategic thinker who just lied to everyone for a while, to deceive the enemies of America.

The real President Trump wouldn't need to be much better than (what we believe is) President Trump, for that to work. It just takes a clean break, a dramatic turn of events lead by Trump (say, invasion of the DPRK) and the announcement that all that Twitter nonsense and nonsense vaguely worded by Trump himself in interviews and public statements, was all just misdirection aimed at America's enemies. The original Trumpists would be gratified, the Republican party would be terrified, and Democrats and most of the media who paid so much attention to the Tweets would be humiliated and rendered nearly irrelevant in whatever criticisms they have of what President Trump does then.

Wouldn't it take a genius to deceive the people the media and the congress so thoroughly? No, it wouldn't. It would require only the low cunning of a career liar, to come up with this plan. Let someone else write the tweets, someone with fanatical allegiance to Trump but perfectly ignorant of what is actually being talked about in the White House, and generally rather ignorant of Constitution, law, history and even details of the day's news stories. Let that person write the Tweets, and then Trump pretends in public that he's the dumbass who wrote them. It doesn't require genius to lie (it's mostly practice), and the easiest lie to tell is "I'm really stupid". Critics are very willing to believe that, they start out trying to prove it and all the fake-stupid interviewee has to do is avoid saying anything smart.


I think after all, Trump's twitter gimp is not Barron. It may be some other 11 year old, but not the son young enough to be Donald Trump's great-grandson. A good fraction of the ridicule that is currently directed at Trump (deservedly, if he really is the author of @realDonaldTrump tweets) would divert to the real author if that turns out to be someone else. Trump would not do that to his own son.

Well, that would explain this one from 2013: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 6112112640

[Thermodolia]

This is a crazy thought, it's not really serious but it's not just a joke either. I'll just throw it out there:

What if none of @realDonaldTrump's tweets are actually from him? What if they are all from his 11 year old son Barron Trump?

Maybe not exactly that, but seriously a lot of what we think we know about Trump's thinking and intentions comes from his Twitter feed. Those statements from his Twitter account often contradict actions and statements from Trump's administration, and from Trump himself, but note: Trump in interviews and public statements follows and supports what @realDonaldTrump wrote. His poor staff are strewn about before and behind, they're dumped on by twitter or called on to try to spin the dumb twitter opinions after the fact. But Donald Trump himself always follows and stands by what @realDonaldTrump wrote. Donald Trump gets dumped on (contradicted and refuted) by his own Twitter, but he never dumps on it.

The effect of the @realDonaldTrump twitter is to massively distract critics of the Administration from what the Administration actually does or is thinking of doing, setting those critics up for irrelevancy if it later turns out the twitter account was ... well, bogus. Lies. Chickenfeed for a mainstream media too chicken to dig deeper, and too lazy to reach for anything but the low hanging fruit offered. The cost to Donald Trump's own credibility that he sometimes, vaguely and with all the appearance of lying backed up in spoken words what @realDonaldTrump wrote ... that cost might be worth paying, if Trump later emerges as a deep strategic thinker who just lied to everyone for a while, to deceive the enemies of America.

The real President Trump wouldn't need to be much better than (what we believe is) President Trump, for that to work. It just takes a clean break, a dramatic turn of events lead by Trump (say, invasion of the DPRK) and the announcement that all that Twitter nonsense and nonsense vaguely worded by Trump himself in interviews and public statements, was all just misdirection aimed at America's enemies. The original Trumpists would be gratified, the Republican party would be terrified, and Democrats and most of the media who paid so much attention to the Tweets would be humiliated and rendered nearly irrelevant in whatever criticisms they have of what President Trump does then.

Wouldn't it take a genius to deceive the people the media and the congress so thoroughly? No, it wouldn't. It would require only the low cunning of a career liar, to come up with this plan. Let someone else write the tweets, someone with fanatical allegiance to Trump but perfectly ignorant of what is actually being talked about in the White House, and generally rather ignorant of Constitution, law, history and even details of the day's news stories. Let that person write the Tweets, and then Trump pretends in public that he's the dumbass who wrote them. It doesn't require genius to lie (it's mostly practice), and the easiest lie to tell is "I'm really stupid". Critics are very willing to believe that, they start out trying to prove it and all the fake-stupid interviewee has to do is avoid saying anything smart.


I think after all, Trump's twitter gimp is not Barron. It may be some other 11 year old, but not the son young enough to be Donald Trump's great-grandson. A good fraction of the ridicule that is currently directed at Trump (deservedly, if he really is the author of @realDonaldTrump tweets) would divert to the real author if that turns out to be someone else. Trump would not do that to his own son.

I don't think that Trump is that cunning to come up with that. His ego is way way to big to do that.

[Gauthier]

This is a crazy thought, it's not really serious but it's not just a joke either. I'll just throw it out there:

What if none of @realDonaldTrump's tweets are actually from him? What if they are all from his 11 year old son Barron Trump?

Maybe not exactly that, but seriously a lot of what we think we know about Trump's thinking and intentions comes from his Twitter feed. Those statements from his Twitter account often contradict actions and statements from Trump's administration, and from Trump himself, but note: Trump in interviews and public statements follows and supports what @realDonaldTrump wrote. His poor staff are strewn about before and behind, they're dumped on by twitter or called on to try to spin the dumb twitter opinions after the fact. But Donald Trump himself always follows and stands by what @realDonaldTrump wrote. Donald Trump gets dumped on (contradicted and refuted) by his own Twitter, but he never dumps on it.

The effect of the @realDonaldTrump twitter is to massively distract critics of the Administration from what the Administration actually does or is thinking of doing, setting those critics up for irrelevancy if it later turns out the twitter account was ... well, bogus. Lies. Chickenfeed for a mainstream media too chicken to dig deeper, and too lazy to reach for anything but the low hanging fruit offered. The cost to Donald Trump's own credibility that he sometimes, vaguely and with all the appearance of lying backed up in spoken words what @realDonaldTrump wrote ... that cost might be worth paying, if Trump later emerges as a deep strategic thinker who just lied to everyone for a while, to deceive the enemies of America.

The real President Trump wouldn't need to be much better than (what we believe is) President Trump, for that to work. It just takes a clean break, a dramatic turn of events lead by Trump (say, invasion of the DPRK) and the announcement that all that Twitter nonsense and nonsense vaguely worded by Trump himself in interviews and public statements, was all just misdirection aimed at America's enemies. The original Trumpists would be gratified, the Republican party would be terrified, and Democrats and most of the media who paid so much attention to the Tweets would be humiliated and rendered nearly irrelevant in whatever criticisms they have of what President Trump does then.

Wouldn't it take a genius to deceive the people the media and the congress so thoroughly? No, it wouldn't. It would require only the low cunning of a career liar, to come up with this plan. Let someone else write the tweets, someone with fanatical allegiance to Trump but perfectly ignorant of what is actually being talked about in the White House, and generally rather ignorant of Constitution, law, history and even details of the day's news stories. Let that person write the Tweets, and then Trump pretends in public that he's the dumbass who wrote them. It doesn't require genius to lie (it's mostly practice), and the easiest lie to tell is "I'm really stupid". Critics are very willing to believe that, they start out trying to prove it and all the fake-stupid interviewee has to do is avoid saying anything smart.


I think after all, Trump's twitter gimp is not Barron. It may be some other 11 year old, but not the son young enough to be Donald Trump's great-grandson. A good fraction of the ridicule that is currently directed at Trump (deservedly, if he really is the author of @realDonaldTrump tweets) would divert to the real author if that turns out to be someone else. Trump would not do that to his own son.

I don't think that Trump is that cunning to come up with that. His ego is way way to big to do that.

Attributing hidden depth and cleverness to the manbaby who managed to bankrupt casinos is personality cult worship one expects of the Kim family.

[Proctopeo]

This is a crazy thought, it's not really serious but it's not just a joke either. I'll just throw it out there:

What if none of @realDonaldTrump's tweets are actually from him? What if they are all from his 11 year old son Barron Trump?

Maybe not exactly that, but seriously a lot of what we think we know about Trump's thinking and intentions comes from his Twitter feed. Those statements from his Twitter account often contradict actions and statements from Trump's administration, and from Trump himself, but note: Trump in interviews and public statements follows and supports what @realDonaldTrump wrote. His poor staff are strewn about before and behind, they're dumped on by twitter or called on to try to spin the dumb twitter opinions after the fact. But Donald Trump himself always follows and stands by what @realDonaldTrump wrote. Donald Trump gets dumped on (contradicted and refuted) by his own Twitter, but he never dumps on it.

The effect of the @realDonaldTrump twitter is to massively distract critics of the Administration from what the Administration actually does or is thinking of doing, setting those critics up for irrelevancy if it later turns out the twitter account was ... well, bogus. Lies. Chickenfeed for a mainstream media too chicken to dig deeper, and too lazy to reach for anything but the low hanging fruit offered. The cost to Donald Trump's own credibility that he sometimes, vaguely and with all the appearance of lying backed up in spoken words what @realDonaldTrump wrote ... that cost might be worth paying, if Trump later emerges as a deep strategic thinker who just lied to everyone for a while, to deceive the enemies of America.

The real President Trump wouldn't need to be much better than (what we believe is) President Trump, for that to work. It just takes a clean break, a dramatic turn of events lead by Trump (say, invasion of the DPRK) and the announcement that all that Twitter nonsense and nonsense vaguely worded by Trump himself in interviews and public statements, was all just misdirection aimed at America's enemies. The original Trumpists would be gratified, the Republican party would be terrified, and Democrats and most of the media who paid so much attention to the Tweets would be humiliated and rendered nearly irrelevant in whatever criticisms they have of what President Trump does then.

Wouldn't it take a genius to deceive the people the media and the congress so thoroughly? No, it wouldn't. It would require only the low cunning of a career liar, to come up with this plan. Let someone else write the tweets, someone with fanatical allegiance to Trump but perfectly ignorant of what is actually being talked about in the White House, and generally rather ignorant of Constitution, law, history and even details of the day's news stories. Let that person write the Tweets, and then Trump pretends in public that he's the dumbass who wrote them. It doesn't require genius to lie (it's mostly practice), and the easiest lie to tell is "I'm really stupid". Critics are very willing to believe that, they start out trying to prove it and all the fake-stupid interviewee has to do is avoid saying anything smart.


I think after all, Trump's twitter gimp is not Barron. It may be some other 11 year old, but not the son young enough to be Donald Trump's great-grandson. A good fraction of the ridicule that is currently directed at Trump (deservedly, if he really is the author of @realDonaldTrump tweets) would divert to the real author if that turns out to be someone else. Trump would not do that to his own son.

I see him as unpredictable enough for this to be true.

[Zanera]

Although I can see how it might have been obligatory (I think that scene is famous?), they could have went with something metaphorical or further applied to our time, like his sudden impeachment and removal from office, both Republicans and Democrats striking the great Julius Trump down or something. With Scalise and the shooting the assassination seems more real.

Or they could perform the play in accordance in the usual manner and if anyone gets butthurt about it that's their problem.

DT is a real living political figure, and with a general feeling of hostility between both Democrats and Republicans and the shooting of Scalise, it would have been best to apply a modern version of 'assassination' of the president like removal from office. Make it more metaphorical untowards the original and more applicative to modern times, since we are a little more opposed to getting rid of leaders via stabbing them to death these days.

The plot thickens over the hecklers thing.

Tl;dr version: paid protests are a demonstrable thing on the right.

Are you relying on some other information besides that linked, to assert that Loomer was paid?

Manufactured news, yes. Astroturfing, yes. Paid protest?

"I'll pay someone $1000 to disrupt this" isn't paid protest?

Do you have legitimate news sources that investigated it themselves and said it was fake instead of a picture and a couple of conspiracy theorists on Twitter?

#satire: New Floor Added To White House To Accommodate Everyone’s Lawyers

Labeling it clearly as satire spoils the fun.

I think with all the jokes on here about a never-ending stream of hiring lawyers for lawyers for people in the White House, and the precedent with some of the satire you've already been posting, it was already kinda obvious it was satire. :/

[Gauthier]

Or they could perform the play in accordance in the usual manner and if anyone gets butthurt about it that's their problem.

DT is a real living political figure, and with a general feeling of hostility between both Democrats and Republicans and the shooting of Scalise, it would have been best to apply a modern version of 'assassination' of the president like removal from office. Make it more metaphorical untowards the original and more applicative to modern times, since we are a little more opposed to getting rid of leaders via stabbing them to death these days.

So Political Correctness For Me, But Not For Thee.

[Eol Sha]

Or they could perform the play in accordance in the usual manner and if anyone gets butthurt about it that's their problem.

DT is a real living political figure, and with a general feeling of hostility between both Democrats and Republicans and the shooting of Scalise, it would have been best to apply a modern version of 'assassination' of the president like removal from office. Make it more metaphorical untowards the original and more applicative to modern times, since we are a little more opposed to getting rid of leaders via stabbing them to death these days.

This is just silly. The company did the same thing with an Obama-like figure in 2012. And that was after Gabby Giffords was shot in Tuscon the year before.

[Astrolinium]

Or they could perform the play in accordance in the usual manner and if anyone gets butthurt about it that's their problem.

DT is a real living political figure, and with a general feeling of hostility between both Democrats and Republicans and the shooting of Scalise, it would have been best to apply a modern version of 'assassination' of the president like removal from office. Make it more metaphorical untowards the original and more applicative to modern times, since we are a little more opposed to getting rid of leaders via stabbing them to death these days.

I'm assuming you haven't read or seen Julius Caesar before, or you might know that it is a pretty pro-Caesar, anti-assassination play. It's The Tragedy of Julius Caesar for a reason. It's about Brutus's fall from righteousness through his participation as one of the assassins, which ultimately leads to his downfall.

[Great Nepal]

DT is a real living political figure, and with a general feeling of hostility between both Democrats and Republicans and the shooting of Scalise, it would have been best to apply a modern version of 'assassination' of the president like removal from office. Make it more metaphorical untowards the original and more applicative to modern times, since we are a little more opposed to getting rid of leaders via stabbing them to death these days.

This is just silly. The company did the same thing with an Obama-like figure in 2012. And that was after Gabby Giffords was shot in Tuscon the year before.

I mean clearly the right is just bunch of butthutt special snowflakes who need space spaces from the evul and mean lefties and their historical reenactments, and who actually want to destroy history because of their hurt feelings.

[Zanera]

DT is a real living political figure, and with a general feeling of hostility between both Democrats and Republicans and the shooting of Scalise, it would have been best to apply a modern version of 'assassination' of the president like removal from office. Make it more metaphorical untowards the original and more applicative to modern times, since we are a little more opposed to getting rid of leaders via stabbing them to death these days.

This is just silly. The company did the same thing with an Obama-like figure in 2012. And that was after Gabby Giffords was shot in Tuscon the year before.

They're just being awfully, awfully rude then.

[Eol Sha]

This is just silly. The company did the same thing with an Obama-like figure in 2012. And that was after Gabby Giffords was shot in Tuscon the year before.

They're just being awfully, awfully rude then.

I'm not sure how.

[Eol Sha]

This is just silly. The company did the same thing with an Obama-like figure in 2012. And that was after Gabby Giffords was shot in Tuscon the year before.

I mean clearly the right is just bunch of butthutt special snowflakes who need space spaces from the evul and mean lefties and their historical reenactments, and who actually want to destroy history because of their hurt feelings.

I wouldn't consider this a historical reenactment. It's a bloody play.

That said, I'm inclined to believe you.

[Valrifell]

DT is a real living political figure, and with a general feeling of hostility between both Democrats and Republicans and the shooting of Scalise, it would have been best to apply a modern version of 'assassination' of the president like removal from office. Make it more metaphorical untowards the original and more applicative to modern times, since we are a little more opposed to getting rid of leaders via stabbing them to death these days.

I'm assuming you haven't read or seen Julius Caesar before, or you might know that it is a pretty pro-Caesar, anti-assassination play. It's The Tragedy of Julius Caesar for a reason. It's about Brutus's fall from righteousness through his participation as one of the assassins, which ultimately leads to his downfall.

If you cut out the assassination, the whole rest of the play would literally make no sense.

[Zanera]

They're just being awfully, awfully rude then.

I'm not sure how.

The Wiki for the Tuscon Shooting only mentions an obsession for Gabbard and no real partisanship hate. The Scalise shooter was kind of off, but his political activism is mentioned. Either way, it seems in bad taste to carry on with the assassination scene after those. It might be about the downfall of Brutus like Astro said, but someone might take it as lending legitimacy to their thoughts or something like that. If they were going for a modern setting, they could have Pence helping to take down Trump along with Congress or something.

They can do whatever with their play though, like Hebdo can keep doing whatever he does with his magazine.

[Maineiacs]

This sort of thing is hardly new. Back in the '60s, there was a play titled MacBird; a parody, of course, of the Scottish Play, which implicated LBJ in the JFK assassination.

[Major-Tom]

This sort of thing is hardly new. Back in the '60s, there was a play titled MacBird; a parody, of course, of the Scottish Play, which implicated LBJ in the JFK assassination.

A lot of people still believe LBJ had something to do with it. There's so many books and "documentaries" about the JFK assassination, all of which claim to be objective and written by people with insider knowledge, you almost don't know what to believe and drown all that noise out.