MAGAThread XVI: Raising the Barr

[Miami Shores]

lol, President Trump uses bad language against the Democrats and the Democrats use bad language against President Trump and the Republicans, on one of my previous posts to San Lumen, I posted, I have seen videos of Democrats trashing President Trump and the Republicans to their leftist base, way before this Democrat political impeachment attempt against Donnie, I will post it on this thread if I find the link again, one of the speakers was Bernie Sanders and other Democrats.

I have stated on this thread before, both sides do it, both sides play politics, and I get put down and made fun of for stating this comment, as if the Democrats aren't political against Donnie and the Republicans.

Their are Republican talking points and Democrat talking points.

You can note whatever so called hypocrisy you want and dismiss whatever you want, it does not bother me, how many times do I have to post it, read my main nations sigs.

Do you have a response to criticism that isn't just BUT BOTH SIDES ARE EQUALLY BAD?

You are one of my fellow nations that keep putting down my arguments that both sides are equally bad, that both sides are political against the other side, that the Democrat impeachment attempt against Donnie is political lol, and I strongly disagree with you on those points, but I respect your right to post it over and over again any time you wish.

If I have called any fellow nations Democrats and they are not Democrats, I apologize for not knowing it, but they are anti Trumpers, no matter what they call themselves, reflected on their anti Trump posts, which they have a right too.

I admit, I Proudly consider myself President Donnie Trump's strongest supporter and defender on NS, and I will never apologize to anyone for doing so.

[Ifreann]

There is a certain charm to having reached the point where defenders of the administration have to resort to 'we meant to do that' like a cat trying to walk off failing to jump on the dresser.

More likely it's just another democrat organized leak.

Doubt it's Democrat organised. I'd expect it to be someone in the White House acting of their own volition.

[Cannot think of a name]

Because Breitbart would never spin an event to fit a narrative at all.

It looks like you missed the non-Breitbart links in that one.

Fair, and source wanking is one of the biggest wastes of time in these threads. Perhaps they could have addressed how this was not really a response to the post this one quoted, or just a random attempt to make a hard steer to ask "what about these guys, huh?"

Which, to look at both sources in the first instance, the unfortunate event of a Trump supporter being spat on during an interview...they both contain video and seem to retain the context. That sucks and not the way someone should behave. Something other protesters there seemed to agree with. From Vice:

Two other protestors who were not the perpetrator apologized to Carlson.

From Brietbart:

The Vice News reporter reacted in shock while another protester apologized for what happened as Carlson wiped the spit off of his face.

A second protester approached him to explain why it happened: “That’s not how people really feel; that’s f*cking disrespectful, but on the other hand, that shit is disrespectful as f*ck that too,” he said, pointing to Carlson’s hat.

This, one could argue, is a key difference. Any large group, especially an emotional one, will have people who take things too far. The thing is, how the rest of the group reacts is a measure of what, exactly, they consider 'too far.' In this case, those around him considering spitting too far, even the guy who considers the hat disrespectful thinks spitting is too far. The relevant person to this thread, Donald Trump, does not consider physical action against those who protest 'too far.' He has offered to pay the legal expenses of people who would attack protesters. He defended people who have had altercations including his own staff. None of that becomes okay because some rando spit on a dude while two other protestors stepped up to say that wasn't okay. They didn't say, "Well, there was this conservative who did this bad thing somewhere else, so you getting spit in the face was okay." They didn't go, "Yeah, but protestors got assaulted at this other event in this video, so you deserve spit in your face." They apologized. It's a striking difference.

The other is a string of Twitter videos in which I have to rely on their selection of videos and the twitter accounts to provide the context, but let's take them at face value, because it is not beyond my comprehension that again, people would behave badly. It is not okay. Police brutality and long standing policy that has unfairly targeted minorities and poor people are serious issues and protest brings these issues forward and they are muddled when you cross the line from protest to assault. Disagree. Loudly, inconveniently. But don't assault. It does not solve or even avenge the deaths, injuries, and loses at the hands of police to vulnerable communities. If the events are as characterized they're not okay. They are also not endorsed. There is no candidate in the mainstream that is encouraging violent action. Now, you're probably rushing to source the candidates and figures that have said that certain figures should not be comfortable in public, that you can yell at them in restaurants etc. Personally I'm not super into that idea either, but at the same time it's not an invitation to assault. It is not letting a public figure whose policies do not have office hours in the effects they have on people to not get the luxury of office hours themselves.

Though, again...none of this has to do with Trump. A candidate criticizing Trump is not license to spit on a supporter, something other protesters at the event agree with. A protester spitting on a supporter is not justification nor vindication for any of the behavior of Trump or his supporters.

So even if we didn't play the source dance, the entire post is a waste of time.

[Cannot think of a name]

There is a certain charm to having reached the point where defenders of the administration have to resort to 'we meant to do that' like a cat trying to walk off failing to jump on the dresser.

More likely it's just another democrat organized leak.

The Democrats organized a way to have the Republicans send them their talking points?

[Zurkerx]

Is it an accident? Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Thrice is enemy action. This happens again and I'd say that these are deliberate leaks, not mistakes. Someone in the White House trying to give Democrats a heads-up for some reason.

It will be amusing if the White House got rid of the potential leaker only for his or her replacement to leak the next White House talking points to the Democrats.

That's if they can figure out the leaker(s). After all, Trump claims to hire the best people. Not to mention too, the Court setbacks and staff resigning is putting his administration off track, and him becoming a much more angrier, unpredictable, isolated man. His two rallies demonstrate.

[Aclion]

More likely it's just another democrat organized leak.

The Democrats organized a way to have the Republicans send them their talking points?

You do understand that white house staff aren't all from the president's party right?

[Wallenburg]

Back on topic.

You can't make this up.

White House accidentally sends Ukraine talking points to Democrats again

The "evil or stupid" coin has landed back on stupid. Someone in the comms department is really screwing up.

The Democrats organized a way to have the Republicans send them their talking points?

You do understand that white house staff aren't all from the president's party right?

If it's White House staff, rather than campaign staff, sending those emails at all sounds to me like another item for impeachment. Government resources are not to be used to prop up incumbent campaigns.

[Ifreann]

The Democrats organized a way to have the Republicans send them their talking points?

You do understand that white house staff aren't all from the president's party right?

You do understand that White House staff can "accidentally" CC Democrats on an email without that being organised by anyone but the person responsible, right?

[Cannot think of a name]

It will be amusing if the White House got rid of the potential leaker only for his or her replacement to leak the next White House talking points to the Democrats.

That's if they can figure out the leaker(s). After all, Trump claims to hire the best people. Not to mention too, the Court setbacks and staff resigning is putting his administration off track, and him becoming a much more angrier, unpredictable, isolated man. His two rallies demonstrate.

Just yesterday...one day, he lost five judgements in court. Just to have five different cases going at once might be considered enough, but he lost five judgements in one day. He lost an appeal to resist a subpoena from the House on his tax returns and then in four different states his immigration limits from requirements to funding his vanity wall project all were ruled against in one way or another. And the guy in charge of all that resigned. All while someone was testifying in front of the house on his haphazard foreign policy actions.

And that's just one day. One day.

[Cannot think of a name]

The Democrats organized a way to have the Republicans send them their talking points?

You do understand that white house staff aren't all from the president's party right?

So then the argument is that they're so poorly organized that they didn't think to have someone in the party send out an email to party members about talking points for the party?

We're back to that cat walking off failing to jump on a dresser. The defense paints a more incompetent picture of the administration than the actual event.

[Zurkerx]

That's if they can figure out the leaker(s). After all, Trump claims to hire the best people. Not to mention too, the Court setbacks and staff resigning is putting his administration off track, and him becoming a much more angrier, unpredictable, isolated man. His two rallies demonstrate.

Just yesterday...one day, he lost five judgements in court. Just to have five different cases going at once might be considered enough, but he lost five judgements in one day. He lost an appeal to resist a subpoena from the House on his tax returns and then in four different states his immigration limits from requirements to funding his vanity wall project all were ruled against in one way or another. And the guy in charge of all that resigned. All while someone was testifying in front of the house on his haphazard foreign policy actions.

And that's just one day. One day.

Indubitably. Trump's stone wall is starting to crumbling (just like how I believe it will). However, they're trying to stall time in hopes the public gets tired of all the investigations; they succeeded somewhat in doing that in regards to the Mueller Investigation. Yet, I feel this Ukraine issue has a lot more teeth to it and them stalling (and the drip, drip, drip) will make his defense more improbable.

You do understand that white house staff aren't all from the president's party right?

So then the argument is that they're so poorly organized that they didn't think to have someone in the party send out an email to party members about talking points for the party?

We're back to that cat walking off failing to jump on a dresser. The defense paints a more incompetent picture of the administration than the actual event.

It's likely both incompetence and someone leaking: they're too dumb to figure out who's leaking.

[Aclion]

You do understand that white house staff aren't all from the president's party right?

You do understand that White House staff can "accidentally" CC Democrats on an email without that being organised by anyone but the person responsible, right?

True, but from what's happened so far it's not unfair to expect Schiff's involved it. He seems to be the handler with most leaks.

[Vassenor]

You do understand that White House staff can "accidentally" CC Democrats on an email without that being organised by anyone but the person responsible, right?

True, but from what's happened so far it's not unfair to expect Schiff's involved it. He seems to be the handler with most leaks.

And your evidence in support of this conclusion is?

Beyond "I want him to be responsible", I mean.

[Stamp Out Trump]

That's if they can figure out the leaker(s). After all, Trump claims to hire the best people. Not to mention too, the Court setbacks and staff resigning is putting his administration off track, and him becoming a much more angrier, unpredictable, isolated man. His two rallies demonstrate.

Just yesterday...one day, he lost five judgements in court. Just to have five different cases going at once might be considered enough, but he lost five judgements in one day. He lost an appeal to resist a subpoena from the House on his tax returns and then in four different states his immigration limits from requirements to funding his vanity wall project all were ruled against in one way or another. And the guy in charge of all that resigned. All while someone was testifying in front of the house on his haphazard foreign policy actions.

And that's just one day. One day.

If his presidency was a plane, it would arguably be in a death spiral. There's not that much time left to hit the seat ejection button.

[Cannot think of a name]

You do understand that White House staff can "accidentally" CC Democrats on an email without that being organised by anyone but the person responsible, right?

True, but from what's happened so far it's not unfair to expect Schiff's involved it. He seems to be the handler with most leaks.

So...Schiff, a member of the House and chair of the Intelligence committee somehow managed to arrange to have the white house accidentally send out the Republican talking points? And not, at this level of contrivance and conspiracy, just have them? Because...they're just talking points, not the Pentagon papers. They don't really have to come up with an elaborate excuse to have come across them. This is really convoluted to cover for someone just hitting the wrong group e-mail tab.

[Vassenor]

True, but from what's happened so far it's not unfair to expect Schiff's involved it. He seems to be the handler with most leaks.

So...Schiff, a member of the House and chair of the Intelligence committee somehow managed to arrange to have the white house accidentally send out the Republican talking points? And not, at this level of contrivance and conspiracy, just have them? Because...they're just talking points, not the Pentagon papers. They don't really have to come up with an elaborate excuse to have come across them. This is really convoluted to cover for someone just hitting the wrong group e-mail tab.

But it's got to be his fault somehow.

[Stamp Out Trump]

So...Schiff, a member of the House and chair of the Intelligence committee somehow managed to arrange to have the white house accidentally send out the Republican talking points? And not, at this level of contrivance and conspiracy, just have them? Because...they're just talking points, not the Pentagon papers. They don't really have to come up with an elaborate excuse to have come across them. This is really convoluted to cover for someone just hitting the wrong group e-mail tab.

But it's got to be his fault somehow.

Of course!
And when Trump sees Liz Warren is beating his ass by ten points nationally - he'll probably blame The Warren Commission's Report failings upon her. She didn't mention Ted Cruz father 's involvement.

[Olde Carolina]

Having some random dude from nationstates be secretary of homeland security couldn't be any crazier than what we currently have lol

MiamiShores, I keep reading that you are against illegal immigration and people who break laws, and many of us can sympathize with that.... but do you understand that this administration doesn't want to just cut illegal immigration but also wants to cut legal immigration, which you benefitted from?

This administration has gone far beyond cutting illegal immigration, with the Muslim travel ban, cutting foreign aid, putting children in cages, stopping Soldiers who fought for America from becoming citizens, stating that he would prefer immigrants from Sweden over Haiti, and keeping dreamers in legal purgatory.

That last point is particularly important to me. I have a few friends who were brought here as babies, they do not remember Mexico, they have no contact with anyone in Mexico, they did not decide to come here but they grew up as American as I am and he wants to spend your and my taxpayer dollars to kick them out of the country. That is evil.

[Aclion]

True, but from what's happened so far it's not unfair to expect Schiff's involved it. He seems to be the handler with most leaks.

And your evidence in support of this conclusion is?

Beyond "I want him to be responsible", I mean.

Not a conclusion, simply an expectation, and I base this on the fact that he was involved in the orginal leak and has reason to want to know how the Republicans will defend Trump

[Vassenor]

And your evidence in support of this conclusion is?

Beyond "I want him to be responsible", I mean.

Not a conclusion, simply an expectation, and I base this on the fact that he was involved in the orginal leak and has reason to want to know how the Republicans will defend Trump

>he was involved in the original leak

[citation needed]

[Juristonia]

And your evidence in support of this conclusion is?

Beyond "I want him to be responsible", I mean.

Not a conclusion, simply an expectation, and I base this on the fact that he was involved in the orginal leak and has reason to want to know how the Republicans will defend Trump

There's an amount of wishful thinking going on here that is downright impressive.

[Ifreann]

You do understand that White House staff can "accidentally" CC Democrats on an email without that being organised by anyone but the person responsible, right?

True, but from what's happened so far it's not unfair to expect Schiff's involved it. He seems to be the handler with most leaks.

Do you have any basis for this belief beyond Trump being mad at Adam Schiff?

[Aclion]

Not a conclusion, simply an expectation, and I base this on the fact that he was involved in the orginal leak and has reason to want to know how the Republicans will defend Trump

>he was involved in the original leak

[citation needed]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/p ... lower.html

[Ifreann]

>he was involved in the original leak

[citation needed]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/p ... lower.html

That's not a leak.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

And your evidence in support of this conclusion is?

Beyond "I want him to be responsible", I mean.

Not a conclusion, simply an expectation, and I base this on the fact that he was involved in the orginal leak and has reason to want to know how the Republicans will defend Trump

Are you trying to convince us or just yourself? Because we apparently have extremely different standards of evidence.