Impeachment Hearings

[GMDino]

(12-06-2019, 11:06 AM)Au165 Wrote: It's the same as most people who want kids to be tougher today, but when their kid gets beat up or bullied they lose their shit and show up at school ready to beat the other kid up. In reality, most people's views on things change as soon as it includes their own family. It's like the story I read the other day about a lady who was a conservative who viewed paternal leave as a hand out...until she had kids and realized their family is barely getting by and now views it as a necessity.

Just for giggles:

Wanna know where the name Barron (probably) came from? 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/trumps-history-of-lying-from-john-barron-to-realdonaldtrump

Quote:
It’s a big week for John Barron. On Monday night, Barron accompanied Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, to Mt. Vernon, the country estate of America’s first President. On Tuesday evening, Barron will preside over his first state dinner at the White House. And he will use his real name: Donald Trump.


Trump hasn’t availed himself of the alias John Barron in years. But thirty-four years ago, in 1984, things were different. That May, Trump claimed to be Barron, a fictional official with the Trump Organization, in a phone call with Jonathan Greenberg, a young researcher at Forbes, who was working on the magazine’s annual ranking of the four hundred richest people in America. Two years earlier, Trump had made it onto the Forbes list for the first time, with an estimated fortune of a hundred million dollars. In an effort to get himself moved up, Trump, speaking as Barron, insisted that he was worth at least nine hundred million dollars, and probably much more, because he had recently inherited the bulk of the real-estate fortune of his father, Fred. “Most of the assets have been consolidated to Mr. Trump,” Barron told Greenberg. “You have down Fred Trump . . . but I think you can really use Donald Trump now.”


As Greenberg recounted in a piece in the Washington Post a few days ago, practically everything about this phone call was phony. Fred Trump kept hold of his real-estate empire until he died, in 1999, and in his will he divided it up among his four surviving children and some grandchildren. In 1984, far from being a billionaire, Donald Trump was worth less than a hundred million dollars. Probably much less: Greenberg now says he shouldn’t have been on the Forbes list at all. “When I recently rediscovered and listened, for first time since that year, to the tapes I made of this and other phone calls, I was amazed that I didn’t see through the ruse,” Greenberg wrote. “Although Trump altered some cadences and affected a slightly stronger New York accent, it was clearly him.”

At practically any other time in American history, public confirmation that the occupant of the Oval Office is a serial con man who lied, schemed, and impersonated his way to public prominence would have dominated the news for weeks. These days, though, the media is virtually overwhelmed by the sheer number of Trump stories. When Greenberg’s article appeared, on Friday, it had to compete with the latest developments involving the former F.B.I. director James Comey, the Trump associate Michael Cohen, the former F.B.I. official Andrew McCabe, and North Korea. Although a few cable news shows and commentators did pick up on Greenberg’s piece, the burst of interest didn’t last long.

More about the liar at the link.

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2019, 11:06 AM)Au165 Wrote: It's the same as most people who want kids to be tougher today, but when their kid gets beat up or bullied they lose their shit and show up at school ready to beat the other kid up. In reality, most people's views on things change as soon as it includes their own family. It's like the story I read the other day about a lady who was a conservative who viewed paternal leave as a hand out...until she had kids and realized their family is barely getting by and now views it as a necessity.

I do not condone children being bullied or used as a prop for political purposes; regardless who they belong to.

It has 0 to do with how bad of people Donald and Melania Trump are.

The Professor shouldn't have drug him into the conversation and doing so showed a pettiness that distracts from her testimony. Hell, most debating me on that matter, they just accept it in this instance because of their disdain for the Trump family.

[GMDino]

(12-06-2019, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not condone children being bullied or used as a prop for political purposes; regardless who they belong to.

It has 0 to do with how bad of people Donald and Melania Trump are.

The Professor shouldn't have drug him into the conversation and doing so showed a pettiness that distracts from her testimony. Hell, most debating me on that matter, they just accept it in this instance because of their disdain for the Trump family.

LMAO!

One person made a play on words that was not disparaging one bit to the boy and you have spent over 24 hours beating your breast and gnashing your teeth over this because (in your opinion) people aren't as outraged as you because of their"disdain" for Trump...but you don't want children being used as a prop for political purposes.

A room full of script writers (probably) couldn't come up with a less believable character.

[fredtoast]

(12-05-2019, 10:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this that much frowned upon "whataboutisim"? 

Actually, no.

"Whataboutism" has to do with dimishing one person's mistake by saying someone else did the same.

In this case he is comparing the actions of one person in two different situations.  

So this is about "hypocrisy" instead of "whataboutism".

You do agree it is okay to point out when someone is a hypocrit don't you?

[fredtoast]

(12-06-2019, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not condone children being bullied or used as a prop for political purposes; regardless who they belong to.

Poor poor little Barron.  How will he ever recover from hearing that his name is "Barron"?

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2019, 11:41 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually, no.

"Whataboutism" has to do with dimishing one person's mistake by saying someone else did the same.

In this case he is comparing the actions of one person in two different situations.  

So this is about "hypocrisy" instead of "whataboutism".

You do agree it is okay to point out when someone is a hypocrit don't you?

Admittedly I have a hard time keeping up with the rules. I consider whataboutisim to be when someone introduces  another subject unrelated to the first. For instance what about Melania's reaction to Greta. Of course the main purpose of whataboutisim is to expose hypocrisy.

As to the referenced case: Are we suggesting they are the same? Didn't Greta freely make herself the subject; while Barron was brought in without doing anything other than having a name? Not sure I view the situations to be the same; therefore a poor example of hypocrisy. How was Trump going to leave Greta out of the conversation if he wanted to address it**


**Disclaimer: The words trump used when refering to greta were unacceptable, but I'm hoping some can understand the point.

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2019, 11:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: LMAO!

One person made a play on words that was not disparaging one bit to the boy and you have spent over 24 hours beating your breast and gnashing your teeth over this because (in your opinion) people aren't as outraged as you because of their"disdain" for Trump...but you don't want children being used as a prop for political purposes.

A room full of script writers (probably) couldn't come up with a less believable character.

This is a tactic used to sooth cognitive dissonance. You accuse another of "over-reacting" to a situation to sooth your decision to ignore/accept it.

If by over-react you mean: I should have not brought it up; then guilty as charged; however, I found it to be in poor taste.

I could care less what you find to be believable in my character; however, it has never wavered when it comes to using children.

[GMDino]

(12-06-2019, 12:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is a tactic used to sooth cognitive dissonance. You accuse another of "over-reacting" to a situation to sooth your decision to ignore/accept it.

If by over-react you mean: I should have not brought it up; then guilty as charged; however, I found it to be in poor taste.

I could care less what you find to be believable in my character; however, it has never wavered when it comes to using children.

Good to know you have room to care less because you continue to use Baron as a political shield in this thread.

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2019, 12:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: Good to know you have room to care less because you continue to use Baron as a political shield in this thread.

It's not like I'm responding to myself. I'll add you to Hollo in the opinion of it's the Left's fault that the professor introduced Barron to the circus. All I said was she shouldn't have drug the child into the circus; others have spend numerous pages excusing it. We each must answer to ourselves and I'll choose the side of the child every time.

[GMDino]

[GMDino]

The Gang that couldn't Lie Straight still can't figure out what their defense is.

HOGAN GIDLEY TODAY: Trump "didn't press Zelensky on anything other than getting to the bottom of corruption in his country. We know that"

RUDY GIULIANI YESTERDAY: "The conversation about corruption in Ukraine was based on compelling evidence of criminal conduct by then VP Biden" pic.twitter.com/Vl3iyFitwx

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 6, 2019

 

[hollodero]

(12-06-2019, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The Professor shouldn't have drug him into the conversation and doing so showed a pettiness that distracts from her testimony.

Right, she shouldn't have. I for one acknowledge that, and even the professor herself acknowledged that. And apologized for it.

And again, this could have been the end of the story, no one would be hurt, Barron would be as fine as before. But the republicans jumped on it as an opportunity to distract. Or do you really think they were all so honestly aghast? I'd guess they rather want to distract from impeachment talk and rather use the old "the left is vile" talking point. THAT is using the boy as a political pawn and THAT is actually connecting it to hatred. The professor did not. They did.

So let's take an educated guess. What do you think is more disturbing for a boy. 1) Hearing his name in a testimony or 2) Afterwards being told by fake outraged republicans how this episode shows how much he and his whole family is hated. Hm?

(12-06-2019, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, most debating me on that matter, they just accept it in this instance because of their disdain for the Trump family.

(12-06-2019, 12:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is a tactic used to sooth cognitive dissonance. You accuse another of "over-reacting" to a situation to sooth your decision to ignore/accept it.

Yeah sure, we all are just amoebas who react to our primitive instincts. We hate Trump! We hate Trump! That is why we complain about his rhetorics while we "excuse" folks using Barron's name. It's not real, it's not because Trump actually insults people in the starkest terms while the professor did not insult anyone. It's because we are spiteful, cognitively dissonant people.

In fact though, I really am annoyed that you accuse me and others of disdain for the Trump family, including the not so veiled accusation that we feel disdain for Barron Trump. This is absurd. I have a certain amount of disdain for those of the Trump family that step into the spotlight and spout divisive nonsense, like the junior Donald does. Yet I have zero opinion about Barron or Tiffany or whatever family member there still is. So don't go there and don't accuse folks of disdain for the whole Trump family.

Apologies for now dragging Tiffany into it. My hatred knows no boundaries.

[Dill]

(12-06-2019, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not condone children being bullied or used as a prop for political purposes; regardless who they belong to.

It has 0 to do with how bad of people Donald and Melania Trump are.

The Professor shouldn't have drug him into the conversation and doing so showed a pettiness that distracts from her testimony. Hell, most debating me on that matter, they just accept it in this instance because of their disdain for the Trump family.

I don't think Barron was "bullied" in this case; perhaps he was a prop.

But I agree he should not have been mentioned at all, and that his mention indeed "showed a pettiness that distracts from her testimony."

First, because Barron would not understand why people were talking about him or his name, but he will surely hear that they are, and for hateful reasons. 

And second, because OF COURSE that remark is going to be all over Fox news and the other sons will reference it at rallies etc. It tremendously and unnecessarily diminished the chances of Trump base looking at the legal arguments for impeachment. (RushHannityTuckerSeanLaura-->That's what "the Left" does!)

PS Hollo is also right to suggest the resulting outrage was opportunistic, not rooted in some genuine ethical repugnance at the professor's behavior. We are talking about supporters of the President who mocks rape victims and disabled reporters, and is fine with separating toddlers from their parents and "losing" them. HUNDREDS of toddlers.

[hollodero]

(12-05-2019, 09:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What was Melania's response when Trump took to twitter to mock that 16 year old environmental activist?

The Barron comment was a bad attempt at a pun that wasn't at the expense of the child. She shouldn't have said it, but it wasn't mean spirited. Trump openly mocked a child on twitter.

(12-05-2019, 10:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this that much frowned upon "whataboutisim"? 

Ah, I overlooked that gem. No, as you certainly are actually well aware, this is not whataboutism. This is comparing the reaction of certain people to certain events to show how hypocritical they are and how sad it is how many people follow them into these hypocritical frenzys.

Take a FOX news host for example, utterly outraged over someone mentioning Barron's name. Shameful, despicable, new low, typical liberal... whatever. 
Then imagine the same person having nothing to say when Trump calls Greta a mentally ill child. (Or literally thousands of other examples.)

And voila, you have a blatant hypocrite. A deeply dishonest person. Or say a demagogue banking on his direct or indirect listeners gladly using every dubious reason offered to vilify the other team. Like good teammates. 
And as a reward they get a vindicated extorter-in-chief, a damaged country, a defiled WH, an Australian's siren's having the president's ear, lost reputation around the globe and possibly a third SC judge. I'd be cautious though, there's maybe only so many times Trump can be convinced to not choose Rudy.

[Belsnickel]

Ain't nothing like some virtue signalling to distract from hearings on corruption that is a threat to our democracy.

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2019, 08:12 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Barron was "bullied" in this case; perhaps he was a prop.

But I agree he should not have been mentioned at all, and that his mention indeed "showed a pettiness that distracts from her testimony."

First, because Barron would not understand why people were talking about him or his name, but he will surely hear that they are, and for hateful reasons. 

And second, because OF COURSE that remark is going to be all over Fox news and the other sons will reference it at rallies etc. It tremendously and unnecessarily diminished the chances of Trump base looking at the legal arguments for impeachment. (RushHannityTuckerSeanLaura-->That's what "the Left" does!)

PS Hollo is also right to suggest the resulting outrage was opportunistic, not rooted in some genuine ethical repugnance at the professor's behavior. We are talking about supporters of the President who mocks rape victims and disabled reporters, and is fine with separating toddlers from their parents and "losing" them. HUNDREDS of toddlers.

Rationale reply and I only used the term bullied because the poster I was responding to used the term.

Many of the other responses in this thread are troubling. I would hope we could be solidified in our condemnation of dragging the child into it. It has 0 to do with the merits of the case and I my case has 0 to do with "virtue signalling" (not that I'm sure what that is). The professor said something that should have been universally condemned, but it wasn't because of the father/mother of the target.

[*bfine32*]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

Quote:Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?") to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

What Pat quoted was textbook whataboutisim. He basically said Melania has no right to be upset about someone bringing her son into a situation because her husband commented on another child.

You guys are amazing. 

[Bengalzona]

(12-06-2019, 09:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ain't nothing like some virtue signalling to distract from hearings on corruption that is a threat to our democracy.

IMO

[hollodero]

(12-06-2019, 11:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

What Pat quoted was textbook whataboutisim. He basically said Melania has no right to be upset about someone bringing her son into a situation because her husband commented on another child.

You guys are amazing. 

Nah, that's not so much about attacking Melania, it's her child after all, that changes priorities. It's about obviously fake outrage by obviously hypocritical people that are not the mothers of Barron. 
History books will sure be full of praise for those that in these dire times so bravely defended Barron Trump against this vicious law professor while Trump possibly commited the probably way less significant offense of betraying his oath of office.

[*bfine32*]

(12-05-2019, 09:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What was Melania's response when Trump took to twitter to mock that 16 year old environmental activist?

(12-06-2019, 11:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Nah, that's not so much about attacking Melania, 

As I said

bfine32 Wrote:You guys are amazing