Just asking. I don't know.

[GMDino]

(12-11-2019, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He called FBI agents that openly showed bias against him scum; let's not bury the lead.

Of course he shouldn't have done it; it is beneath the station of POTUS. But if you want me to "clutch my pearls" over his remarks: Saying BS about Page and Strzok falls quite far down the list. I pretty sure the FBI said they embarrassed them.

The President of the United States told an outright LIE about a citizen.

At a political rally.

It doesn't matter if Trump doesn't like her because she had a text exchange during the election.

I realize it's just another piece of garbage piled on the dump that DJT has made the Oval Office but when the President attacks a private citizen with a provable LIE during a public appearance it is most CERTAINLY worth noting among all his other, daily lies.

(12-11-2019, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You and the OP find it worthy of a thread; however, no one else in this forum has posted on the subject. Suspended dude called out attacked the OP and got suspended; that's what I commented on.

You're wrong. We aren't to discuss such reasons but it wasn't just what was in this post I assume.

(12-11-2019, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You and Fred chose to comment on my comment. You can say it: The thread is trivial and worthy of ridicule given the source. 

The "source" is Trump and Twitter.

Again, this is beyond the pale what he is doing. To call it "trivial" speaks volumes.

[hollodero]

(12-11-2019, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He called FBI agents that openly showed bias against him scum; let's not bury the lead.

The investigation was yet again cleared from any bias. So there's that. They personally thought Trump is unfit and would be an awful president, as did half of the country. This really changes nothing. Why even bring that up?

(12-11-2019, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course he shouldn't have done it; it is beneath the station of POTUS. But if you want me to "clutch my pearls" over his remarks: Saying BS about Page and Strzok falls quite far down the list.

Yeah, I think it should not. Not just because it is character assassination and beneath the office, it is also used to rally up the masses against Trump's perceived foes, and this is actually dangerous.
This is Trump fomenting people against the FBI, because they (as it seems, rightfully) dared to investigate his campaign. By means like intimidating people like Lisa Page (also by many other, disturbing means). This looks just very wrong.

Yeah I very much want you to clutch your pearls and find it amazing that you don't. But I find it even more amazing that you scold those that do.

(12-11-2019, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I pretty sure the FBI said they embarrassed them.

So it's not quite that bad to call them scum and spread out an ugly rumor about them?
I say, that is irrelevant. Even when they thoroughly disliked candidate Trump and were dumb enough to text about it.

(12-11-2019, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You and the OP find it worthy of a thread; however, no one else in this forum has posted on the subject. Suspended dude called out attacked the OP and got suspended; that's what I commented on. You and Fred chose to comment on my comment. You can say it: The thread is trivial and worthy of ridicule given the source. 

Yeah, this is a childish line of argument and I won't participate in that one.

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2019, 11:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: The investigation was yet again cleared from any bias. So there's that. They personally thought Trump is unfit and would be an awful president, as did half of the country. This really changes nothing. Why even bring that up?



Yeah, I think it should not. Not just because it is character assassination and beneath the office, it is also used to rally up the masses against Trump's perceived foes, and this is actually dangerous.
This is Trump fomenting people against the FBI, because they (as it seems, rightfully) dared to investigate his campaign. By means like intimidating people like Lisa Page (also by many other, disturbing means). This looks just very wrong.

Yeah I very much want you to clutch your pearls and find it amazing that you don't. But I find it even more amazing that you scold those that do.



So it's not quite that bad to call them scum and spread out an ugly rumor about them?
I say, that is irrelevant. Even when they thoroughly disliked candidate Trump and were dumb enough to text about it.



Yeah, this is a childish line of argument and I won't participate in that one.

I don't understand why you don't want to participate in the worthiness of this thread but are more than willing to participate in reactions to it.

OP lost any benefit of objectivity when he decided to hearken back to the "windmills Thread" in the OP. His desire was to attack   call out those that didn't accuse Trump of "outfight lying" earlier. I thought you were not a fan of such tactic.

The FBI called them an embarrassment. Would you have been OK if Trump would have called them an embarrassment rather than scum.

You can feign outrage all you want, but let's not pretend Page and Strozk are free of ridicule. 

Crazy what we consider a "big deal" What were your thoughts again on the witness bringing Barron into the impeachment circus? 

WTS, I've given this thread more attention than it deserves. I simply strove to point out the hypocrisy in dude getting suspended because he called out..eer attacked someone whose premise of the thread was to attack those who had a different opinion than him.

[Vas Deferens]

POTUS lies and it’s ‘trivial’

How much lower will we sink?

[hollodero]

(12-12-2019, 12:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't understand why you don't want to participate in the worthiness of this thread but are more than willing to participate in reactions to it.

OP lost any benefit of objectivity when he decided to hearken back to the "windmills Thread" in the OP. His desire was to attack   call out those that didn't accuse Trump of "outfight lying" earlier. I thought you were not a fan of such tactic.

I don't care.
It's a thread about yet again something quite abhorrent your president did. And that's what I am focused at. You, however, are focused on Dino. But I simply don't care, this just seems petty.
I'm not a fan of your often deployed tactic to rather discuss some Dino than Trump though. That one I will call out.

(12-12-2019, 12:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The FBI called them an embarrassment. Would you have been OK if Trump would have called them an embarrassment rather than scum.

Would have been less abhorrent, sure.
Of course there's still context and the bigger picture of Trump laying infamy over the whole FBI because they dared to investigate him, that still would spook me. Or how willfully conservative politicians go along with the tone. But as for this one specific instance, yes "embarrassment" would have been less outrageous as "scum". Whatever that proves.

(12-12-2019, 12:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You can feign outrage all you want, but let's not pretend Page and Strozk are free of ridicule. 

Now where did I pretend that.
By saying it's disgusting to call them scum?

Why is it always the one extreme or the other extreme?

(12-12-2019, 12:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Crazy what we consider a "big deal" What were your thoughts again on the witness bringing Barron into the impeachment circus? 

Now see, this is not whataboutism. This is openly questioning my motives. Which is fine per se, just in this case a bit ridiculous. The offense against Barron was that his name was said. The offense against the FBI agents is that they are scum.
If the professor had lustfully spread a dirty rumor about Barron, you'd have a comparison. But as of now, you have little.

(12-12-2019, 12:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: WTS, I've given this thread more attention than it deserves. I simply strove to point out the hypocrisy in dude getting suspended because he called out..eer attacked someone whose premise of the thread was to attack those who had a different opinion than him.

OK.
Sorry someone on your team was hurt.

[Dill]

(12-11-2019, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You and the OP find it worthy of a thread; however, no one else in this forum has posted on the subject. Suspended dude called out attacked the OP and got suspended; that's what I commented on. You and Fred chose to comment on my comment. You can say it: The thread is trivial and worthy of ridicule given the source. 

The restricted dude may have been restricted for actions on another thread, from which angry posts have suspiciously disappeared. Or have you heard otherwise?

[Dill]

(12-11-2019, 09:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Can there be more than one problem?

As I've said it's white noise. Trump lied at a Rally (kinda) and we feel the compulsion to create a thread about it.

"The OP was attacked" is that different than being "called out"?

I know the story is trivial that's why I quoted the dude getting suspended. You know the story is trivial; that's why you quoted me.

The OP is saying folks are in cults. What reaction do you expect?

I don't "know" the story is trivial. 

Part of what concerns me about "trivial" lying is that the person doing it is president of the U.S. It is a sign that the person in charge has bad judgment in a job where the best judgment is required.

The other part that concerns me is that so many find his lying not especially concerning. "We all knew he was like that." It has become normal to the point that people who complain about the commander in chief lying seem the real problem to larger numbers of people.

So there can be more than one problem--1) the president lying constantly, spinning up conspiracy and hate in masses of voters, and 2) people finding that "trivial," against a background of normalizing equivocation, to the point it's ok for masses of voters NOT to care if their leader lies, but beyond the pale insulting if someone recognizes in that uncritical acceptance a symptom of cult behavior.

The compulsion here might be to figure out what has happened in the U.S. to invert a set of political standards/values which have obtained for over a century, since the Southern states were re-integrated in the Union.   Now if someone writes that Trump didn't know where Seoul was on the map of South Korea, and demanded that it be moved when told it was within range of NK artillery, that signals only "Trump hate," not dangerous incompetence. The messenger is always the problem.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2019, 01:17 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't care.
It's a thread about yet again something quite abhorrent your president did. And that's what I am focused at.

No you weren't. Look at your original comment. You were focused on me and my reply.

Of course POTUS shouldn't lie.

[GMDino]

(12-12-2019, 12:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No you weren't. Look at your original comment. You were focused on me and my reply.

Of course POTUS shouldn't lie.

Again, this isn't about the latest in a long string of lies from Trump.  It is about a lie directed at a private citizen shouted at a political rally.

It is a President who believes he can make up and say whatever he wants and "do whatever he wants".

If THAT is more than "trivial" to people I can't imagine what it would take to get them to pay attention.

[hollodero]

(12-12-2019, 12:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No you weren't. Look at your original comment. You were focused on me and my reply.

Of course POTUS shouldn't lie.

As I said, I am willing to comment on your rather talking about the OP's alleged motives and misperceptions than about Trump. All those dare I say counterpoints that accuse Trump critics of all kinds of unflattering deficiencies are really getting old.

As for POTUS shouldn't lie, no he should not, but this is not just about lieing. But I won't repeat the points you do not address anyways.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2019, 12:36 PM)hollodero Wrote: As I said, I am willing to comment on your rather talking about the OP's alleged motives and misperceptions than about Trump. All those dare I say counterpoints that accuse Trump critics of all kinds of unflattering deficiencies are really getting old.

As for POTUS shouldn't lie, no he should not, but this is not just about lieing. But I won't repeat the points you do not address anyways.

My original comments were not about the OP.

[hollodero]

(12-12-2019, 03:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My original comments were not about the OP.

The one I commented on was you accusing the OP of "clutching pearls".

Which made me think, oh my, Trump calls FBI agents scum in yet another attempt to badmouth those that dared to behave illoyal and rightfully investigate his campaign, and spreads a dirty rumor about his most favorite target, and your biggest sorrow is to go after the OP.

But whatever. I don't really get what you are even trying to point out here. I hope it worked for you.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2019, 04:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: The one I commented on was you accusing the OP of "clutching pearls".

Which made me think, oh my, Trump calls FBI agents scum in yet another attempt to badmouth those that dared to behave illoyal and rightfully investigate his campaign, and spreads a dirty rumor about his most favorite target, and your biggest sorrow is to go after the OP.

But whatever. I don't really get what you are even trying to point out here. I hope it worked for you.

You quoted me first; yet "hope it worked out for me".

The only person I quoted was the dude that got suspended; it could have ended there, but no. I didn't go after the OP until asked to do so. 

You can consider Page and Strozk loyal if you want. 

[fredtoast]

(12-11-2019, 09:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump lied at a Rally (kinda) and we feel the compulsion to create a thread about it.

What do you mean by "kinda"?

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2019, 12:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The FBI called them an embarrassment. Would you have been OK if Trump would have called them an embarrassment rather than scum.

You can feign outrage all you want, but let's not pretend Page and Strozk are free of ridicule. 

(12-12-2019, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You can consider Page and Strozk loyal if you want. 

What troubles me is the fact that you see no difference between using subjective insults like "scum" and "an embarrassment" and making a completely false claim of domestic violence.

Trump can talk until he is blue in the face about Page and Strozk not being "loyal".  Non one here would care or start a thread about it.  Instead he accuse Strozk of domestic violence.

Are you really saying it is okay to fabricate lies about people when they disagree with your politics?

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2019, 09:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What troubles me is the fact that you see no difference between using subjective insults like "scum" and "an embarrassment" and making a completely false claim of domestic violence.

Trump can talk until he is blue in the face about Page and Strozk not being "loyal".  Non one here would care or start a thread about it.  Instead he accuse Strozk of domestic violence.

Are you really saying it is okay to fabricate lies about people when they disagree with your politics?

I've already said POTUS should not have said it; unsure how many more times I can type it.

I get it's easy to state: This is a big deal; however, it is not. Strozk is an adult; if he feels slandered he should sue. 

Earlier in the week I suggested the Professor should not have brought Barron into the impeachment discussions. I didn't start a shiny new thread about it; I simply mentioned it was something she should not have done. Those now aghast but Trump's "I heard" when talking about Page and Strozk considered that "nothing".  

I will say the Left focusing on comments such as this are shooting themselves in the foot and do not realize it. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2019, 09:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What do you mean by "kinda"?

I mean he said "I heard". I gotta know if this is a case of what he said or what he meant. We're kinda fluid on that.

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2019, 09:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've already said POTUS should not have said it; unsure how many more times I can type it.

Just as many times as you diminish it by claiming Strozk and Page deserved it.

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2019, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I mean he said "I heard". I gotta know if this is a case of what he said or what he meant. We're kinda fluid on that.

We are not "fluid" on this at all.  We have seen him do the exact same thing a hundred times.  I have even posted articles about this tactic here before.

I guess maybe some of us are in denial instead of fluid.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2019, 10:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just as many times as you diminish it by claiming Strozk and Page deserved it.

Link to me saying either deserved it.