Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[Darat]

Seriously?

Yes.

 

[CapelDodger]

Are you kidding?

"CLINTON: I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders. Also to pray for the victims. We have to let the investigation unfold. We've been in touch with various officials including in the mayor's office in New York to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation and I'll have more to say about it when we actually have the facts.

I don't see that as directed at Trump. Do you?

REPORTER: Secretary, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately took the stage tonight, calling the explosion a 'bomb'?

Reporter asks question. Not Hillary Clinton's fault.

CLINTON: Well I think it's important to know all of the facts about an incident like this. That's why it's critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to figure out what did happen. I think it's always wiser to wait to until you have information for making conclusions, because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.

Bland statement of the obvious batting the question away. Not rising to the reporter's bait by making it political.

As it happens when Trump said "we have to be tough" he was assuming a conclusion - that this was a terrorist action by people who can be got tough with. It would indeed be wiser to wait before reaching that conclusion. Wisdom isn't is Trump's thing, though.

 

[phiwum]

By end of discussion you mean too afraid to answer my question.

Your question seems to be a bit irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes.

Scroll up.

 

[Darat]

Scroll up.

My post shows as the first post on this current page so an instruction to scroll up ain't very useful, a link would be.

 

[CapelDodger]

Time line? Sources?

I think it's safe to say that Trump spoke earlier than Clinton. How much earlier I don't know.

"We have to get tough". What a vacuous tool.

 

[phiwum]

Are you kidding?

"CLINTON: I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders. Also to pray for the victims. We have to let the investigation unfold. We've been in touch with various officials including in the mayor's office in New York to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation and I'll have more to say about it when we actually have the facts.

REPORTER: Secretary, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately took the stage tonight, calling the explosion a 'bomb'?

CLINTON: Well I think it's important to know all of the facts about an incident like this. That's why it's critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to figure out what did happen. I think it's always wiser to wait to until you have information for making conclusions, because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.

You still have not told us when Hillary said it, and whether the authorities were calling it a bomb prior to that time. (To be fair, a little Googling has not shown any results for me.)

The article also says that Clinton had been briefed by the mayor of NYC. It is possible that he told her it was a bomb even prior to the public announcement.

Unless you have good evidence that Hillary jumped to conclusions in the same way that Trump seems to have, the two situations are not comparable.

ETA: According to this article, Trump's comments came a half hour after the explosion. Hillary's came two hours after the explosion, a half hour before the public announcement, but after having been briefed by NYC officials.

The two situations are not that comparable. Hillary spoke to the mayor and other officials some time after the bombing. Trump spoke with no apparent briefing from officials very soon after the bombing.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Your question seems to be a bit irrelevant to the topic at hand.

In the time it took you to write that, you could have answered it.

 

[JPK]

Without knowing when both Hillary and Trump were briefed about the NYC explosion, and without knowing the difference in time between the two of their public statements,it's kinda hard to determine if Hillary contradicted herself by when she said she had been briefed on the bombings. Does anyone know when they both made their public announcements? I know Trump made his first. Perhaps by the time she made her statement, she was already told it was a bombing and was simply responding to the reporters question about Trumps response.
ETA For all we know, Trump was told it was a bomb. In which case you might question why he would leak that before there was public statement.

 

[Fudbucker]

I don't see that as directed at Trump. Do you?

Reporter asks question. Not Hillary Clinton's fault.

Bland statement of the obvious batting the question away. Not rising to the reporter's bait by making it political.

As it happens when Trump said "we have to be tough" he was assuming a conclusion - that this was a terrorist action by people who can be got tough with. It would indeed be wiser to wait before reaching that conclusion. Wisdom isn't is Trump's thing, though.

A reporter asks about Trump calling it a bomb and Clinton replies that it's wiser to wait before reaching conclusions. How do you not grasp the implication? Obviously Clinton was chiding Trump for jumping to conclusions.

Clinton's interview was at least 17 hours ago. https://twitter.com/ABCLiz?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

If the story broke before that, then of course my criticism of her calling out Trump for jumping to conclusions is wrong. My recollection is the story broke after Clinton characterized it as a "bombing".

 

[tyr_13]

Odd that, you quote Tyr_13 and then misrepresent what he said. 'Most' is not 'all'. And as he pointed out that most is not even a majority of Democrats.

I didn't intend to represent what Fudbucker said, as my post was addressing acbytesla's general argument in response to what Fudbucker said. EDIT: I misread what you said, and just realized it after posting, but I'm leaving it up as a self-punishment for my stupidity.

Tyr didn't go far enough. Most Democrats don't want to ban guns, but the people that want to ban guns are always Democrats (or some far-leftist liberal), and the states that have extreme gun restrictions are always blue states.

I actually disagree with it always being far-leftist liberal or other Democrat. It isn't. There are some far-right people who actually believe restricting firearms to the government and their militias will keep the 'unfit and darkies' from getting them. In my experience, it's much more rare, but definitely not non-existent. The people who advocate for some of the more expensive restrictions have a higher number of the 'soft-racists' for whom 'criminal and mentally unfit' means 'the dirty poor and darkies'. These tend to be more right-wing than left. If it lets them keep their guns but keeps others from having them, they're great with it.

Note that I'm not trying to tar all the people who advocate for similar restrictions as racists and evil, but just pointing out that there are other mechanisms that lead to support for some of these proposals rather than those originating with left-wing political ideology. It probably doesn't need to be said, but people can also support a wide range of ideas as conclusions from a fair and rational evaluation of the evidence. Perhaps novel to some, but this process can lead to different conclusions.

 

[Fudbucker]

My post shows as the first post on this current page so an instruction to scroll up ain't very useful, a link would be.

I agree, which is why I provided one.

 

[Fudbucker]

I didn't intend to represent what Fudbucker said, as my post was addressing acbytesla's general argument in response to what Fudbucker said. EDIT: I misread what you said, and just realized it after posting, but I'm leaving it up as a self-punishment for my stupidity.



I actually disagree with it always being far-leftist liberal or other Democrat. It isn't. There are some far-right people who actually believe restricting firearms to the government and their militias will keep the 'unfit and darkies' from getting them. In my experience, it's much more rare, but definitely not non-existent. The people who advocate for some of the more expensive restrictions have a higher number of the 'soft-racists' for whom 'criminal and mentally unfit' means 'the dirty poor and darkies'. These tend to be more right-wing than left. If it lets them keep their guns but keeps others from having them, they're great with it.

Note that I'm not trying to tar all the people who advocate for similar restrictions as racists and evil, but just pointing out that there are other mechanisms that lead to support for some of these proposals rather than those originating with left-wing political ideology. It probably doesn't need to be said, but people can also support a wide range of ideas as conclusions from a fair and rational evaluation of the evidence. Perhaps novel to some, but this process can lead to different conclusions.

I've never heard any far-right person ever say anything like that. Do you have a link?

 

[tyr_13]

I've never heard any far-right person ever say anything like that. Do you have a link?

I don't; it was said in person in one case*, and the rest are personal correspondences that I'm not going to give out. If I went looking, it's likely I could, but really I'd rather not for this thread.

If I learned anything about my time trying to actively engage gun-control groups, both for and against, it was that my disgust tolerance was not high enough to do so for any length of time. I've switched to focusing more on casual gun opponents/proponents. There were just way too many people with serious mental issues and way out there views who could not discuss things rationally.

It's important to note that this last sentence is coming from someone active in the cosplay and improv comedy communities...


EDIT: *It's also possible that it was at times casual speculation from some individuals that I mistook as a belief.

 

[Stacko]

Honestly, if it takes him five years to confirm the birth nation of one man, this whole mass deportation thing is gonna be mad slow.​

 

[phiwum]

In the time it took you to write that, you could have answered it.

You seem to forget: I did explicitly answer your question a couple of times.

 

[phiwum]

A reporter asks about Trump calling it a bomb and Clinton replies that it's wiser to wait before reaching conclusions. How do you not grasp the implication? Obviously Clinton was chiding Trump for jumping to conclusions.

Clinton's interview was at least 17 hours ago. https://twitter.com/ABCLiz?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

If the story broke before that, then of course my criticism of her calling out Trump for jumping to conclusions is wrong. My recollection is the story broke after Clinton characterized it as a "bombing".

You are right that Clinton apparently called it a bombing before officials announced it, but after she had been briefed by NYC officials. See this article.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apparently, you skipped this part, so I'll repost it:

"While Hillary Clinton appeared to criticize Trump for immediately calling the incident a bombing, she initially referred to it the same way.

"I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota," she said."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-trump-clinton-reacted-new-york-city-bombs-n650116

Clinton would have been fine if she hadn't contradicted herself like an idiot.

But shillaries gonna shill.

You are reading the news reporter's conclusions into that.

First, Clinton:

"I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota," she said.

Second the reporter:

Trump, the Republican nominee, was set to take the stage in Colorado Springs just as unconfirmed reports of an explosion in downtown Manhattan started spreading over Twitter.

After waiting on his plane for about 13 minutes, he took the stage and reported what no news outlets or law enforcement had yet: that a "bomb" went off in New York City....

Exactly how Trump learned of the incident is yet to be determined.

Then you have the reporter's question where the reporter implies Trump jumped to a conclusion:

Asked later to respond to Trump's calling the explosion a bombing, Clinton told NBC News that it's important to wait until jumping to conclusions.

"I think it's important to know the facts about any incident like this," she said. "I think it's always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions, because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened."

It's the reporter that implied Trump called it a bomb before it was known. One cannot tell if that is what Clinton was responding, to the way the reporter phrased the question; whether she was responding to all the rest of Trump's instant reaction; or his habit of knee-jerk responding.

Clinton was briefed. Trump may have been as well. You are trying too hard to find fault with Clinton. It shows.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You seem to forget: I did explicitly answer your question a couple of times.

Cool.

 

[Firestone]

Chuck Todd is interviewing jello-on-the-wall Conway on MTP. Why does he bother? Have any of the Trumpers even once actually addressed an issue?

Pivot to Clinton
Trump is not a politician
You'll have to ask him
I wasn't there, or don't know
Trump is the most fantastic man ever
Pivot to Clinton

If I had the time I'd love to do a media analysis of these Trump-bots.

You just did.

No, really, that's all there is to it.

I saw Christie earlier today on CNN. It was painful. He claimed that Trump ceased to be a birther 5 years ago, and excused his attacks on Gates and Powell.

(Tapper did refute his claim about the birther issue in real time, though.)