• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
RolandRat said:
Donald Trump writes on his blog:

"In a lengthy blog post in response to the news of the attorney general’s investigation, the former president wrote: “The Attorney General of New York literally campaigned on prosecuting Donald Trump even before she knew anything about me. She said that if elected, she would use her office to look into ‘every aspect’ of my real estate dealings.”

Mr Trump went on to say: “The Attorney General made each of these statements, not after having had an opportunity to actually look at the facts, but BEFORE she was even elected, BEFORE she had seen even a shred of evidence. This is something that happens in failed third-world countries, not the United States. If you can run for a prosecutor’s office pledging to take out your enemies and be elected to that job by partisan voters who wish to enact political retribution, then we are no longer a free constitutional democracy.”

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/trump-returns-manhattan-wake-york-213307404.html
Click to expand...

I'm not at all convinced that Trump actually wrote that, of course. It's also stunningly unconvincing as an argument, given situational context.
 
Last edited:
The idea that any reasonably informed New Yorker, let alone a candidate for Attorney General, "knew nothing about Donald Trump" before launching an investigation into him is laughable.
 
The chances of Trump having actually written that are the same as my winning the Mega Millions lottery...without my actually buying a ticket.
 
Armitage72 said:
This article was posted on the CNN site yesterday.
Click to expand...

I think the smarter analysts could probably have predicted this, generally speaking, back in the 60s when the Southern Strategy was invoked. When you deliberately pick the side that's going to lose that culture war, you're on a path to a policy-less, reactionary, antidemocratic and violent end. Reagan, Rove, Gingritch, McConnell and Trump are all just stepping stones to the end result.
 
Pixel42 said:
The idea that any reasonably informed New Yorker, let alone a candidate for Attorney General, "knew nothing about Donald Trump" before launching an investigation into him is laughable.
Click to expand...

Yeah but his cultists will lap it up. They are the poorly educated, after all. When you know nothing, it's hard to test a claim against reality.
 
RolandRat said:
Donald Trump writes on his blog:

"In a lengthy blog post in response to the news of the attorney general’s investigation, the former president wrote: “The Attorney General of New York literally campaigned on prosecuting Donald Trump even before she knew anything about me. She said that if elected, she would use her office to look into ‘every aspect’ of my real estate dealings.”

Mr Trump went on to say: “The Attorney General made each of these statements, not after having had an opportunity to actually look at the facts, but BEFORE she was even elected, BEFORE she had seen even a shred of evidence. This is something that happens in failed third-world countries, not the United States. If you can run for a prosecutor’s President's office pledging to take out your enemies and be elected to that job by partisan voters who wish to enact political retribution, then we are no longer a free constitutional democracy.”
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/trump-returns-manhattan-wake-york-213307404.html
Click to expand...

FTFY, Don- this indignation schtick coming from you would be a little more convincing if you hadn't, in 2016, done exactly that highlighted bit (Oct 2016 Slate article)-

“If I win,” said Trump, “I’m going to instruct the attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there’s never been so many lies, so much deception.” He continued: “[W]e’re going to get a special prosecutor because people have been, their lives have been destroyed for doing one fifth of what you’ve done.” And when Clinton gave her response—“It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law of our country”—Trump jumped in with a quip.

“Because you’d be in jail.”
Click to expand...
 
Oh he sees the disconnect just fine. He's just daring someone to bring it up.

Again their hypocrisy is an intentional flex. They do it specifically to dare us to do something about it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Again their hypocrisy is an intentional flex. They do it specifically to dare us to do something about it.
Click to expand...

They earned their place in the Hypocrite’s Hall Of Fame by denying Merrick Garland so much as a hearing because it was an election year, but rushing Amy Coney Barrett through and confirming her less than a week before the election. Once you’ve established you have no shame, anything goes.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
They earned their place in the Hypocrite’s Hall Of Fame by denying Merrill Garland so much as a hearing because it was an election year, but rushing Amy Coney Barrett through in and confirming her less than a week before the election. Once you’ve established you have no shame, anything goes.
Click to expand...

*Merrick.
 
Again you have to understand their mindset.

It's not hypocrisy because they are obviously correct. To them "Republicans are the real Americans" is established fact, nothing can contradict it.

I've said it before. Republicans treat Democrats demanding to be treated as equal Americans like you'd react to your toaster getting mad at you because you and not it gets to decide how dark you want your toast.

It's not just hypocrisy, or it's hypocrisy that's go so far that calling it hypocrisy no longer seems enough however you want to look at it.
 
Susheel said:
Same here with the saffron-clad Hindu fascists. I call it "outsourced thinking."
Click to expand...

That's why discourse, political discourse especially, is so goddamn to the point it's practically a fetish obsessed with categorization.

"Are you on the left or the right? How far on the left or right? Are you Libertarian Progressive Socialist with sprinkles or a Authoritarian Marxist Reformist with extra cheese?"

Because that's the easy way to have your thinking done for you. When you're demanding everything be categorized that's really all you're saying. Then all you have to do is define a few small handfuls of categories that are good or bad.
 
RolandRat said:
Donald Trump writes on his blog:

"In a lengthy blog post in response to the news of the attorney general’s investigation, the former president wrote: “The Attorney General of New York literally campaigned on prosecuting Donald Trump even before she knew anything about me. She said that if elected, she would use her office to look into ‘every aspect’ of my real estate dealings.”

Mr Trump went on to say: “The Attorney General made each of these statements, not after having had an opportunity to actually look at the facts, but BEFORE she was even elected, BEFORE she had seen even a shred of evidence. This is something that happens in failed third-world countries, not the United States. If you can run for a prosecutor’s office pledging to take out your enemies and be elected to that job by partisan voters who wish to enact political retribution, then we are no longer a free constitutional democracy.”
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/trump-returns-manhattan-wake-york-213307404.html
Click to expand...

I think the weirdest thing about the reasoning in the quote is that the speaker doesn’t recognize how many Trumpsters will say “if there is a choice between elected candidates taking out their enemies before punishing the people I hate and a free constitutional
democracy, I’ll choose the first one. Authoritarianism forever.”

ETA
well, the speaker probably does, but also recognizes the Prime Directive of the GOP is that when I do something, I am shepherding America to greater heights but when you do the very same things, you are a dangerous threat to the very existence of the US.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
That's why discourse, political discourse especially, is so goddamn to the point it's practically a fetish obsessed with categorization.

"Are you on the left or the right? How far on the left or right? Are you Libertarian Progressive Socialist with sprinkles or a Authoritarian Marxist Reformist with extra cheese?"

Because that's the easy way to have your thinking done for you. When you're demanding everything be categorized that's really all you're saying. Then all you have to do is define a few small handfuls of categories that are good or bad.
Click to expand...

That's so Hind-Wing Centrist Reactionary with powdered milk of you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom