Trump Supporters: Can you defend this?

[acbytesla]

The reason why even Trump's own lawyers say that his Tweets can't be slanderous is simply this:

no one in his right mind would take a Tweet by Trump seriously.

Well it sure seems as if there are a lot of Americans not in their right mind.

 

[Giordano]

What disturbs me most is that once such a slander is spoken by the president of the USA it becomes prominently established in the public discourse and in many people’s consciousness as a possibility. The “where there is smoke there is fire” concept enters the average person’s brain even if there is no smoke but just a fat orange evil troll claiming he sees smoke. News sites favoring Trump run headlines, “President Trump reveals Buffalo protestor as Antifa crisis actor.” Mainstream news sites run headlines “Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that Buffalo protestor member of Antifa.” In either case the claim goes out widely. And even the term “unsubstantiated” doesn’t adequately deny the claim - it doesn’t negate it. Instead it simply suggests that adequate evidence has yet to be found. It leaves open the possibility that the claim might be true.

So Trump followers immediately accept the claim as 100% true. Many others think “hmm, I wonder maybe...”

I don’t know what would help. The term “baseless” better captures the utter emptiness of the claim than does “unsubstantiated” and I’ve seen that in some headlines. Perhaps even better the headlines should read, “In a completely fabricated, vicious slander of a seriously injured fellow human being, Trump claims...”

 

[Roger Ramjets]

What disturbs me most is that once such a slander is spoken by the president of the USA it becomes prominently established in the public discourse and in many people’s consciousness as a possibility...

Yes, it's disturbing. But coming from Trump it may less disturbing than if it came from some other source. Remember Hillary's emails? Trump's obvious lies didn't effect us, but Comey's announcement did.

By now the majority of Americans assume that anything Trump says is a lie. The rest know it's a lie too - but a useful one. Almost nobody actually thinks he tells the truth anymore.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, it's disturbing. But coming from Trump it may less disturbing than if it came from some other source. Remember Hillary's emails? Trump's obvious lies didn't effect us, but Comey's announcement did.

By now the majority of Americans assume that anything Trump says is a lie. The rest know it's a lie too - but a useful one. Almost nobody actually thinks he tells the truth anymore.

I've been in many arguments with right wingers. There was time where they denied Trump's lies. Now they just shrug their shoulders. Their acceptance of it is worse.

 

[blutoski]

What disturbs me most is that once such a slander is spoken by the president of the USA it becomes prominently established in the public discourse and in many people’s consciousness as a possibility. The “where there is smoke there is fire” concept enters the average person’s brain even if there is no smoke but just a fat orange evil troll claiming he sees smoke. News sites favoring Trump run headlines, “President Trump reveals Buffalo protestor as Antifa crisis actor.” Mainstream news sites run headlines “Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that Buffalo protestor member of Antifa.” In either case the claim goes out widely. And even the term “unsubstantiated” doesn’t adequately deny the claim - it doesn’t negate it. Instead it simply suggests that adequate evidence has yet to be found. It leaves open the possibility that the claim might be true.

So Trump followers immediately accept the claim as 100% true. Many others think “hmm, I wonder maybe...”

I don’t know what would help. The term “baseless” better captures the utter emptiness of the claim than does “unsubstantiated” and I’ve seen that in some headlines. Perhaps even better the headlines should read, “In a completely fabricated, vicious slander of a seriously injured fellow human being, Trump claims...”

I'm reminded of a throwaway scene in Big Mouth where they decide to distract from something they've done by inventing a rumour about another character.

"Why don't we say that... for a snack... she eats little pieces of ******"

"That's... not believable."

"And yet, here we are talking about it."

 

[theprestige]

Heh. Yet another **** show thread from Team OMB.

Anyway, I gave it a couple days for the regulars to get it out of their system, and PM'd Trebuchet with my answer.

Probably won't post it here, but I am curious how this was supposed to play out if I had.

 

[Mader Levap]

Heh. Yet another **** show thread from Team OMB.

That's rich coming from you.

Anyway, I gave it a couple days for the regulars to get it out of their system, and PM'd Trebuchet with my answer.

Probably won't post it here, but I am curious how this was supposed to play out if I had.

I am quite sure it will be about as believable and honest as Trump's... claims... on Twitter.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm reminded of a throwaway scene in Big Mouth where they decide to distract from something they've done by inventing a rumour about another character.

"Why don't we say that... for a snack... she eats little pieces of ******"

"That's... not believable."

"And yet, here we are talking about it."

Shooter McGavin: I eat pieces of **** like you for breakfast!

Happy Gilmore: You eat pieces of **** for breakfast?

..

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

A serious question. Is it possible to scan police communication equipment in order to disable it?

Sure is. You need an inexpensive small handheld device about the size of a phone to scan for the specific frequency you want to jam. The device will scan RF frequencies in use and list them for you. Once you have that list of frequencies you need a transmitter to transmit on that frequency. A strong signal of a few thousand watts will overpower any smaller devices and they cannot transmit or receive any signal above the powerful blocking transmission.

This is common knowledge to anyone with any background in ham or CB radios.

Chris B.

 

[theprestige]

That's rich coming from you.



I am quite sure it will be about as believable and honest as Trump's... claims... on Twitter. : rolleyes :

Heh. Trebuchet asked non-supporters to give the thread a couple days for supporters to answer the question. I knew that wouldn't happen, so I figured I'd do the opposite: Give the non-supporters a chance to get it out of their system.

It seems like some folks are still purging. I'll give it another couple of days.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Of course it's possible to jam the police equipment. probme is the kind of electroinc gear you would need for that is expensive and might not even be available on the open market.We are talking military grade stuff here.

Nope. As I pointed out above it's quite easy to do and you can search Amazon yourself for prices on RF scanners. They're about $20. I guess that may be expensive in some areas of the World but not really that expensive in the US.

The most expensive part would be the radio used to broadcast the jamming signal. Those Galaxy radios aren't cheap, a few hundred bucks for a decent one. Linear amps are also a few hundred bucks. Not really out of reach for most Americans financially though.

Everything needed is available on the open market, in fact Amazon and Ebay are frequented by Ham and CB radio hobbyists.

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

How do you fall harder than you were pushed? Hidden jets?

A quick experiment:

Standing next to a closed door lean over and gently bump your head.
Now try it with a running start from the other side of the room. Did you need jets?

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You could scan police communications at any reasonable distance. They are radio waves, they travel a long way.

One major exception to your statement.

1. A smaller low power device would need to be close to the source to pick up the frequency. Why? The closer you are to the source the better the chances of catching "bleedover" from the device that is transmitting. This is extremely important as the RF scanning devices can only pick up and lock on to active frequencies. So instead of actively scanning every frequency one at a time looking for an active frequency over a period of hours, the bleedover locks on to the neighboring frequencies immediately. Otherwise the scanner may pass over the correct frequency because it was not in use when the scanner ran that exact frequency. Once you have a ballpark frequency range of a transmission it's a matter of minutes to identify the correct one.

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Today Trump tweeted:


I find it despicable. What about you? Can you justify it?

Non-supporters: Please refrain and give the supporters a day or two to answer. I'd very much appreciate it. You can discuss in the general Trump thread.

What part? Be specific. I don't think anyone agrees that the old man should have received a shove. He was not violent or threatening even if he had an agenda.

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I predict that no trump supporter will address the point of the OP and at best we will again debate on if merely voting for Trump makes one a Trump supporter.

Wrong. What would you like to debate about the President's tweet?

Chris B.

 

[Stacyhs]

What part? Be specific. I don't think anyone agrees that the old man should have received a shove. He was not violent or threatening even if he had an agenda.

Chris B.

Any part. What part can you defend of this tweet:

Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment.
@OANN
I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?

Not a word of it is true. Trump is not just "asking questions" as the latest WH mouthpiece K. McEnany claims. She knows it. Trump knows it. We know it. And you should know it.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Any part. What part can you defend of this tweet:



Not a word of it is true. Trump is not just "asking questions" as the latest WH mouthpiece K. McEnany claims. She knows it. Trump knows it. We know it. And you should know it.

You're turning my question around. How can I know what you find unacceptable about the tweet unless you tell me?

Now you're talking. Not a word is true? I see what you've done here. Someone asking a question is not true.....Wow. Think about that for a moment. If someone asks a question are they automatically lying? Or is it only if someone asks a question you don't agree with that makes them a liar?

As I said a few posts above nobody condones the elderly gentleman being shoved but one can also accept he may have had an agenda. If it is your opinion that he did not have an agenda that's fine and you're allowed to that opinion without being called a liar. However, in order to dismiss someone else's opinion that he may have had an agenda you'll need to provide some evidence to support your opinion. Do you have supporting evidence?

Chris B.

 

[bruto]

A quick experiment:

Standing next to a closed door lean over and gently bump your head.
Now try it with a running start from the other side of the room. Did you need jets?

Chris B.

What part of "pushed" occurs when you run up to a door?

Are you ignoring the video of what actually occurred? The man was pushed in the direction opposite his movement. He fell backwards. It's visible on the video. The idea that he thrust himself backwards into the pavement, along with the idea that his bleeding was artificial, is preposterous.

Instead of making up alternative scenarios, how about answering the basic question of the thread? Can you defend Trump's tweet?

 

[Shalamar]

You're turning my question around. How can I know what you find unacceptable about the tweet unless you tell me?

Now you're talking. Not a word is true? I see what you've done here. Someone asking a question is not true.....Wow. Think about that for a moment. If someone asks a question are they automatically lying? Or is it only if someone asks a question you don't agree with that makes them a liar?

As I said a few posts above nobody condones the elderly gentleman being shoved but one can also accept he may have had an agenda. If it is your opinion that he did not have an agenda that's fine and you're allowed to that opinion without being called a liar. However, in order to dismiss someone else's opinion that he may have had an agenda you'll need to provide some evidence to support your opinion. Do you have supporting evidence?

Chris B.

Do you have evidence that the man is an Antifa provocateur?

Is there evidence that he was scanning police equipment to shut it all down?


Why do Trump supporters think that makes it ok to have an elderly man hit his head, bleed from the ears, and then have the police just walk by him?

Why does trump tweet such lies, that are happily accepted by his base?

 

[abaddon]

Nope. As I pointed out above it's quite easy to do and you can search Amazon yourself for prices on RF scanners. They're about $20. I guess that may be expensive in some areas of the World but not really that expensive in the US.

The most expensive part would be the radio used to broadcast the jamming signal. Those Galaxy radios aren't cheap, a few hundred bucks for a decent one. Linear amps are also a few hundred bucks. Not really out of reach for most Americans financially though.

Everything needed is available on the open market, in fact Amazon and Ebay are frequented by Ham and CB radio hobbyists.

Chris B.

There is a much simpler solution without needing thousands of watts.