President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Whose character did I take a shot at? I'm pretty sure I've critiqued debating style, which I would think you'd love, Mr. Get With the Debate.

 

Don't be obtuse. You know what you did. You know what you meant. It's a bullshit tactic that has zero to do with the issue at hand.

 

So...Corker, McConnell, Graham, Rubio, Gardner, McCain, Johnson, Collins, Murkowski, Flake, Hatch, Moran, Sasse, Cruz...It says something that five of these are up next year and willing to be so critical of the President. They probably know their state than the President does.

Those are Senators I could easily see voting for removal after an impeachment, but give it a few days. I'm sure the President's charm offensive will add a few more.

 

Dick, even if someone explicitly says, "I'm not defending white nationalists," if in the next breath (or the same breath) he defends white nationalists, then it's more than fair to say that he's defended white nationalists. You can get his objection on the record, sure. But just because someone loudly proclaims one's innocence doesn't mean it's not possible that they are objectively guilty of something, and that it's unfair to state exactly that.

That Friday night march that Trump seems to think was just some fine fans of early 20th Century statuary spoiled by a few bad eggs was, in fact, a white nationalist protest march where a crowd holding torches chanted things like "Jew won't replace me!" and the old Nazi chestnut "Blood and soil." Not a few people, the crowd. Surely you've seen video. Trump explicitly defended the Friday gathering in the same quote you feel is the "money quote." Therefore he defended white nationalists.

And since it seems to come up from time to time, I also think you're wrong on the whole Trump-sexual assault front. You seem to take his self-exculpatory statements literally and at face value. Just because someone claims that the women "let you do it" because you're famous doesn't mean that qualifies as consent. And in the context of his full words on that tape – and the accounts of many, many women – I do think it's entirely reasonable and factual to say that the tape described sexual assault. Just because Trump says, "But I said it was consensual!" isn't the final word. It's just a self-serving statement that must be weighed against the other evidence; it's not dispositive. Not that I'm a lawyer. (Just a onetime celebrity juror.)

 

He explicitly said this:

"I'm not defending white supremacists."

In his awful attempt to explain his "both sides" comment, he said this:

"No, no. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call ‘em. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest..."

Those were his actual words. There is no way to jump from those words to claiming he said there were "good nazis" unless you're doing some speculating on what is really in his mind or heart in between. Maybe you don't think that's what you did, but it is what you did.

 

Good luck, Dick. God bless.

 

All they are until one of them calls for impeachment or resignation are parents claiming that their "good kid" is making "bad choices."

Fuck them. (For now.)

 

Show me the quote.

 

You are responding to an imaginary post.

 

Saying you would have the support of a poster who isn't around was the bullshit tactic.

 

I served with DoubleDown. I know DoubleDown. DoubleDown is a friend of mine...

 

Permission to speak freely?