Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[tim_m]

Bomb number 9 addressed to Biden in Greenville, DE.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Hasn't anyone learned by now that suspicious packages pretty much never reach the recipient? Its a stunt and a very bad one at that.

These could be from anybody, dont just assume it is from a rabid Trump supporter. Could also easily have been sent by a far left nut that wants to stir shit up before the mid terms. 

But whatever the case is, at least they've reached a level of bipartisanship on condemning it.

[tim_m]

You would think so, Only the one to CNN and Mr. DeNiro probably had any chance. The rest are all elected officials and former heads of state. No way it would get to them with all the security around them.

I doubt that is the case, that would be some irony

Except Trump even when he does say the right thing he goes back and starts doing the wrong thing within a few hours. Like at his ego boost i mean rally last night, then solely blaming the media this morning. He has not taken shred of responsibility for this. Solely based on the targets you have to at least consider there's a good chance this is being done by one of his supporters.

[pilferk]

Hasn't anyone learned by now that suspicious packages pretty much never reach the recipient? Its a stunt and a very bad one at that.

These could be from anybody, dont just assume it is from a rabid Trump supporter. Could also easily have been sent by a far left nut that wants to stir shit up before the mid terms. 

But whatever the case is, at least they've reached a level of bipartisanship on condemning it.

Reached a bipartisan agreement on condemning it?  Have you LISTENED to a word TRUMP has said on this?  Or some of the members of his party?  Condemning it and then in the next breath blaming the victims and/or the media isn't a "bipartisan agreement".  It's lip service, with a liberal (no pun intended) dose of hypocrisy.

The level of mental gymnastics (and victim blaming) and conspiracy theory crafting you have to go through to justify and excuse Trumps rhetoric is dizzying. 

Here's what we know:

Every single package was addressed to someone Trump has attacked in his rhetoric, directly.

The CNN package, at least, was covered in imagery taken from memes circulated on right wing web sites.

It doesn't matter which side sent it (detractor or supporter): It's very likely a direct result of that rhetoric. In other words, had he not attacked them, they wouldn't have been targets.

And I think you'd have to admit...the odds on favorite for perpetrator is a right wing nutjob.  Is it a certianty? No...but I'd peg the odds about 75%+.

But, you know, continue to ignore "your guy", and what he does EVERY DAMN DAY to perpetuate the incivility he (hypocritically) took issue with during his rally last night and then clutch those pearls and play the victim down the road.   Continue to emmulate your hero: It's never his fault, it's ALWAYS someone else.  Like the MEDIA!!! 

This is what the death of political correctness and civility looks like.  You know, the things he campaigned on AND YOU VOTED FOR.  And will likely vote to support again, in a few weeks.

[pilferk]

Solely based on the targets you have to at least consider there's a good chance this is being done by one of his supporters.

No tim, they don't.

Just look at the last 2 years.

They will spin, lie, obfuscate, and craft conspiracy theories that will BOGGLE YOUR MIND (literally, they hope) to make excuses for this guy.  They are SO tied up in his identity that they can't admit he's wrong, bad, responsible, or anything else that might make them feel bad about him (and thus their team, and thus their vote and thus themselves).  They have LITERALLY taken on the Trump identity: Never admit you are wrong, never take blame, and always pass the buck (hopefully to an adversary of some sort).

With them, Occam's razor looks more like an infinitely twisted (and twisting) Ouroboros.

I expect to see Trump on 5th avenue with a gun any day now.

[jarmo]

It's good that he agrees with what people have been saying for quite some time already.

On the other hand, he doesn't seem to be able to take any responsibility for his own words.

Mr Trump also called for more civility in public life, saying: "Those engaged in the political arena must stop treating political opponents as being morally defective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump




/jarmo

[tim_m]

There's now a second sent to Biden. Also buried in this the Trump administration is sending troops to the border.

[tim_m]

It's good that he agrees with what people have been saying for quite some time already.

On the other hand, he doesn't seem to be able to take any responsibility for his own words.

Mr Trump also called for more civility in public life, saying: "Those engaged in the political arena must stop treating political opponents as being morally defective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump




/jarmo

Too bad those weren't his words. It was a prepared statement.

[pilferk]

It's good that he agrees with what people have been saying for quite some time already.

On the other hand, he doesn't seem to be able to take any responsibility for his own words.

Mr Trump also called for more civility in public life, saying: "Those engaged in the political arena must stop treating political opponents as being morally defective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump




/jarmo

He said it.

And then was right back at the incivility and rhetoric last night during his rally.

Pfft...he read from a teleprompter what someone else wrote and thought he should say.

Then he went out and said what he REALLY means.

That's Trumps crisis response in a nutshell.  He sounds like a robot when he's going off the teleprompter (and the "mommy's making me read this" vibe is overpowering)....and then, as soon as he's off script, he basically invalidates everything his speech writer wrote that he read off the prompter.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Hasn't anyone learned by now that suspicious packages pretty much never reach the recipient? Its a stunt and a very bad one at that.

These could be from anybody, dont just assume it is from a rabid Trump supporter. Could also easily have been sent by a far left nut that wants to stir shit up before the mid terms. 

But whatever the case is, at least they've reached a level of bipartisanship on condemning it.

Reached a bipartisan agreement on condemning it?  Have you LISTENED to a word TRUMP has said on this?  Or some of the members of his party?  Condemning it and then in the next breath blaming the victims and/or the media isn't a "bipartisan agreement".  It's lip service, with a liberal (no pun intended) dose of hypocrisy.

The level of mental gymnastics (and victim blaming) and conspiracy theory crafting you have to go through to justify and excuse Trumps rhetoric is dizzying. 

Here's what we know:

Every single package was addressed to someone Trump has attacked in his rhetoric, directly.

The CNN package, at least, was covered in imagery taken from memes circulated on right wing web sites.

It doesn't matter which side sent it (detractor or supporter): It's very likely a direct result of that rhetoric. In other words, had he not attacked them, they wouldn't have been targets.

And I think you'd have to admit...the odds on favorite for perpetrator is a right wing nutjob.  Is it a certianty? No...but I'd peg the odds about 75%+.

But, you know, continue to ignore "your guy", and what he does EVERY DAMN DAY to perpetuate the incivility he (hypocritically) took issue with during his rally last night and then clutch those pearls and play the victim down the road.   Continue to emmulate your hero: It's never his fault, it's ALWAYS someone else.  Like the MEDIA!!! 

This is what the death of political correctness and civility looks like.  You know, the things he campaigned on AND YOU VOTED FOR.  And will likely vote to support again, in a few weeks.

There isn't a rule that you must respond to all of my posts here with  Anti Trump tirades and slam me personally.  Have you considered that we can have an actual discussion?

This is why I most often dont engage you with a response if you were wondering.   

[pilferk]

There isn't a rule that you must respond to all of my posts here with  Anti Trump tirades and slam me personally.  Have you considered that we can have an actual discussion?

Is there a rule you have to come in and defend trump at every turn, no matter what stupid thing he does or says? All while condemning, previously, others for doing much less?

No, of course not.  But yet....

You walked in and "lectured" those of us discussing a current topic about what we should assume the primary impetus of these attacks were and suggested a right wing Alex Jones type conspiracy theory instead...and tried to absolve Trump of any blame in the process.

I'm not sure what you expected in terms of a response to that, or what type of "discussion" comes from that.

I already demonstrated that, regardless, it stems from Trumps rhetoric.  That's not an anti trump tirade, it's the truth.  An inconvenient one for your argument...sure.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of a position IS discussing it.  Pointing out that you support the very thing you claim to be against, by virtue of your VOTES, IS discussing it. Because it's a microcosm of the Republican party right now.

I realize it makes the discussion uncomfortable for you...but I don't care a whit.

Once again, you don't REALLY want to discuss anything.  You want (like Trump) everyone to accept your position as gospel. You want everyone to ignore the fact the emperor is naked.  And that's just not ever going to happen.

And finally: Pointing out what has happened, both past and present, isn't "slamming you personally".  I'm sorry, its just not.  If you think that pointing out hypocrisy, or that your vote (then and now) is tacit support for Trumps behavior...that says more about you than it does about me.

This is why I most often dont engage you with a response if you were wondering.   

I wasn't.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I do not defend Trump at every turn, however you slam him at every turn.   

I stated my own opinion that it may not necessarily be some right wing guy who sent out the bomb packages. Its not a far out theory. And Alex Jones has become a joke so spare me the comparison.

[jarmo]

Sure, we don't know who sent the mail bombs.

But if you're looking where to start, surely you would agree that a left wing Democrat voting person isn't the first suspect?





/jarmo

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Yeah, judging from the recipients it is more likely a right wing person than a left wing person sending these mail bombs. 

But it is a possibility it could be someone on the left thinking it would give republicans negative publicity leading up to the mid terms. We will find out soon enough.

Either way they need to catch this guy before he sends any more mail bombs out.

[pilferk]

I do not defend Trump at every turn, however you slam him at every turn.   

Your post history says otherwise.  No matter how much you might want to disavow it.  At least own it.

I mean sure...you've made a couple of vastly understated statements to the effect that "Trumps sometimes says stupid things"...and then quickly pull back, qualify, and go into full throated defense/justification/rationalization mode again. But yes, largely, it's "defend trump at every turn" postings.  And I think you'd have a hard time getting much of anyone reading this thread to disagree.

I will amply admit that I criticize Trump a lot...because it's well deserved.  I also refuse to give him credit for stuff he hasn't actually done. Or buy into his very obvious (and easily disproven) lies/hyperbole.

BUT, I've also given him credit for the VERY few things he's actually done/done right.

I stated my own opinion that it may not necessarily be some right wing guy who sent out the bomb packages. Its not a far out theory. And Alex Jones has become a joke so spare me the comparison.

Methinks not.  But nice try. I mean..the words are RIGHT there for everyone to see.  

These could be from anybody, dont just assume it is from a rabid Trump supporter. Could also easily have been sent by a far left nut that wants to stir shit up before the mid terms.

That's not simply stating your opinion. And no attempt at spinning it is going to make it so.

That's telling other people what THEIR opinion should be...and justifying it with a (yes it is) far out theory worthy of Alex Jones and Newtown.

You're telling people not to jump to conclusions...and then jumping to a FAR less likely conclusion, given the facts we have.

If you wanna say assuming it's a right wing nut job is not for sure.....fine.  I mean, if you look at the facts, it's the most likely option right now, but...it's not for certain until someone's in cuffs and due process is complete.

To then turn around and jump to your conspiracy theory from that, though...well, you just did what you're TELLING people not to do.  And you're now giving voice to a far right wing, crackpot theory that is making the rounds of the sites like infowars and breitbart.

And, again, none of it invalidates the point that....right or left...it's all based on Trumps rhetoric.

[pilferk]

Yeah, judging from the recipients it is more likely a right wing person than a left wing person sending these mail bombs. 

Was that really all that hard to do?

But it is a possibility it could be someone on the left thinking it would give republicans negative publicity leading up to the mid terms. We will find out soon enough.

Its also possible that an asteroid will strike the earth tomorrow.

I'm willing to bet on the sun coming up.  And I don't think we need to bring up the far less likely options for every scenario....just because we're not comfortable with the more likely ones.

Either way they need to catch this guy before he sends any more mail bombs out.

Well, at least we can all agree on that.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

You are reading waaaay too much into things Pilferk. I would never ever tell anyone what their opinions should be. It is ironic because that is how your responses come across to me.

The conversations between us were better before Trump took office. Maybe we can try not to be such douchebags to each other moving forward?

[pilferk]

You are reading waaaay too much into things Pilferk. I would never ever tell anyone what their opinions should be. It is ironic because that is how your responses come across to me.

You. Just. Did.

I bolded it for you.  It's right there in black and gray.

I'm reading what you wrote.  If that's not what you mean, then you probably shouldn't write it. No?

Would you care to rephrase/restate/clarify?  Go for it.

Because there was literally NO other way to read it than the way I did.

The conversations between us were better before Trump took office.

And why do you think that might have changed?

I'm guessing your answer is going to be something like "Because you all hate Trump and are completely unreasonable".  Am I close?

That answer is your problem.  And I'd suggest it merits a little self reflection to see if you can figure out why.

The reason it worked so well before is there was give and take.  And a certain amount of respect, if disagreement, because both sides were able to make a case.  When Trump was elected, the conservatives in the political threads changed their tone from respectful discourse to gleeful bullying of the opposing viewpoints. From taking delight in how Trump was going to punish the snowflakes and how fun it is to watch the liberal squirm. And every time Trump does something stupid...something that they would have ROASTED Obama for (or Clinton)...they rationalize beyond the point of logic and reason to the point of  .  And when that's pointed out, instead of reasoned responses, we get...crickets.  Or accused of being douchebags. Or being too "smart". Or longwinded. Or stupid (and I can point you to exactly where that occured with tim re: the tax cuts early this year). Is it any wonder that the tone switched from the other side, too?

Which is exactly why I point out that you don't want to discuss.  You want someone to validate your opinion, tell you you're right, and not fight back.

Because when actual discussions start...most of you disappear...or cry foul and play the victim.

Maybe we can try not to be such douchebags to each other moving forward?

That's like the "When are you going to stop beating your wife" question. It assumes I'm being a douchebag to you, which....I gotta be honest...I don't think I am.  I feel like I'm holding a mirror up and you don't like what you see.  I feel like I'm asking you to be accountable for your vote, and to your own words, which makes you uncomfortable.  I don't think doing that makes me a douchebag. 

If you want to go back to more reasoned discussion, great. I'd certainly like that. We managed that through both the Bush and Obama presidencies.  But that means making reasoned arguments. And it means being accountable to those arguments (and any potential hypocrisy with PAST arguments...or your vote). It doesn't mean dropping MAGA catchphrases or parroting Fox News headlines to the exclusion of actual reasoned discourse.  And it means NOT misrepresenting the other persons opinions, more than once, when you've been corrected. Work for you?

BUT, having said that, I'm not going to normalize and accept the crap that is coming out of the vast majority of the Republican party right now.  I'm just not.  That's part of the problem right now: The expectation that we should all respect "alternate facts" and abhorrent opinions and that's "civility".  It's not. Its enabling. So when I see hypocrisy or flat out lies, I'm going to call them what they are, and I'm not going to sugar coat it.  Again, your candidate literally campaigned on killing political correctness and on being able to say whatever the hell he wanted to.  Is that not what you, and his voters, wanted?

[PermissionToLand]

Exactly. Specifically, the insane amount on conspiracies they wound around George Soros makes an explicit display of their direct responsibility.

So far, every person who has received a package has been DIRECTLY mentioned by Trump in a personal attack. Even (if the newest reports are true) De Niro.

And yet, it's the Dems and the Media who have to tone it down.  I mean, Trump clearly, at his rally last night, is taking his own advice (NOT).

What drives me nuts is that the GOP can successfully spin a narrative about Dems being mobs based on peaceful protests of an accused sexual predator being elected to the head of the judicial branch, but Democrats can't make a crisis out of the attempted MURDER of 10 major democratic figures. The establishment of the party needs to be replaced, plain and simple. A party leader who can't make a mountain out of a mountain is not doing one of his most basic job duties.

[tim_m]

Anyone else think that maybe the point of these bombs were to not go off or at the very least the maker is incompetent? I mean think about it 10 bombs so far, not one detonation. The odds of that can't be very high. As for who might be behind it, just based on the labels it would appear the person is trying to make it seem they are from democrats. One would think if a democrat is behind this they wouldn't make the from label say Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.


On a different note, perhaps we should start talking about the midterms. Early voting is underway in many states. I don't know about turnout around the country, but here in Texas through Wednesday it is HUGE. I mean presidential year levels. So far it is  just slightly behind 2016. However, it is blowing the 2014 midterms away. We are seeing anywhere from 5-12% increase over 2014. Which i think is great news. This democracy thing works best when we actually participate.