Putting words in people’s mouths and making assumptions; like this thread, for example?
I read your posts in the other thread. You accused Dems of shirking their duty to get to the bottom of things, even though no factual matters are actually in dispute. You said Trump could be like a stopped clock that is right twice a day. You say that you aren’t giving Trump the benefit of the doubt… and proceed to concoct scenarios to give him the benefit of the doubt. (Which is remarkably like Trump’s “quid pro quo” defense – there can still be a quid pro quo even if someone denies that’s what it is; you are giving Trump a benefit of the doubt even though you are denying that you are.)
The other posters were handling your nonsense with diligence and panache.
I’m not familiar with your posting history, but whenever someone complains that they always get treated the same way by people, again and again, usually the issue is with that person, not everyone else in the world.
You also have no reason to be familiar with my posting history, but I stand by my record of defending conservatives who I think have a good point, and criticizing liberals who are nuts. So if you’re implying that people who disagree with you are a Borg-like collective, this is more evidence that you are the problem.
I was confused by that, too. I saw “FOR SH” and mentally added “…ame?”
I thought it was “FOR SHO’”
Mine: I liked when President Trump signed into law the Ashanti Alert Act, creating a nationwide alert system for missing, endangered adults between the ages of 18 and 64.
I didn’t like when President Obama commuted Chelsea Manning’s sentence.
I shall await the implantation of silly words into my mouth.
One could point out the same about Dems. I’m tired of pointing out that McConnell cannot stop an impeachment trial. Except they don’t get pissy - they just ignore all of the facts and cites and go into another thread to spread the disinformation.
If you think Yertle can’t and won’t stop the impeachment of Trump, I have a bridge for you. Despite Trump’s own “transcript”, despite asking the Chinese on camera
to slander his rival, despite the flood of witnesses, the Republicans are too determined to make sure they get to force women and girls to have rape babies, take away the vote from black people, and legislate their prosperity gospel version of the Bible into the Constitution.
I liked it when trump posthumously pardoned Jack Johnson.
I can’t figure out WHY he did, or who told him, but it was about damn time. So many presidents could have, and so many whiffed.
I guess I am a trump enabler now.
I know that Trump has no strategy past his short attentions span with respect to his trade war with China, but I have to say that I think that this was the one fight he started that was worth the picking: China’s bullying tactics.
I beg to differ with the OP’s assertion. I have from time to time defended a conservative on this board. (Both in the sense of conservatives who are members here and in the sense of public-figure conservatives in the news).
I do not recall being jumped on to any marked extent for doing so. People may not have always agreed with me but they did not make me feel that expressing such a sentiment was going to result in me being dogpiled or ridiculed.
How would he do it?
I suspect margin meant “removal”.
Couldn’t plow through all the OPs convoluted language, but it sorta sounded like one of those FB chain posts that you get from your dotty friend that says something like “Puppy mills are the work of the devil! I bet that nobody will share this post!”
Come on. Do you REALLY think any Repubs in the Senate have the guts to vote guilty for the asshole that’s giving them the Taliban judges of their dreams?
And I hate that I have to specify "the Senate"on order to forestall yet another round of, “Gee willikers, what in goodness’ sake you possibly be implying about our dear honest brave patriotic saintly oppressed President?” playacting.
Likewise I also said that Trump is right about the Fed being too hawkish with interest rates, and I didn’t get dogpiled. But people aren’t going to mistake me for a Trump-lover.
I suspect where FP goes wrong is he embraces the devil’s advocate position well beyond the bounds of reason. i.e. yes a stopped clock is right twice a day, but it’s right for the wrong reasons, and it’s foolish to talk about the occasional accuracy of a clock that is demonstrably wrong 86,398 times a day.
Okay, I’ve never actually spent longer than 3/4 of a second looking at this Trumplicker’s “art”. But this link has a magnifying glass feature and on the boat is John Bolton. How much does this guy regret having painted Bolton into the scene?
Also they all seem to be armed for duck-hunting? Is the swamp actually infested with ducks? Won’t they just fly away when you drain the swamp?
Sarah Fuckabee Sanders is there, too.
But the pinnacle of Trump art are the ones that depict him as a…Christian.
And don’t even get me started on the Christian Trump hagiography.
Have some more of this guy. Got a bucket handy?
Its fine?
Have you ever considered arguing your own viewpoints, rather than those of your team? Or would that un-American?
To a certain degree I agree with the OP, but only to a certain degree.
I’ve experienced my share of people answering the questions they think you asked instead of the question actually asked or people trying to argue points you aren’t making.
In this case, though, I’m failing to see the point of your argument. You proposed a hypothetical that has a dearth of facts to support it and, in the end, changes nothing about the responsibility Trump has for his own actions, regardless of the divination of the idea.
In short, you are correct to a certain extent. But the specific situation you are using as an example of this isn’t really one I think demonstrates what you think it demonstrates.
The media has consistently slanted its coverage in his favor. He’s just so utterly horrible in every way that even slanted coverage makes him look monstrous.
Trump is a monster, and supporting him *is *a monstrous act. So no, I don’t have respect for people who defend him.