…I very much doubt that anyone is interested in this any more, apart from you. But by all means, if you feel the need to keep on digging, keep on digging.
Except I “didn’t do a half-assed search.”
I spent about an hour scrolling through my twitter feed. Everybody I follow was talking about the fire. Nobody was suggesting we send in the water tankers. Until the President of the United States decided to share his opinion. Then people started talking about how deranged and bizzare that was.
So “how it reads to you” is a very different thing to what I both actually wrote, and what I actually did. This is really starting to get embarrassing for you. I’m literally cringing on your behalf. You can stop now if you like.
Except that it isn’t. I’m glad to have cleared that up for you.
Wanna know something else? If I see flames erupting from beneath the hood of a car, I’m going to feel confident in an armchair diagnosis that there’s something wrong with the engine. And this confidence comes despite the fact that I’m not a mechanic!
Your argument that people have “not interacted” with Trump highlights how incredibly flimsy a curtain you’re trying to hide Trump behind. Trump is an incredibly public figure. Between his prominent political position, frequent press interactions, and constant tweeting of every stream of consciousness in his coiffed head, he might be the most publicly exposed person on the planet. So when I hear you say we haven’t had enough contact with him to diagnose the flames blasting out from under the hood, what that really tells me is that you know damn well that he can’t withstand scrutiny, so you’re trying to dodge that by pretending that all scrutiny of this absurdly public person is inherently invalid for…reasons…that you can’t articulate…because they’re nonexistent.
So yeah. We DO have a consensus that his brain is misfiring on at least half its cylinders, because if you didn’t think so too you wouldn’t attempt to use this flimsy fig leaf to shield his cognitive modesty.
And now that we’re clear on that, can we get back on topic? This nonsense about you trying to defend his insanity is way more boring than wild and baseless speculation about a universe where he jumps the rails for once and all.
You have previously stated that you do not support Trump, HD. So why do you go to such lengths to defend him from the indefensible?
This board exists to fight ignorance. And here you are, defending the President of the United States for being profoundly ignorant. You’re defending a man who has trouble speaking in compete sentences.
I’m good continuing. Whether you’re cringing, laughing, or hanging your head in shame at the embarrassingly-bad argument you’re making here is really irrelevant to me.
What you literally wrote was:
The “objectively bizarre” “fact” that you refer to in the last sentence: what was it? Not, apparently, that President Trump was the only person who made a call for sending in tankers? Do you know what “objectively” means? Because now it sounds like you’re trying to say that the subjective nature of your personal review of some minuscule fraction of Twitter traffic should translate into something ‘objective’, which it does not. It’s meaningless. Virtually nobody cares what you looked at on Twitter, or didn’t look at. You made a claim that “Only a single person made a call for sending in the tankers” and that claim is “objectively” false.
Is it possible you’ve confused me with some other poster? I’ve not been shy about sharing the fact that I voted for President Trump and am generally glad that he’s the president rather than HRC. I don’t support 100% of everything he’s done, and some of his individual actions / decisions downright annoy / frustrate me, but if I’ve made some general statement to the effect that I “do not support Trump”, I can’t recall it.
The OP gave several examples of what it meant that don’t involve nuclear weapons:
I agree with begbert2 (I think we agree on this at least) that none of that seems the least bit likely. Nuking someone just because he loses an election seems even less-so.
HurricaneDitka, please explain how you support the leadership of the man in the link. If you have a moment more, some words clarifying the lack of senility would be appreciated.
Trump already calls things that might challenge his presidency, such as the Mueller report, “illegal” and an “attempted coup”, so it’s not unreasonable to surmise that he might say the same at other future times that his presidency may be threatened, such as an election, impeachment or end of his two-term limit. We already know from 2016 that he views elections as “rigged”, anyway.
Alternative venues to the White House for some final conflagration would be Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago. At 58-floors, Trump Tower would be quite a defensible location with commanding views - think the movie Die Hard. Mar-a-Lago seems like the more obvious analogue for the Jonestown compound, and the frequency with which Trump visits his “southern White House” suggests he views it as his retreat from the reality of life in Washington. So that would be the place I can most likely see Trump going “Jim Jones”, were he to do so.
Good grief, Ditka. There is really no positive way to spin Trump’s latest nonsense to this:
That’s a short, succinct, wonderful, and uplifting message. In 26 words, well under the 240 character limit of Twitter, glorying in the optimism the man brought to public life, to the presidency, and to the country. That’s what I miss from the Obama years.
In the short-term - the next 2-8 years - I’m a pessimist. Beyond that, I’m somewhat of an optimist in that i think people will eventually wise up and put an end to this shit.
I do think that until/unless circumstances change dramatically, the only way he leaves is by losing a landslide election - and if he loses, God do I hope he loses in a landslide that is indisputable. If he were to lose in a tight race or were it to end in an EC “tie” and were he to lose in the House of Reps, it would be pandemonium.
But if he’s in office for a 2nd term, I seriously doubt he’d be allowed to stay a third. It’s possible for a president to destroy some democracy for all and all democracy for some but not all democracy for all, and I suspect his policies will eventually be so costly that all will be confronted with reality. Unfortunately the damage that can be done between now and then is substantial, and some if it might be permanent.
How about we fill up a bunch of 737 MAX jetliners with water and crash them into Notre Dame? They’re just sitting around doing nothing anyway.
Back to (ahem) the actual thread subject. Trump, for prtty much his entire adult life, has been all about avoiding personal discomfort as much as possible. Going all Jim Jones would result in a high risk of personal discomfort, so in my view there’s no way he’ll go the last mile no matter what his fortunes hold in the next few years. The most that’s likely to happen (and I in no way trivialize this) is that he says something on Twitter or in a speech that some mook interprets as a call to take out one or more prominent Democrats, at which point Trump a) emits a series of feverish tweets claiming that he never actually said that; and b) his army of ever-busy lawyers fire off a bunch of cease and desist letter threatening lawsuits to anyone who deigns to slander our noble President by claiming he might share some responsibility.
Understood, but some people are talking about whether he would declare himself president for life, and while I am dead certain that he wants to remake the US government in his image, pulling off president-for-life is a stretch. He could probably make it so that he can strongly influence his successor. He could sow chaos in ways we might not be able to foresee. But I don’t quite see the US turning into Algeria, and even if it does, as the people there have shown, there comes a point when even in dictatorships, people can demand an ouster. But at the same time, let’s not kid ourselves: there’s risk that comes with protest.
