President chickens out in front of his daddy

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Saying Trump chose his words poorly is like saying Bill Clinton may have "exercised less than ideal judgment" in getting a blow job from a White House intern.  Or Hugh Freeze might have "hurt his testimony" in banging high priced call girls.

Only if the intent is parallel between all statements. You'd like to dictate my intent, namely that I was trying to minimize, right? 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Only if the intent is parallel between all statements. You'd like to dictate my intent, namely that I was trying to minimize, right? 

You minimized it whether you intended to or not.  Your doubling down on it doesn't exactly cast it in a more favorable light though.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

Because we aren’t judging your legal writing right now, but your thought processes in general, which we expect it to be coherent, (future) lawyer or no. The law stuff is how we know you’re not this dense. 

My thought process in saying "this isn't the first time Trump has chosen his words poorly," in the context through which the assertion was initially made?

3 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The way you talk, he simply expressed valid ideas poorly, and that’s simply not the case. 

Do tell me how you reach such a conclusion. At what point did I say or infer that the ideas he expressed were "valid?"

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

You minimized it whether you intended to or not.  Your doubling down on it doesn't exactly cast it in a more favorable light though.

So, what you're saying is that there is some objective intent in the ether that is at play? 

Who said I am "doubling down." I've maintained the assertion that you're taking dispute with. 

Now I'm just playing along. Do respond at your convenience

[AUDub 11,148]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

My thought process in saying "this isn't the first time Trump has chosen his words poorly," in the context through which the assertion was initially made?

Do tell me how you reach such a conclusion. At what point did I say or infer that the ideas he expressed were "valid?"

It’s implied in the idea that he simply misspoke, rather than said something balls to the wall crazy. He didn’t express himself insufficiently clearly or accurately, he did something pants on head stupid wrong. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Yeah yeah yeah, 91. I’m ready for your incoming wall of nonsense ad hominems about Dub being mean and hurting your fee fees, but before you post, consider this: THIS SUMMIT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. He put himself in that position, glorified an honest to God autocrat over his own IC. 

 

For crying out loud, the best you can do is “THE MEDIA WOULD HAVE TWISTED HIS WORDS!” Well, guess what. They don’t need to be twisted. What happened today was shameful. 

I would like to ask why you give two sh*ts what I have to say? My opinion is not that important to you  and you obviously don't agree with it so why bother engaging me expecting a better answer?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 minutes ago, AUDub said:

It’s implied in the idea that he simply misspoke

Did I infer that he "simply misspoke?" If so, can you quote me? Because wouldn't that inherently carry with it the notion that what was said can just be shrugged off and/or set aside? Please tell me where this is being inferred from. 

20 minutes ago, AUDub said:

rather than said something balls to the wall crazy.

(Just to make sure I'm following you, because if I'm going to engage in a calculated debate, I'll need to know your standards) Is it a gross mischaracterization to characterize such a saying-as you describe above in the selected text-as someone choosing their words poorly? If we're being honest, the answer must be an astounding no. But then again, I'll wait for your standard. 

20 minutes ago, AUDub said:

 He didn’t express himself insufficiently clearly or accurately, he did something pants on head stupid wrong. 

Ok? If we're going to nitpick specific words, as your partner Titan alluded to, then lets also give count for the words and phrases that were not used. At no point in my objection to the words he spoke did I give adherence to or not to any amount or lack of accuracy or clarity. Again, this ties back into the erroneous accusation that my rhetoric somehow conveys a subjective belief that the ideas associated with his poorly chosen words were valid. 

Conversely, it appears that you and Titan have taken it upon yourselves to dissect the mens rea element of my comment and from there construe such element as intent-dispositive, a clearly invalid method of advancing one's point. The burden rests with y'all to maintain y'alls position with intellectually satisfying reasoning. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Yeah yeah yeah, 91. I’m ready for your incoming wall of nonsense ad hominems about Dub being mean and hurting your fee fees, but before you post, consider this: THIS SUMMIT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. He put himself in that position, glorified an honest to God autocrat over his own IC. 

 

For crying out loud, the best you can do is “THE MEDIA WOULD HAVE TWISTED HIS WORDS!” Well, guess what. They don’t need to be twisted. What happened today was shameful. 

And I wasn't even talking to you dude, you just wanted to pick a bone with me because my post set you off. Then you get all defensive about you being ready for my wall of nonsense ad hominems.

You can ignore my posts if they get you that hysterical. Don't worry I won't engage you anymore.

[DKW 86 7,425]

15 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I would say I'm shocked, but that's a lie.  Nothing really surprises me with Trump anymore.  I'm just waiting to hear the defenses for this one.  Should make for some good reading.

Titan and the rest commenting here: Totally agree.

This is why you dont bring in a reality tv star to do international politics.

This is why no one with active brain cells between their ears wanted this man in the WH.

 This is why I want him gone asap and by the ballot box. 

I have a 16yo son. I dont sleep at nite thinking this dumbass could start a war over a cup of coffee and lacks the balls to stand up to someone with real bonafides in international talks.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Did I infer that he "simply misspoke?" If so, can you quote me? Because wouldn't that inherently carry with it the notion that what was said can just be shrugged off and/or set aside? Please tell me where this is being inferred from. 

 

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Do tell me how you reach such a conclusion. At what point did I say or infer that the ideas he expressed were "valid?"

When you said he "chose his words poorly."  The phrase "choosing [one's] words poorly" implies it all by itself.  It's what someone says when they intend to convey that the thought or idea they were attempting to express was good, correct, valid, but they simply didn't express it well (thus, some took offense).  The meaning behind the words is still valid, it's just the words that could have been better.

That isn't the case with Trump at this press conference.  He was asked a direct question on whether he believed our country's intelligence services and their findings of Russian meddling, and then sided with the Russian denials.  And you seem to agree that the idea behind it wasn't valid.

That's why "he chose his words poorly" doesn't cut it in this situation.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

8 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Elle, I genuinely like you, but this is type of thing that hurts, not helps, the left's case.  It's far too hyperbolic to say he's a traitor at this time.  That simply hasn't been proven and is reckless speak that tends to give Trump supporters more reason to bunker down behind him.  When those folks say "you guys can't have a rational conversation", this is what they mean.  And by sharing/posting things like this instead of engaging in dialogue, you're less likely to change minds.

I appreciate the lecture but really don’t give a damn. The man stood beside s foreign adversary and sided with him over our own intelligence agencies. And to me that’s not the worst thing he has done. Your life is most likely not affected by the decisions he makes, but mine is. So I really don’t care if you or the GOP crew here find me incapable of rational conversation because the behavior of this POTUS isn’t rational. Furthermore this is the snack talk forum. There’s another forum for serious dialogue and I’m quite certain I didn’t post there. 

[AU64 10,122]

Good point elle...this is "smack talk" and no one should mistake most comments for serious thought....mostly it is a battle of the witty and witless who seem convinced that they have superior knowledge and understanding and who rarely miss a chance to put it on display. 

Hope everyone has a good day.   

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

21 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Trump spoke poorly.

But then again, you say Trump is a racist too. It’s a shame that you’ve become so predictable in your posts. Objectivity would do you well.

So that’s how it’s defended. Suddenly the guy who claimed to have the best words spoke poorly? Your defense of Trump is predictable as well. He spoke poorly. Wow. He  sided with Putin over our intelligence agencies. This is unprecedented. You guys keep defending him and each time more and more evidence comes out that he has ties to Russia. I don’t think you’ll ever get to a point, no matter what he does that you’ll be able to admit it. Just as Trump said himself, he could shoot someone and not looose followers. That’s incredibly scary and evidently all to real as exhibited by the beliefs here.

[McLoofus 35,182]

"Twitter is the problem, not what trump says on Twitter."

SSDD

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

 

When you said he "chose his words poorly."  The phrase "choosing [one's] words poorly" implies it all by itself.  It's what someone says when they intend to convey that the thought or idea they were attempting to express was good, correct, valid, but they simply didn't express it well (thus, some took offense).  The meaning behind the words is still valid, it's just the words that could have been better.

That isn't the case with Trump at this press conference.  He was asked a direct question on whether he believed our country's intelligence services and their findings of Russian meddling, and then sided with the Russian denials.  And you seem to agree that the idea behind it wasn't valid.

That's why "he chose his words poorly" doesn't cut it in this situation.

So, this is how you’re argue this? Intention is derived from the phrase itself, no matter the context or absence of audible tone? You’re going to tell me what my intentions were in using the phrase becuase of some objective position in the ether that one must possess when they use the phrase “he chose his words poorly?” Sounds like Nazi-Germany reasoning to me.

Not so fast my friend.

You’re going to have to do much better job than that. Notwithstanding your atrocious conclusion of my intent, you’ve stripped all context away as if it were void. 

Silly argument we have here isn’t it? But do respond. I’ll enjoy this.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So, this is how you’re argue this? Intention is derived from the phrase itself, no matter the context or absence of audible tone? 

I'm not really arguing, I'm simply telling you what "choosing my words poorly" means and what connotation it carries..

 

Quote

You’re going to tell me what my intentions were in using the phrase becuase of some objective position in the ether that one must possess when they use the phrase “he chose his words poorly?” Sounds like Nazi-Germany reasoning to me.

First, I invoke Godwin's Law.  

Second, I'm not telling you what you intended, I'm telling you what the phrase means and how it's used.  Your intent is only relevant in that if you meant something other than what you said, then you should tell us.  But we are simply trying to get you to understand why your chosen description of Trump's answer at the presser doesn't cut it.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

So that’s how it’s defended. Suddenly the guy who claimed to have the best words spoke poorly? Your defense of Trump is predictable as well. He spoke poorly. Wow. He kissed sided with Purim over our intelligence agencies. This is unprecedented. You guys keep defending him and each time more and more evidence comes out that he has ties to Russia. I don’t think you’ll ever get to a point, no matter what he does that you’ll be able to admit it. Just as Trump said himself, he could shoot someone and not looose followers. That’s incredibly scary and evidently all to real as exhibited by the beliefs here.

Don’t have a brain spasm.

Brad summed it up pretty well. Also, good to see you piggy back off of the petty arguments of others. This is truly comical. Ironic that you jump on board after the fact.

I’m not defending him. In fact, I’ve said the exact opposite. Re-read, carefully. Use your teacher skills.

 I don’t care what point it is that you never think I’ll get to. If it means that I will attain your line of thinking, then I want to stay as far below (or above) that line as possible - so maybe I care in some way?

[McLoofus 35,182]

9 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Here's where I see this.  Trump's loyalties lie with Trump.  No one or nothing else.  If flattering/cozying up to Putin benefits Trump, he'll do it.  If it's acting like a common man during the campaign that understands the plight of someone in Mobile, AL, he'll do it.  Go back and read things from people who have worked for him through the years.  It's all about what's best for DJT.

Exactly. My wife and I were talking about this last night. His goal is to enrich himself and his family, and maybe enjoy along the way the fawning of his sycophants like the goofballs around here tripping over themselves to explain away every indiscretion. Whoring this country out to Russia is not the end but a means. He clearly has no shame and nothing is beneath him. It's been his calling card going all the way back to showing up in a WWE ring and agreeing with Howard Stern in an interview that his own daughter is "a piece of ass". 

If the Oval Office is the stepping stone to joining the oil oligarchy, so be it. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not really arguing, I'm simply telling you what "choosing my words poorly" means and what connotation it carries..

 

First, I invoke Godwin's Law.  

Second, I'm not telling you what you intended, I'm telling you what the phrase means and how it's used.  Your intent is only relevant in that if you meant something other than what you said, then you should tell us.  But we are simply trying to get you to understand why your chosen description of Trump's answer at the presser doesn't cut it.

 

You’re essentially, in pettiness, arguing that the phrase you’re being anal about has no reasonable application to the situation being discussed. And I clearly disagree. The burden is on you to qualify it as my summation of his words. 

Reasonably objective people can affirm that he spoke poorly. For some reason, you think anyone who says that is somehow trying to “minimizing” or encapsulate their entire description of what happened. It’s truly silly. Glad I’m able to illuminate the ludicrousness.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

10 hours ago, AU64 said:

Not withstanding that liar Brennan's comments, I expect DT does not have much respect for many in the intelligence community after they set him up with the Steele dossier. The leadership of the FBI and intelligence community lost my respect a long time ago...not that it matters of course....but some are wondering who DT is working for but you might also want to consider who the intelligence community is loyal too also.   JMO

PS..my distrust in the intelligence community is not about the rank and file...but the top leadership is up their a** in political malfeasance and have repeatedly lied to congress and the American people. 

Who do you think they're loyal to? Why are they lying to Congress and the American people? Under whose employ is our entire intelligence community? Why the political malfeasance? 

[AUDub 11,148]

7 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I would like to ask why you give two sh*ts what I have to say? My opinion is not that important to you  and you obviously don't agree with it so why bother engaging me expecting a better answer?

Hey, it's a forum.

[aubiefifty 16,791]

19 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

A thread  of just what I would expect from Trump haters. It wasn't his best moment but I think he did a good job and it was very worthwhile summit. It is better to talk face to face with Putin in a diplomatic way than to have a cold war. What bad will come of it........only positive IMHO. Putin could have kissed Trump's ass on live TV and the haters still wouldn't like it.

 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

34 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You’re essentially, in pettiness, arguing that the phrase you’re being anal about has no reasonable application to the situation being discussed. And I clearly disagree. The burden is on you to qualify it as my summation of his words. 

I'm not completely sure what you even said here, but I'm not being petty.  I'm just telling you what the phrase you chose actually means and why it's not sufficient to describe what Trump did.

 

Quote

Reasonably objective people can affirm that he spoke poorly. For some reason, you think anyone who says that is somehow trying to “minimizing” or encapsulate their entire description of what happened. It’s truly silly. Glad I’m able to illuminate the ludicrousness.

Like I said, Trump "spoke poorly" in the same sense that Slick Willy "exercised less than ideal judgment" and Freeze "hurt his testimony" by banging hookers.  Sure, all of these things are technically true, but such descriptions fall far short of what actually occurred.  They are all vast understatements of the situations.

[aubiefifty 16,791]

when the ass kissers known has newt g, paul ryan, and god forbid trey gowdy condemn trump people need to take notice. and that is just three. and also for you pretend rah rah america types you do realize intelligence folks give their lives in cold wars just like soldiers on the battlefield right? you spit on those who served and gave their lives for this country. i am not flamming here but dead serious when i say i am ashamed of some of you.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not completely sure what you even said here, but I'm not being petty.  I'm just telling you what the phrase you chose actually means and why it's not sufficient to describe what Trump did.

 

Like I said, Trump "spoke poorly" in the same sense that Slick Willy "exercised less than ideal judgment" and Freeze "hurt his testimony" by banging hookers.  Sure, all of these things are technically true, but such descriptions fall far short of what actually occurred.  They are all vast understatements of the situations.

As I’ve said, you don’t dictate intent nor arbitrarily have to right to dissect and isolate phrases, and in doing so, treat them as some sort of summation of an event to which they apply. I wasn’t asked what I ultimately thought occurred. I expressed one simple thought, among other thoughts, while engaging with another poster. I’ve not shrugged my shoulders. I have expressed no other comments about Trump to favor your assertions of error towards me. Your tactics might work with others, but I’m going to hold you to a higher standard. What you’ve purported so far as it relates to your dispute with my rhetoric simply won’t cut it. That’s not how this cookie is going to crumble.

Now you sit on it, and think. Heading to the Fifth Circuit, buddy. Catch ya on the flip side later.