Trump Trolls the New York Times
- Thread starter HillzHoozier
- Start date
I give up. What's in the emails is irrelevant for this discussion. His statements appealing to Putin on somethings that could effect the election is dangerous and serious and should be taken as such.
As a side on this, and keep in mind that I'm in way over my head here. Which is more damning, someone asking for the info to be released or the fact that the Russians ( or anyone) may have the info.
It's seems we may be using Trumps request as gorilla dust.
e
The real question here is do you get it?
#You'reComplicitInElectingAConman
Stop patronizing us. We all get your point. We just don't agree because we've been watching Don the Con for more than a year and we know how he runs. He's all about saying something controversial and unexpected to control the media dialogue. He woke up wanting to grab the dialogue away from teh Democratic Convention and either he planned this (most likely) or he spontaneously recognized his opportunity. He meant it in all seriousness, "it" being he meant for the Russians to out Hillary's emails if they have them, but as always he didn't think about the implications of his off-the-cuff remark, namely, that it implied he was advocating that they hack Hillary's server (or have hacked or hack someone else who hacked Hillary's server), a fellow American. No, he didn't mean to imply that, but that is the implication. Ergo, at best he's a loose cannon, something we've always known and something we can't have as our CiC. At worst, he's a superficial, clueless, walking disaster (most likely).
The real question here is do you get it?
#You'reComplicitInElectingAConman
Last edited:
Ha. You honestly think Trump raised those kids? I'd be willing to bet he rarely spent time with them. He spent two weeks a year with Tiffany. Oh yeah, and since he doesn't mind throwing out allegations, he was recently accused of rape by a 14 year old. Says it happened years ago. But that's the third accusation. ( this was supposed to be under Joe's)
Well, I'm willing to bet there will be no landslide. We might even see the return of hanging chads. To close for me to call, but definitely no landslide.
How exactly could what he implied be of any baring? If the thing you say he implied doesn't exist any longer. The server is shut down, the emails were revived and stored by forinsic computer experts.
No way anyone could stretch that he is saying to hack something that doesn't exist any longer.
This time, I think he clearly did think it through. And I most certainly do not think the remark was off-the-cuff.
Well, technically that's not what he said. He said he hopes they find them (ie, they're already looking for them) -- but then said he thinks they probably already have them. What he advocated them doing was releasing them.
But parsing his exact words misses the forest for the trees. The "what" isn't what to pay attention to. The "why" is.
Someone seems to have done well at that. I can't stand Trump but if his kids think he had something to do with it, I can't argue with them.
To quote the fake Marge Schott: Well, there...you...go.
Oh, and remember, the FBI retrieved and released everything (other than the classified info that she also repeatedly denied transmitting). The only emails nobody ever saw were related to Chelsea's wedding.
And, if that's really the case, then what harm is it to the country?
If it's not the case, then who gets the heat when/if they are released: Hillary for erasing thousands of emails she didn't want seen and then lying about what they were pertaining...or Donald Trump for saying what he said today?
Folks, Donald Trump may be a carnival barker and a charlatan. Not only have I never denied that -- I frequently point it out myself.
But this...this was an inspired piece of political aikido. I guarantee you that Bill, however pissed off he may be right now, will someday tip his cap to Trump for it.
I agree, the comment was not off the cuff, and my impression from watching Trump in that segment was that it was made with both knowledge that those email have been obtained illegally by the Russians and an explicit intent for them to be released. As the good admiral said tonight, that's criminal intent.
There comes a time when you need to take a breath and step away. I've never seen someone get so upset on a message board.
The DOJ should kick it into gear posthaste -- and the Clinton campaign should press them to do just that.
Finally, somebody inside the Beltway gets it right.
Krauthammer:
Krauthammer:
Well, that was his parting shot, and it was a clever thing to plant, because it is an issue. But I do think there was something about his reference to Russia that, whether planned or not, was extremely clever. I’m not the first to point out that it set a trap that the Clinton campaign fell right into. In that statement that you showed from the Clinton campaign, it said you’re [Trump] is inviting a foreign power to invade our national security.
Now, these are the e-mails she deleted because they were supposedly private; these were the ones that were supposedly not work-related; these are the ones where she discusses her yoga lessons and wedding planning. So if that what was really in the 30,000 deleted e-mails, then there’s no national security to be involved at all. So the Clinton campaign ends up admitting that perhaps there really is work-related – if not classified – stuff in the e-mails that she deleted, which I think would be grounds for a charge of obstruction.
Whether or not he meant it seriously – it could have been sarcastic, it could have been sort of half-sarcastic as a way to plant the idea – the fact is that it leaves the Clinton campaign in a complete contradiction. If these are just private e-mails, then there is nothing to be concerned about. There is no espionage. There is no danger to national security that they will discover her yoga lesson schedule.
Now, these are the e-mails she deleted because they were supposedly private; these were the ones that were supposedly not work-related; these are the ones where she discusses her yoga lessons and wedding planning. So if that what was really in the 30,000 deleted e-mails, then there’s no national security to be involved at all. So the Clinton campaign ends up admitting that perhaps there really is work-related – if not classified – stuff in the e-mails that she deleted, which I think would be grounds for a charge of obstruction.
Whether or not he meant it seriously – it could have been sarcastic, it could have been sort of half-sarcastic as a way to plant the idea – the fact is that it leaves the Clinton campaign in a complete contradiction. If these are just private e-mails, then there is nothing to be concerned about. There is no espionage. There is no danger to national security that they will discover her yoga lesson schedule.
He's acting like he's still on a reality show. We know exactly what he's doing, trying to steal a news cycle. By saying more and more ridiculous things, now attempting to get the Russians involved in a US election. But you think it's cute, I don't.
It's quite clear that Putin/Russia very much supports Trump. Why is that? Have you considered that whatsoever? Why remove the Pro-Ukraine language from the GOP platform (basically the only thing in the platform that Trump cared about). Do you not find that just a bit odd? On top of dropping the news in the convention that the US wouldn't necessarily maintain their NATO commitments under a President Trump.
These are VERY serious things with very dangerous long-term implications.
That's part of it, sure. But that's far from all of it.
Hang on. He's not even the one who brought Russia up. It was brought up to him by others -- before the PC (when the Wikileaks dump came out) and during the PC by the press.
He's not the one bringing Russia into it. Others brought them into it -- he just followed their lead.
Did you watch the entire PC, or just that last bit?
"Cute" wasn't the word I used or would use. I thought it was extremely clever -- and put the Clinton campaign in a terrible spot whether they realized it or not (I would guess they now do).
I'm not sure that's true. But, whether it is or isn't, do you really care about that?
Putin endorsed GWB in 2004, right before Election Day (look it up). Did you still vote for him?
Sure. But this particular kerfuffle really has nothing to do with Russia. They're incidental. It has to do with sealing up Hillary in the box she may have put herself in by erasing thousands of emails and insisting they had nothing to do with the country's business.
Think about it. If she was telling the truth, then this is all of no consequence. If she wasn't telling the truth, then Trump's not the one who's going to be put heavily on the defensive if/when they're released.
Have to take umbrage with your perpetual dissing of Don the Con's fatherhood. You're not a father. Not even sure you're a mother, are you? In any case, I have a lot of experience as a father, with my children and with children who didn't have a father figure. Trump might not have lived with all of his children all the time, but it's clear that he never stopped being their father, ever. That's huge for children. Just knowing that they had a father who loved them and cared for them and invited them into his world to whatever extent he did by having them at his work or taking their calls while he was at work, is monumentally important for children. I've looked into the sad, longing eyes of children, when I was kind to them, wishing I'd marry their mother and be their father.
Your attitude about Trump's fatherhood is offensive to me and to all loving fathers. Think about it. Shed your partisanship long enough to be objective.
I'm not upset, Antwaan. I'm trying to see if there's any way to get through Crazed's thick skull. I don't think so. I'm still trying to find the right words to describe him. He's like an ideological puppet where he's pulling his own strings.
In any case, his posts are perpetually examples of how when you mix some relative truths with some relative falsehoods you always get a falsehood. You can't mix them and get a truth.
Did your account get hacked? Are you on a bender?
Your posts are totally unhinged this evening. In recent weeks you hadn't seem very partisan at all, honestly was tough to tell who you even supported. Tonight, not so much.
Well, I guess he gets credit for spending two weeks a year with Tiffany? I get offended by Trump getting credit for the kids when he obviously had very little to do with Tiffany. And there is this...http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/269312-trumps-ex-wife-i-raised-the-kids As I've said, I followed Trump for decades and it's annoying that he's getting the credit for raising his kids. He wasn't absentee with most of them, but I'd say the mother had much more to do with it than he did. They obviously now choose to spend time with him now that they are older, but my mind isn't changed about who deserves the major part of the credit.
First I was so uplifted by the speeches that I didn't feel like even responding to all the bullcrap the butthurt conservatives are throwing around. Then I got a bit serious, realizing how horrific a Trump presidency would be, and I decided to have some fun and call a spade a spade. Trump supporters ARE getting duped. He is a conman. There is absolutely no doubt about that.He's not remotely even a conservative, by their standards. The ONLY reason they are voting for him is because they're hoping and praying he isn't a disaster.
I've always been a Hillary supporter but I haven't made a big deal about it because that hasn't been relevant to my posting interests.
Trump's kids are no more articulate,poised or professional than Chelsea Clinton is.Trump's kids were born with a silver spoon,and Chelsea was born into what I'd call "upper middle class".HRC was an idealistic college student who got involved in helping people,and trump as been in it for himself since h was a brat in military school.Not sure I get why trump is trustworthy to you,and HRC isn't?
It's not like he's ever been anything close to a philanthropist.In fact the truth is he's probably hurt more people (lost jobs thru his bankruptcies,foreclosures to build his empire here and abroad) than he's ever "helped"...
The problem with way too many American voters. They're MORONS...just like you...
Sad, actually.
Sad, actually.
Wait, I thought the media fell for it. That was the whole idea behind the thread. Hillary is the media? My reaction to Romney and Trump regarding taxes is laughing at republicans who are always spouting off about transparency.
Gasp.....I can about agree totally sir. Having said that Hillary would give him a run for his money as in the description you have provided about Trump. Two peas in a pod as they say. Sad part is one of the turds is going to be our next POTUS and as you stated regarding Trump with a twist, "But they've decided to vote for Hillary, so they have to dismiss every disqualifying thing she says and does, however absurd that makes them look."
I don't take it that he was asking them to hack her. They already did that...them and probably every competent intelligence agency in the world and she made it easy for them to do. I took it that he is saying, we know of you got email, go ahead and release them.
And really if the whole email scandal is not that big of a deal then why should we be worried about them releasing those emails? You all cannot have it both ways, so which is it: not a big deal to have the private server or Hillary is a walking national security nightmare who (intentionally) compromised the State Department because she wanted to avoid FOIA requests?
If he is unsuited, what about the dumb ass who allowed government emails to fall into the hands of the Russians in the first place?
Seriously, none of this is even a topic of discussion if your supposedly competent candidate had not completely FUBARed by setting up a personal server with grade school security and then conducted classified government work through said server. If Trump is unqualified for the things he says, what about the stupid shit your candidate has actually done?
I would much rather vote for a candidate who sometimes says crazy things as opposed to the candidate who actually does fantastically stupid shit.
And that is your girl. So rag on the Trump voters for voting for an unqualified candidate when you are going to pull the lever for a complete moron and borderline criminal. Yeah, you guys just keep telling yourself how good and smart you are....
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
LOL, it's funny that you think I'm supporting Hillary, and she's my girl.
This is the dysfunction of our system, if you are critical of one side, by default people assume you support the other guy/gal.
Honestly I didn'the even pay much attention in who I was responding to as much as what I was responding to. (thought it was Rock)
My point about Hillary stands however. In reality, it is her or Trump. Someone can vote for Stein or Johnson and follow their conscience and all...but neither of those 2 are going to win.
Trump is not my first choice either. My preference never left the Lafayette area to run.
You mean that Manafort was a lobbyist for the deposed Putin puppet dictator of Ukraine for years. Manafort has also had some other stellar clients, like Kadafi. Paul Manafort really has a talent for lying. He can lie with a completely straight face-not many people can do that. He must have been educated in Moscow.
