(12-13-2019 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2019 07:08 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]What's the point of this?
![[Image: I3nvdxZ.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/I3nvdxZ.png?1)
What difference does it make?
Dude is yelling abotut a 16 yr old. The dude is POTUS.
You mean the 16 yr old who is yelling at everyone for being climate criminals?
Lolz.
The underlying advantage if having a child bear your political water is now shown.
(12-13-2019 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2019 07:08 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]What's the point of this?
What difference does it make?
Dude is yelling abotut a 16 yr old. The dude is POTUS.
You mean the 16 yr old who is yelling at everyone for being climate criminals?
Lolz.
The underlying advantage if having a child bear your political water is now shown.
I love that you're defending this molehill.
(12-13-2019 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2019 07:08 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]What's the point of this?
What difference does it make?
Dude is yelling about a 16 yr old. The dude is POTUS.
So what difference does it make?
I mean, it seems that you people have to find fault with every single thing that Trump does, and make every molehill a mountain. I may not care for this, but in the grand scheme of things, what difference does it make?
If you want me to oppose Trump, give me somebody better as an alternative.
Yes, a post on a sport's [sic] related message board is truly a mountain.
I don't think that this is the only place, or that you're the only one.
But to my last point, give me somebody else who is a better alternative, keeping in mind my previously-stated drop-dead show-stopper issues.
(12-13-2019 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 11:43 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think I can begin to describe the difference between an internal bias (which is natural) and manufacturing evidence or making intentionally false statements (which is criminal).
There is a difference between thinking Trump is a crook and looking for evidence to prove it, and in the absence of that, manufacturing such evidence.
I mean seriously, how is this any different than a cop who plants a gun or claims that the guy he shot had one?
What would the left be arguing if that had been the circumstances rather than this? That because the guy was a bully, that he deserved it so it was okay?
Wait, an FBI agent manufactured evidence that says Trump was a crook?
As opposed to the nitpick on what the evidence was directed it, perhaps the major focus is that evidence was manufactured in what is conceivably the most important investgation undertaken by the FBI in the last 70 years. But why let that get in the way of your extremely minor nitpicking point..........
(12-13-2019 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-12-2019 07:08 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]What's the point of this?
What difference does it make?
Dude is yelling abotut a 16 yr old. The dude is POTUS.
You mean the 16 yr old who is yelling at everyone for being climate criminals?
Lolz.
The underlying advantage if having a child bear your political water is now shown.
I love that you're defending this molehill.
Defending? No, the President's actions are kind of repugnant.
But, using a 16 year old as a symbol for a political statement is also just as repugnant. Liberals seemingly love to drag their child-symbols into the limelight to do this it looks like.
And, I find it repugnant that the liberals cheer wonderfully when the same bratty as **** 16 year old yells at everyone for not having the same viewpoint as her.
Given all that, I have zero compassion for a bratty 16 year old snot who wants to preach to everyone else on how everyone else should live. And, on top of that, she specifically not only drug herself onto that stage, she has made the explicit choice to continue that stage presence. Boo hoo. Live on the stage; die on the stage.
Not an excuse for Trump's tantrum -- but a very good equivalence to a tantrum and use of a child for political purposes on the other side. Both sides are disgusting as **** to me in this.
Clear enough for you now?
(12-13-2019 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]What difference does it make?
Dude is yelling about a 16 yr old. The dude is POTUS.
So what difference does it make?
I mean, it seems that you people have to find fault with every single thing that Trump does, and make every molehill a mountain. I may not care for this, but in the grand scheme of things, what difference does it make?
If you want me to oppose Trump, give me somebody better as an alternative.
Yes, a post on a sport's [sic] related message board is truly a mountain.
I don't think that this is the only place, or that you're the only one.
But to my last point, give me somebody else who is a better alternative, keeping in mind my previously-stated drop-dead show-stopper issues.
I chuckled a bit at the [sic] you added. Nice journalistic touch right there.
(12-13-2019 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 11:43 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think I can begin to describe the difference between an internal bias (which is natural) and manufacturing evidence or making intentionally false statements (which is criminal).
There is a difference between thinking Trump is a crook and looking for evidence to prove it, and in the absence of that, manufacturing such evidence.
I mean seriously, how is this any different than a cop who plants a gun or claims that the guy he shot had one?
What would the left be arguing if that had been the circumstances rather than this? That because the guy was a bully, that he deserved it so it was okay?
Wait, an FBI agent manufactured evidence that says Trump was a crook?
As opposed to the nitpick on what the evidence was directed it, perhaps the major focus is that evidence was manufactured in what is conceivably the most important investgation undertaken by the FBI in the last 70 years. But why let that get in the way of your extremely minor nitpicking point..........
Was evidence manufactured?
I know the email was edited, but it wasn't used as evidence. The email was in regards to Page's previous work as an informant.
That's not saying the email editing was correct, or trying to minimize it. But that's not the same as manufacturing evidence, right?
In order to have a conversation, we at least need to be working from the same, common set of facts/understandings of what was found in the IG report.
(12-13-2019 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 11:43 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think I can begin to describe the difference between an internal bias (which is natural) and manufacturing evidence or making intentionally false statements (which is criminal).
There is a difference between thinking Trump is a crook and looking for evidence to prove it, and in the absence of that, manufacturing such evidence.
I mean seriously, how is this any different than a cop who plants a gun or claims that the guy he shot had one?
What would the left be arguing if that had been the circumstances rather than this? That because the guy was a bully, that he deserved it so it was okay?
Wait, an FBI agent manufactured evidence that says Trump was a crook?
As opposed to the nitpick on what the evidence was directed it, perhaps the major focus is that evidence was manufactured in what is conceivably the most important investgation undertaken by the FBI in the last 70 years. But why let that get in the way of your extremely minor nitpicking point..........
Was evidence manufactured?
I know the email was edited, but it wasn't used as evidence. The email was in regards to Page's previous work as an informant.
That's not saying the email editing was correct, or trying to minimize it. But that's not the same as manufacturing evidence, right?
In order to have a conversation, we at least need to be working from the same, common set of facts/understandings of what was found in the IG report.
I believe the email was used before the FISA court, although I will admit that so much stuff is being hurled around that I may be wrong. I'm sure, though, that you will be quick to correct me if I am. But if it was presented to the FISA court, then it is evidence.
I personally dislike the FISA court, and have consistently voiced my opposition. I would dislike it a lot less if there were a provision for an ad litem to address the interests of the potential target. Doing so could actually prevent some of the more egregious violations. That was actually proposed some years ago in a bill written by guess whom? Adam Schiff.
(12-13-2019 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]What difference does it make?
Dude is yelling abotut a 16 yr old. The dude is POTUS.
You mean the 16 yr old who is yelling at everyone for being climate criminals?
Lolz.
The underlying advantage if having a child bear your political water is now shown.
I love that you're defending this molehill.
Defending? No, the President's actions are kind of repugnant.
But, using a 16 year old as a symbol for a political statement is also just as repugnant. Liberals seemingly love to drag their child-symbols into the limelight to do this it looks like.
And, I find it repugnant that the liberals cheer wonderfully when the same bratty as **** 16 year old yells at everyone for not having the same viewpoint as her.
Given all that, I have zero compassion for a bratty 16 year old snot who wants to preach to everyone else on how everyone else should live. And, on top of that, she specifically not only drug herself onto that stage, she has made the explicit choice to continue that stage presence. Boo hoo. Live on the stage; die on the stage.
Not an excuse for Trump's tantrum -- but a very good equivalence to a tantrum and use of a child for political purposes on the other side. Both sides are disgusting as **** to me in this.
Clear enough for you now?
Your cynicism is really depressing.
My question was what is the point of Trump tweeting stuff like that? I don't get it. Is it a play to his base? Is he trolling the libs? Is he so threatened by her TIME cover that he has to respond? Genuinely curious what y'all think he's trying to accomplish here.
Back atcha:
What is the point of using a 16 year old snotty girl to yell at everyone who disagrees with her?
Genuinely curious what you all think about using a kid as a political lever?
------------------
I mean if you are going to go off on the President's tweet, at least have the objectivity on the inverse of the position. Unless you are so wedded to the decency of trotting out and using a 16 year old as political fodder......
(12-13-2019 02:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Back atcha:
What is the point of using a 16 year old snotty girl to yell at everyone who disagrees with her?
Genuinely curious what you all think about using a kid as a political lever?
------------------
I mean if you are going to go off on the President's tweet, at least have the objectivity on the inverse of the position. Unless you are so wedded to the decency of trotting out and using a 16 year old as political fodder......
I see no reason that someone's age should exclude them from a political conversation. I think agreeing or disagreeing with her stances and tactics in a different manner than Trump's is A-OK.
(12-13-2019 02:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 02:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Back atcha:
What is the point of using a 16 year old snotty girl to yell at everyone who disagrees with her?
Genuinely curious what you all think about using a kid as a political lever?
------------------
I mean if you are going to go off on the President's tweet, at least have the objectivity on the inverse of the position. Unless you are so wedded to the decency of trotting out and using a 16 year old as political fodder......
I see no reason that someone's age should exclude them from a political conversation. I think agreeing or disagreeing with her stances and tactics in a different manner than Trump's is A-OK.
Then why should someone's age exclude him/her from getting told off?
It appears that the only reason for your opposition is that the author is Donald Trump.
(12-13-2019 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Not an excuse for Trump's tantrum -- but a very good equivalence to a tantrum and use of a child for political purposes on the other side.
Are you saying that there is certain silliness in using the views of kids to make a political point, and then complaining when those views are criticized?
I am simply asking, what is the point of his tweet. I'm not casting judgement on whether it is good or bad. What is he trying to achieve here?
(12-13-2019 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 11:43 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think I can begin to describe the difference between an internal bias (which is natural) and manufacturing evidence or making intentionally false statements (which is criminal).
There is a difference between thinking Trump is a crook and looking for evidence to prove it, and in the absence of that, manufacturing such evidence.
I mean seriously, how is this any different than a cop who plants a gun or claims that the guy he shot had one?
What would the left be arguing if that had been the circumstances rather than this? That because the guy was a bully, that he deserved it so it was okay?
Wait, an FBI agent manufactured evidence that says Trump was a crook?
As opposed to the nitpick on what the evidence was directed it, perhaps the major focus is that evidence was manufactured in what is conceivably the most important investgation undertaken by the FBI in the last 70 years. But why let that get in the way of your extremely minor nitpicking point..........
Was evidence manufactured?
I know the email was edited, but it wasn't used as evidence. The email was in regards to Page's previous work as an informant.
That's not saying the email editing was correct, or trying to minimize it. But that's not the same as manufacturing evidence, right?
In order to have a conversation, we at least need to be working from the same, common set of facts/understandings of what was found in the IG report.
The email was altered to present a radically different view of Page. Had Page been known by the agent affiming to the issue of what the email should have said, at the very least it would have set off alarm bells. And had the FISA court known the real contents, it likely would not have issued nor re-issued the warrant.
So yes, it was absolutely material. And personally whether something was altered, or made up out of whole cloth has zero difference. In the large scope of things or in the smaller scope of things.
In this case a material fact was changed. In the smaller scope, the action to influence the course of an investigation is repugnant to the extreme; it does not matter what friggin verb you use the simple fact remains that a vindicating arc was changed to present another view.
In the larger scope, the fact that the FBI itself did it is absolutely disgraceful. The actions of the FBI in particular have to be absolutely above reproach. So even if the stuff was changed and *not* even shown to make a difference, even that aspect to the extent it detracts from the objectivity of the organization, and in this case changes into a political act, is doubly atrocious.
As to what was manufactured, I suggest you go back a day or so to the outline of actions I brought forward. The answer is there.
And yes, changing evidence to reflect something that is not is absolutely manufacturing evidence; I dont care if you call it editing, making up, or tamopering -- the end result as to the outcome in front of the FISA court is absolutely repugnant, as is the organizational damage to the FBI overall even if the 'evidence' was not used.
I fail to see where the change in verbs changes either of those outcomes.
(12-13-2019 02:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Not an excuse for Trump's tantrum -- but a very good equivalence to a tantrum and use of a child for political purposes on the other side.
Are you saying that there is certain silliness in using the views of kids to make a political point, and then complaining when those views are criticized?
Yep. That implicit point seems to be lost on some.
(12-13-2019 02:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 02:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Back atcha:
What is the point of using a 16 year old snotty girl to yell at everyone who disagrees with her?
Genuinely curious what you all think about using a kid as a political lever?
------------------
I mean if you are going to go off on the President's tweet, at least have the objectivity on the inverse of the position. Unless you are so wedded to the decency of trotting out and using a 16 year old as political fodder......
I see no reason that someone's age should exclude them from a political conversation. I think agreeing or disagreeing with her stances and tactics in a different manner than Trump's is A-OK.
Then we should back the age issue out completely then on all aspects, according to you.
Now the complaint from you boils down to the author being Trump. Got it.
Indeed, she is telling nations what their environmental and industrial policy should be, and criticizing world leaders who don’t agree. Clearly, she deserves no immunity to criticism of any sort whatsoever. Again, got it.
(12-13-2019 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Defending? No, the President's actions are kind of repugnant.
But, using a 16 year old as a symbol for a political statement is also just as repugnant. Liberals seemingly love to drag their child-symbols into the limelight to do this it looks like.
And, I find it repugnant that the liberals cheer wonderfully when the same bratty as **** 16 year old yells at everyone for not having the same viewpoint as her.
Given all that, I have zero compassion for a bratty 16 year old snot who wants to preach to everyone else on how everyone else should live. And, on top of that, she specifically not only drug herself onto that stage, she has made the explicit choice to continue that stage presence. Boo hoo. Live on the stage; die on the stage.
Not an excuse for Trump's tantrum -- but a very good equivalence to a tantrum and use of a child for political purposes on the other side. Both sides are disgusting as **** to me in this.
Clear enough for you now?
I think you make a fair point that, compared to a normal 16-year-old, she has put herself out there on a stage and that she needs to have thick enough skin to withstand criticism of her viewpoints. I think she would probably disagree with you that she is being "used for political purposes". I don't think Malala Yousafzai, Greta Thunberg, or the Stoneman Douglas kids are being "used".
I think what bothers the left about Trump's attitude toward Greta are: (1) a lot of past President's likely would have just applauded her passion and involvement, even if they disagreed with her viewpoint (I think both Bushes would have taken this approach); (2) the 1st Lady is literally running an anti-online bullying campaign so having the most powerful person in the world attacking a 16-year-old climate activist on multiple occasions is an interesting juxtaposition; (3) he doesn't have to respond or even acknowledge her. Trump making the conscious decision to throw shade at someone 50 rungs below him on the ladder feels weird; and (4) given a pretty long history of derogatory treatment of many women, the left is more sensitive when Trump acts this way toward a 16-year-old than they would a 36-year-old.
All that said, Greta has proven that she can handle herself and doesn't need anyone's protection from Trump. I think such attacks are beneath the position of the President and its a bit embarrassing to have our POTUS acting in such a way. But if I were to rank all the things that bother me about Trump, this would rank so far down the list as to not even be worth mentioning. It would rank somewhere between his "Cinco de Mayo taco salad" tweet and the fact that he likes well done steaks with ketchup.
(12-13-2019 03:35 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Defending? No, the President's actions are kind of repugnant.
But, using a 16 year old as a symbol for a political statement is also just as repugnant. Liberals seemingly love to drag their child-symbols into the limelight to do this it looks like.
And, I find it repugnant that the liberals cheer wonderfully when the same bratty as **** 16 year old yells at everyone for not having the same viewpoint as her.
Given all that, I have zero compassion for a bratty 16 year old snot who wants to preach to everyone else on how everyone else should live. And, on top of that, she specifically not only drug herself onto that stage, she has made the explicit choice to continue that stage presence. Boo hoo. Live on the stage; die on the stage.
Not an excuse for Trump's tantrum -- but a very good equivalence to a tantrum and use of a child for political purposes on the other side. Both sides are disgusting as **** to me in this.
Clear enough for you now?
I think you make a fair point that, compared to a normal 16-year-old, she has put herself out there on a stage and that she needs to have thick enough skin to withstand criticism of her viewpoints. I think she would probably disagree with you that she is being "used for political purposes". I don't think Malala Yousafzai, Greta Thunberg, or the Stoneman Douglas kids are being "used".
Sure at least Greta is. It is very easy political cover to toss out a cute minor with a message, and watch the evil bad opposition pillory them. The Democrats have done that for decades.
In the case of Yousafzai and Greta, they actually *chose* to be the limelight. They are activists, no greater, no less.
In terms of the Stoneman kids, perhaps not. But, in particular David Hogg, some gladly and gleefully take that center stage for a cause.
And the liberals at the time trotted out Hogg front and center; ostensibly to be able to shield criticism of his views as 'an attack on a poor defenseless kid'. Just like has happened precisely with Greta.
Quote:I think what bothers the left about Trump's attitude toward Greta are: (1) a lot of past President's likely would have just applauded her passion and involvement, even if they disagreed with her viewpoint (I think both Bushes would have taken this approach); (2) the 1st Lady is literally running an anti-online bullying campaign so having the most powerful person in the world attacking a 16-year-old climate activist on multiple occasions is an interesting juxtaposition; (3) he doesn't have to respond or even acknowledge her. Trump making the conscious decision to throw shade at someone 50 rungs below him on the ladder feels weird; and (4) given a pretty long history of derogatory treatment of many women, the left is more sensitive when Trump acts this way toward a 16-year-old than they would a 36-year-old.
I am not defending Trump's actions here. But, I find the vast majority of 'kid social issue stars' to be found and lauded by the liberals. And then anyone who has the audacity to criticize them is pilloried as being a bully. Heads progessives win, tails conservatives lose. It is brilliant. In Greta's case I have little to no sympathy. She has grandstanded her way to this, and in the process has been an amazing pious spokesperson.
Quote:'How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood'
How dare I. Got it. My response would be to tell her to p-ss off. But Greta's example is amazingly cookie cutter for the left at this point.