Let me summarize what lads position is on the riots: in short, punt. And let the shitbirds get it out of their system.

How did that strategy work in Minneapolis for five days, that is until the Governor mobilized the *entire* body of the Minnesota National Guard (for the first time in history)?

(07-24-2020 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:what additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

As to the accompanying list you cite with the above, well..... big fat whoopee.

What is left out and adds to the context is the veritable street warfare shitstorm happening in the very immediate area, and the danger to officers to wade into a mob to make a detention or arrest, or the presence to even attract a mob. That is kind of a biggie.

And, as to your last question, they were actually looking for Pettibone. Per the director's comments.

They did not have enough to charge him and let him go. And, Pettibone shut down all conversation at the get go with his invocation for a lawyer.

Now you have first hand evidence of the efficacy of the first and second rules of criminal law given to people: Never talk with the police willingly; and always ask for an attorney.

I have also heard you should never let anybody search anything. But it is much tougher with a texas ranger in your living room asking for permission due to a body being discovered.

OTOH, if my ex-wife had not allowed the cops to search her place, her second husband may not have had to go to prison.

(07-24-2020 04:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:what additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

As to the accompanying list you cite with the above, well..... big fat whoopee.

What is left out and adds to the context is the veritable street warfare shitstorm happening in the very immediate area, and the danger to officers to wade into a mob to make a detention or arrest, or the presence to even attract a mob. That is kind of a biggie.

And, as to your last question, they were actually looking for Pettibone. Per the director's comments.

They did not have enough to charge him and let him go. And, Pettibone shut down all conversation at the get go with his invocation for a lawyer.

Now you have first hand evidence of the efficacy of the first and second rules of criminal law given to people: Never talk with the police willingly; and always ask for an attorney.

I have also heard you should never let anybody search anything.

That is a good one as well.

Quote:OTOH, if my ex-wife had not allowed the cops to search her place, her second husband may not have had to go to prison.

It is kind of dependent. If there is a zero chance that they are looking at you, welcome in officer, can I get you a lemonade.

If they is any hint of them suspecting you -- no way Joe. Please get a warrant.

(07-24-2020 04:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There's a few things that are problematic with how you frame the above.

1) There are more options. For starters, they could continue to protect the court house and only arrest those that enter the physical grounds (so don't wade into the crowd).

2) Option C has a wide range of possible methods of execution. Some possible suggestions on what could change:
-make sure that they verbalize why they are detaining someone and where they will be taken to
- do not detain individuals and only arrest specific individuals that they will charge with a crime
- if they want to detain someone, do that in public
- only conduct detentions/arrests during daylight hours when there are not active riots going on

3) If we could go back to the beginning, when the Feds were first brought to Portland because local police/officials were unable to get the protests and riots under control, the Feds should have immediately put themselves in a supporting role, only, to local officials. There is something about Federal agents that does nothing to deescalate the situation, and it seems to be proven time and again, that a show of force is not going to deter people from protesting or rioting.

Listening and working with protesters seems to be the fastest way to get these situations under control - heavy handed violence doesn't seem to work.

So your solution is to keep the people who failed in charge and to give them more resources... but give no authority to those people

Your opinion is noted. The people who do this professionally obviously disagree. I am not saying that makes them right and you wrong.... but I am saying that it doesn't make you right... and certainly implies that they've considered that and declined it.... since the practices seem to transcend administrations

You say 'when the feds were first brought to portland'... you may not mean it this way but that implies to me that they were asked to come in... I have this same issue with democrats on the military... You don't call the military if you don't want it dead. Certainly they can do other things and they don't do it haphazardly... but an f-14 wasn't designed to deliver amazon packages. Federal police aren't designed to 'connect with the community' that they don't live in. Even if they weren't asked in (I'm betting they weren't) they should have known that it was a reasonable possibility.

My understanding is that they were sent by the executive, and not invited by locals. So a more careful word could have been used. And based on statements by local police officials, they felt like this was a complicating factor in trying to manage the protests and riots.

And I appreciate your words about no obvious rights/wrongs. In a similar vein, I’m not necessarily advocating that my options in #2 would have necessarily resulted in better outcomes - I was more trying to clearly delineate that more options were available. But I do think that #3 would have been less likely to result in the same escalation. But we know the executive believes firmly in acting from a position of strength and trying to project strength, and sending federal agents in to do just that, is what happened.

Based on the current outcome, it seems pretty clear that it backfired.

I would pull everything federal out and let the bast**** kill each other and destroy the city. Then maybe those idiot mayors and governors would get a clue.

(07-24-2020 05:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 04:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:what additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

As to the accompanying list you cite with the above, well..... big fat whoopee.

What is left out and adds to the context is the veritable street warfare shitstorm happening in the very immediate area, and the danger to officers to wade into a mob to make a detention or arrest, or the presence to even attract a mob. That is kind of a biggie.

And, as to your last question, they were actually looking for Pettibone. Per the director's comments.

They did not have enough to charge him and let him go. And, Pettibone shut down all conversation at the get go with his invocation for a lawyer.

Now you have first hand evidence of the efficacy of the first and second rules of criminal law given to people: Never talk with the police willingly; and always ask for an attorney.

I have also heard you should never let anybody search anything.

That is a good one as well.

Quote:OTOH, if my ex-wife had not allowed the cops to search her place, her second husband may not have had to go to prison.

It is kind of dependent. If there is a zero chance that they are looking at you, welcome in officer, can I get you a lemonade.

If they is any hint of them suspecting you -- no way Joe. Please get a warrant.

In the Texas Ranger case, I felt I had no choice - how suspicious would it look if I consulted a lawyer. But the warrant covered all my land contiguous to the area the body was found - about 200 acres. I thought, what if they go looking and find a still, or illegal deer blinds, or somebody's drug stash? But I signed, they just checked in the area of the body and I never was contacted again.

As for my ex, no they weren't looking at her. But if her husband had not been in jail, I am sure he would have refused them. He is, after all, a Mensa member. Smart enough to do three stretches in jail, smart enough to become a jailhouse lawyer and get himself off on a technicality.

(07-24-2020 05:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 04:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There's a few things that are problematic with how you frame the above.

1) There are more options. For starters, they could continue to protect the court house and only arrest those that enter the physical grounds (so don't wade into the crowd).

2) Option C has a wide range of possible methods of execution. Some possible suggestions on what could change:
-make sure that they verbalize why they are detaining someone and where they will be taken to
- do not detain individuals and only arrest specific individuals that they will charge with a crime
- if they want to detain someone, do that in public
- only conduct detentions/arrests during daylight hours when there are not active riots going on

3) If we could go back to the beginning, when the Feds were first brought to Portland because local police/officials were unable to get the protests and riots under control, the Feds should have immediately put themselves in a supporting role, only, to local officials. There is something about Federal agents that does nothing to deescalate the situation, and it seems to be proven time and again, that a show of force is not going to deter people from protesting or rioting.

Listening and working with protesters seems to be the fastest way to get these situations under control - heavy handed violence doesn't seem to work.

So your solution is to keep the people who failed in charge and to give them more resources... but give no authority to those people

Your opinion is noted. The people who do this professionally obviously disagree. I am not saying that makes them right and you wrong.... but I am saying that it doesn't make you right... and certainly implies that they've considered that and declined it.... since the practices seem to transcend administrations

You say 'when the feds were first brought to portland'... you may not mean it this way but that implies to me that they were asked to come in... I have this same issue with democrats on the military... You don't call the military if you don't want it dead. Certainly they can do other things and they don't do it haphazardly... but an f-14 wasn't designed to deliver amazon packages. Federal police aren't designed to 'connect with the community' that they don't live in. Even if they weren't asked in (I'm betting they weren't) they should have known that it was a reasonable possibility.

My understanding is that they were sent by the executive, and not invited by locals. So a more careful word could have been used. And based on statements by local police officials, they felt like this was a complicating factor in trying to manage the protests and riots.

And I appreciate your words about no obvious rights/wrongs. In a similar vein, I’m not necessarily advocating that my options in #2 would have necessarily resulted in better outcomes - I was more trying to clearly delineate that more options were available. But I do think that #3 would have been less likely to result in the same escalation. But we know the executive believes firmly in acting from a position of strength and trying to project strength, and sending federal agents in to do just that, is what happened.

Based on the current outcome, it seems pretty clear that it backfired.

I think the option of doing nothing was tried. And it obviously did not work and would not work.

I think there was/is a major fight in works, simply based on Antifa and the city being Portland, which seemingly bends over backwards for those types.

There is always the shitbird asshat in the bar that is going to get a fight in, no matter what. Antifa is that guy in that bar. And the dumb*** leftie lemmings that glom on really dont help.

I think this is going to be a long, hot, violent summer. Thank you lefties.

(07-24-2020 05:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 05:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 04:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:what additional information has been provided that says this isn't what happened or adds context to the situation? We haven't found out that they Feds were looking for a specific individual, have we?

As to the accompanying list you cite with the above, well..... big fat whoopee.

What is left out and adds to the context is the veritable street warfare shitstorm happening in the very immediate area, and the danger to officers to wade into a mob to make a detention or arrest, or the presence to even attract a mob. That is kind of a biggie.

And, as to your last question, they were actually looking for Pettibone. Per the director's comments.

They did not have enough to charge him and let him go. And, Pettibone shut down all conversation at the get go with his invocation for a lawyer.

Now you have first hand evidence of the efficacy of the first and second rules of criminal law given to people: Never talk with the police willingly; and always ask for an attorney.

I have also heard you should never let anybody search anything.

That is a good one as well.

Quote:OTOH, if my ex-wife had not allowed the cops to search her place, her second husband may not have had to go to prison.

It is kind of dependent. If there is a zero chance that they are looking at you, welcome in officer, can I get you a lemonade.

If they is any hint of them suspecting you -- no way Joe. Please get a warrant.

In the Texas Ranger case, I felt I had no choice - how suspicious would it look if I consulted a lawyer. But the warrant covered all my land contiguous to the area the body was found - about 200 acres. I thought, what if they go looking and find a still, or illegal deer blinds, or somebody's drug stash? But I signed, they just checked in the area of the body and I never was contacted again.

And you did the right thing -- there was a warrant. The stickier ones are the 'can I search your car' thingies. Those are the ones you have every right to say no to.

Quote:As for my ex, no they weren't looking at her. But if her husband had not been in jail, I am sure he would have refused them.

Those are the funniest ones. I did a pro bono many moons ago where the 18 year old + 2 days child of the couple gave consent to search. I had a friend who had the 'wife gave consent' --- word to the wise, one always hopes your wife isnt royally mad at you on the day that the cops appear at the door asking for consent to search the house.

(07-24-2020 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Now you have first hand evidence of the efficacy of the first and second rules of criminal law given to people: Never talk with the police willingly; and always ask for an attorney.

About 20 years ago, a Rice student was running an operation making fake IDs, and was caught by the campus police. One of the things they found was a supposed list of his customers. The Thresher ran an article which quoted a campus police spokesman as inviting any student who had one of the fake IDs to come forward to the campus police, as opposed to waiting presumably for the campus police to come to them, and this was the topic of conversation at lunch one day.

There were a few associates at the table: one an attorney and at least one faculty member. As I recall:
- The attorney gave the students the following advice: I don't know if you have one of these IDs, and I don't want to know. But I advise you not to talk to any police, and if someone shows you that your name is on the list, tell them that you have no idea how your name got there.
- One of the faculty seemed appalled that the attorney would give this advice.


Edit: here is one of the Thresher articles about it.
https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/h...030905.pdf

And the Houston Chronicle:
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas...124883.php

(07-24-2020 05:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Based on the current outcome, it seems pretty clear that it backfired.

I don't judge right and wrong by how criminals or their supporters react to enforcement. I judge them by whether they are right or wrong. I don't think the goal of the feds actions was to reduce violence at future protests. I think their goal is to protect lawful citizens and to identify, arrest and prosecute criminals in an area where the police have been rendered mostly useless.

I also believe that the biggest cause of any 'failure' here to reduce the tensions is the one-sided perspective being given, encouraged by local leaders and accepted by the public there.

My over-arching point is that this isn't new.... protests that turn violent.... and I'm guessing that if the violence were perpetrated by neo-nazis, that we'd be okay with fairly aggressive, but lawful actions seeking to prosecute them. Whatever rules get made, apply to people you support as much as people you do not. Because these rules seem to have been in place for long periods of time... these aren't 'new' tactics that nobody else has thought of.... but instead they are tactics that people from both parties over fairly long periods of time have agreed are 'best practices'. Doesn't mean they are best in every situation, but protocols are protocols.

As I said, I have a real problem thinking that these agents are being told to ignore their training, and to risk their jobs, careers, families and freedom and engage in intentionally provocative and obviously illegal actions.

(07-25-2020 10:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Now you have first hand evidence of the efficacy of the first and second rules of criminal law given to people: Never talk with the police willingly; and always ask for an attorney.

About 20 years ago, a Rice student was running an operation making fake IDs, and was caught by the campus police. One of the things they found was a supposed list of his customers. The Thresher ran an article which quoted a campus police spokesman as inviting any student who had one of the fake IDs to come forward to the campus police, as opposed to waiting presumably for the campus police to come to them, and this was the topic of conversation at lunch one day.

There were a few associates at the table: one an attorney and at least one faculty member. As I recall:
- The attorney gave the students the following advice: I don't know if you have one of these IDs, and I don't want to know. But I advise you not to talk to any police, and if someone shows you that your name is on the list, tell them that you have no idea how your name got there.
- One of the faculty seemed appalled that the attorney would give this advice.


Edit: here is one of the Thresher articles about it.
https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/h...030905.pdf

And the Houston Chronicle:
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas...124883.php

GREAT addition, George. This is very much in line with what we're talking about. Who is right? It suspect it depends on how you define 'right'.

I would add this though... Police seem to at least sometimes be able to use the refusal of someone to cooperate in such a search as 'suspicious behavior'.... I guess preferring to take their chances in court. They've been taught not to simply ask and accept a refusal... but to then somewhat badger.. 'why not if you have nothing to hide' and other means to try and keep you talking... and perhaps open a door for them.

I wonder how it would happen if you were accused of being drunk or high and they asked you to search your car? If they suspect you of being under the influence, can you legally give consent?

(07-25-2020 01:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 05:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Based on the current outcome, it seems pretty clear that it backfired.

I don't judge right and wrong by how criminals or their supporters react to enforcement. I judge them by whether they are right or wrong. I don't think the goal of the feds actions was to reduce violence at future protests. I think their goal is to protect lawful citizens and to identify, arrest and prosecute criminals in an area where the police have been rendered mostly useless.

I also believe that the biggest cause of any 'failure' here to reduce the tensions is the one-sided perspective being given, encouraged by local leaders and accepted by the public there.

My over-arching point is that this isn't new.... protests that turn violent.... and I'm guessing that if the violence were perpetrated by neo-nazis, that we'd be okay with fairly aggressive, but lawful actions seeking to prosecute them. Whatever rules get made, apply to people you support as much as people you do not. Because these rules seem to have been in place for long periods of time... these aren't 'new' tactics that nobody else has thought of.... but instead they are tactics that people from both parties over fairly long periods of time have agreed are 'best practices'. Doesn't mean they are best in every situation, but protocols are protocols.

As I said, I have a real problem thinking that these agents are being told to ignore their training, and to risk their jobs, careers, families and freedom and engage in intentionally provocative and obviously illegal actions.

(07-25-2020 10:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Now you have first hand evidence of the efficacy of the first and second rules of criminal law given to people: Never talk with the police willingly; and always ask for an attorney.

About 20 years ago, a Rice student was running an operation making fake IDs, and was caught by the campus police. One of the things they found was a supposed list of his customers. The Thresher ran an article which quoted a campus police spokesman as inviting any student who had one of the fake IDs to come forward to the campus police, as opposed to waiting presumably for the campus police to come to them, and this was the topic of conversation at lunch one day.

There were a few associates at the table: one an attorney and at least one faculty member. As I recall:
- The attorney gave the students the following advice: I don't know if you have one of these IDs, and I don't want to know. But I advise you not to talk to any police, and if someone shows you that your name is on the list, tell them that you have no idea how your name got there.
- One of the faculty seemed appalled that the attorney would give this advice.


Edit: here is one of the Thresher articles about it.
https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/h...030905.pdf

And the Houston Chronicle:
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas...124883.php

GREAT addition, George. This is very much in line with what we're talking about. Who is right? It suspect it depends on how you define 'right'.

I would add this though... Police seem to at least sometimes be able to use the refusal of someone to cooperate in such a search as 'suspicious behavior'.... I guess preferring to take their chances in court. They've been taught not to simply ask and accept a refusal... but to then somewhat badger.. 'why not if you have nothing to hide' and other means to try and keep you talking... and perhaps open a door for them.

I wonder how it would happen if you were accused of being drunk or high and they asked you to search your car? If they suspect you of being under the influence, can you legally give consent?

To clarify, I used the word "warrant", but I am not sure it was a warrant - maybe just permission. I was thinking of the advice to never let anybody search without a warrant, but I knew any refusal or delay would just cast suspicion on me, so I signed.

(07-25-2020 01:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 05:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Based on the current outcome, it seems pretty clear that it backfired.

I don't judge right and wrong by how criminals or their supporters react to enforcement. I judge them by whether they are right or wrong.

BAZINGA!!!

Quote: “Randy Levine is a great friend of mine from the Yankees,” Mr. Trump, referring to the president of the baseball team, told reporters on Thursday as Dr. Fauci was preparing to take the mound. “And he asked me to throw out the first pitch, and I think I’m doing that on Aug. 15 at Yankee Stadium.”

There was one problem: Mr. Trump had not actually been invited on that day by the Yankees, according to one person with knowledge of Mr. Trump’s schedule. His announcement surprised both Yankees officials and the White House staff.

But Mr. Trump had been so annoyed by Dr. Fauci’s turn in the limelight, an official familiar with his reaction said, that he had directed his aides to call Yankees officials and make good on a longtime standing offer from Mr. Levine to throw out an opening pitch. But no date was ever finalized.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/us/po...fauci.html

Any news on when/if the future most powerful man in the world will be allowed to leave his basement? Who makes that decision, anyway?

(07-27-2020 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote: “Randy Levine is a great friend of mine from the Yankees,” Mr. Trump, referring to the president of the baseball team, told reporters on Thursday as Dr. Fauci was preparing to take the mound. “And he asked me to throw out the first pitch, and I think I’m doing that on Aug. 15 at Yankee Stadium.”

There was one problem: Mr. Trump had not actually been invited on that day by the Yankees, according to one person with knowledge of Mr. Trump’s schedule. His announcement surprised both Yankees officials and the White House staff.

But Mr. Trump had been so annoyed by Dr. Fauci’s turn in the limelight, an official familiar with his reaction said, that he had directed his aides to call Yankees officials and make good on a longtime standing offer from Mr. Levine to throw out an opening pitch. But no date was ever finalized.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/us/po...fauci.html

This is just another example of you guys 'making up' controversies. I'm sure it reads very well in an echo chamber where everything he does is a travesty of justice.... but to most people, it's just 'noise'.

Read carefully your own article.
'Randy Levine asked me to throw out the first pitch.'
There DOES appear to be a long-standing offer from Mr Levine for him to do just that, according to your quote.... so this statement is true.
'I think I'm doing that on August 15th'.
While certainly presumptive.... He never said he'd contacted the Yankees about that date, nor did he imply that his staff had set something up. He has an open invitation to do something, and he's thinking he's going to take them up on that offer for 8/15. As many games don't have a first pitch and certainly not a Presidential first pitch, I suspect his presumption is correct, that the invitation was open and had virtually no restrictions... That if he decided he wanted to do it on the 15th, that he could do it on the 15th. I also suspect his staff would 'make it happen' if that is what he wanted to do.

An official familiar with his reaction. AOC?

The entire premise of this is just so weak, I can't believe you think it even worth posting.... or others (meaning consumers of press) think worth reading such that the press would feel a desire to print it. It's literally insulting to one's intelligence to not see the clear bias in the reporting here.

As to whether someone thinks he's doing it because Fauci was getting limelight... I think Obama did it 4 or 5 times... whom was HE trying to grab attention from?

Any embarrassment that an older President might have been worried about just got thrown out the window (or down the first base line) with Fauci... or more likely based on his history, he has some confidence in his ability.... and/or he'd LOVE to have you guys make fun of him... and then he'd challenge Biden... and make references to Obama.... and make a big deal out of the left's reaction to his 'perfect pitch'.

Maybe it's just something that Presidents fairly regularly do... and best I know, he hasn't yet done it... Maybe he doesn't think he'll get another chance. Let's print that! I'm an official familiar with his response. He's giving up!!

(07-28-2020 09:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote: “Randy Levine is a great friend of mine from the Yankees,” Mr. Trump, referring to the president of the baseball team, told reporters on Thursday as Dr. Fauci was preparing to take the mound. “And he asked me to throw out the first pitch, and I think I’m doing that on Aug. 15 at Yankee Stadium.”

There was one problem: Mr. Trump had not actually been invited on that day by the Yankees, according to one person with knowledge of Mr. Trump’s schedule. His announcement surprised both Yankees officials and the White House staff.

But Mr. Trump had been so annoyed by Dr. Fauci’s turn in the limelight, an official familiar with his reaction said, that he had directed his aides to call Yankees officials and make good on a longtime standing offer from Mr. Levine to throw out an opening pitch. But no date was ever finalized.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/us/po...fauci.html

This is just another example of you guys 'making up' controversies. I'm sure it reads very well in an echo chamber where everything he does is a travesty of justice.... but to most people, it's just 'noise'.

Read carefully your own article.
'Randy Levine asked me to throw out the first pitch.'
There DOES appear to be a long-standing offer from Mr Levine for him to do just that, according to your quote.... so this statement is true.
'I think I'm doing that on August 15th'.
While certainly presumptive.... He never said he'd contacted the Yankees about that date, nor did he imply that his staff had set something up. He has an open invitation to do something, and he's thinking he's going to take them up on that offer for 8/15. As many games don't have a first pitch and certainly not a Presidential first pitch, I suspect his presumption is correct, that the invitation was open and had virtually no restrictions... That if he decided he wanted to do it on the 15th, that he could do it on the 15th. I also suspect his staff would 'make it happen' if that is what he wanted to do.

An official familiar with his reaction. AOC?

The entire premise of this is just so weak, I can't believe you think it even worth posting.... or others (meaning consumers of press) think worth reading such that the press would feel a desire to print it. It's literally insulting to one's intelligence to not see the clear bias in the reporting here.

As to whether someone thinks he's doing it because Fauci was getting limelight... I think Obama did it 4 or 5 times... whom was HE trying to grab attention from?

Any embarrassment that an older President might have been worried about just got thrown out the window (or down the first base line) with Fauci... or more likely based on his history, he has some confidence in his ability.... and/or he'd LOVE to have you guys make fun of him... and then he'd challenge Biden... and make references to Obama.... and make a big deal out of the left's reaction to his 'perfect pitch'.

Maybe it's just something that Presidents fairly regularly do... and best I know, he hasn't yet done it... Maybe he doesn't think he'll get another chance. Let's print that! I'm an official familiar with his response. He's giving up!!

The left seems to consider the NYT as the Holy Bible, unable/unwilling to see the slant and bias of its "reporting".

Lad seems to think (a) that this true, and (b) it is important. I think it is irrelevant on both counts.

(07-28-2020 09:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote: “Randy Levine is a great friend of mine from the Yankees,” Mr. Trump, referring to the president of the baseball team, told reporters on Thursday as Dr. Fauci was preparing to take the mound. “And he asked me to throw out the first pitch, and I think I’m doing that on Aug. 15 at Yankee Stadium.”

There was one problem: Mr. Trump had not actually been invited on that day by the Yankees, according to one person with knowledge of Mr. Trump’s schedule. His announcement surprised both Yankees officials and the White House staff.

But Mr. Trump had been so annoyed by Dr. Fauci’s turn in the limelight, an official familiar with his reaction said, that he had directed his aides to call Yankees officials and make good on a longtime standing offer from Mr. Levine to throw out an opening pitch. But no date was ever finalized.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/us/po...fauci.html

This is just another example of you guys 'making up' controversies. I'm sure it reads very well in an echo chamber where everything he does is a travesty of justice.... but to most people, it's just 'noise'.

Read carefully your own article.
'Randy Levine asked me to throw out the first pitch.'
There DOES appear to be a long-standing offer from Mr Levine for him to do just that, according to your quote.... so this statement is true.
'I think I'm doing that on August 15th'.
While certainly presumptive.... He never said he'd contacted the Yankees about that date, nor did he imply that his staff had set something up. He has an open invitation to do something, and he's thinking he's going to take them up on that offer for 8/15. As many games don't have a first pitch and certainly not a Presidential first pitch, I suspect his presumption is correct, that the invitation was open and had virtually no restrictions... That if he decided he wanted to do it on the 15th, that he could do it on the 15th. I also suspect his staff would 'make it happen' if that is what he wanted to do.

An official familiar with his reaction. AOC?

The entire premise of this is just so weak, I can't believe you think it even worth posting.... or others (meaning consumers of press) think worth reading such that the press would feel a desire to print it. It's literally insulting to one's intelligence to not see the clear bias in the reporting here.

As to whether someone thinks he's doing it because Fauci was getting limelight... I think Obama did it 4 or 5 times... whom was HE trying to grab attention from?

Any embarrassment that an older President might have been worried about just got thrown out the window (or down the first base line) with Fauci... or more likely based on his history, he has some confidence in his ability.... and/or he'd LOVE to have you guys make fun of him... and then he'd challenge Biden... and make references to Obama.... and make a big deal out of the left's reaction to his 'perfect pitch'.

Maybe it's just something that Presidents fairly regularly do... and best I know, he hasn't yet done it... Maybe he doesn't think he'll get another chance. Let's print that! I'm an official familiar with his response. He's giving up!!

I'm not sure which situation has me chuckling more - Donald Trump inviting himself to throw out the first pitch via press conference, only for it to not happen, or you spending so much time to write such a spirited defense of a rather comedic occurrence, despite it being plausible for a person who is infamously impulsive and vain.

Sure, this is all a lie by the NYTimes that's relying solely on POTUS' most ardent opponents as unnamed sources. Yeah, that seems a lot more likely than Trump wanting to take back the spotlight and saying he is going to do something before checking everyone's schedule.

Ehgads.

(07-28-2020 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 09:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote: “Randy Levine is a great friend of mine from the Yankees,” Mr. Trump, referring to the president of the baseball team, told reporters on Thursday as Dr. Fauci was preparing to take the mound. “And he asked me to throw out the first pitch, and I think I’m doing that on Aug. 15 at Yankee Stadium.”

There was one problem: Mr. Trump had not actually been invited on that day by the Yankees, according to one person with knowledge of Mr. Trump’s schedule. His announcement surprised both Yankees officials and the White House staff.

But Mr. Trump had been so annoyed by Dr. Fauci’s turn in the limelight, an official familiar with his reaction said, that he had directed his aides to call Yankees officials and make good on a longtime standing offer from Mr. Levine to throw out an opening pitch. But no date was ever finalized.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/us/po...fauci.html

This is just another example of you guys 'making up' controversies. I'm sure it reads very well in an echo chamber where everything he does is a travesty of justice.... but to most people, it's just 'noise'.

Read carefully your own article.
'Randy Levine asked me to throw out the first pitch.'
There DOES appear to be a long-standing offer from Mr Levine for him to do just that, according to your quote.... so this statement is true.
'I think I'm doing that on August 15th'.
While certainly presumptive.... He never said he'd contacted the Yankees about that date, nor did he imply that his staff had set something up. He has an open invitation to do something, and he's thinking he's going to take them up on that offer for 8/15. As many games don't have a first pitch and certainly not a Presidential first pitch, I suspect his presumption is correct, that the invitation was open and had virtually no restrictions... That if he decided he wanted to do it on the 15th, that he could do it on the 15th. I also suspect his staff would 'make it happen' if that is what he wanted to do.

An official familiar with his reaction. AOC?

The entire premise of this is just so weak, I can't believe you think it even worth posting.... or others (meaning consumers of press) think worth reading such that the press would feel a desire to print it. It's literally insulting to one's intelligence to not see the clear bias in the reporting here.

As to whether someone thinks he's doing it because Fauci was getting limelight... I think Obama did it 4 or 5 times... whom was HE trying to grab attention from?

Any embarrassment that an older President might have been worried about just got thrown out the window (or down the first base line) with Fauci... or more likely based on his history, he has some confidence in his ability.... and/or he'd LOVE to have you guys make fun of him... and then he'd challenge Biden... and make references to Obama.... and make a big deal out of the left's reaction to his 'perfect pitch'.

Maybe it's just something that Presidents fairly regularly do... and best I know, he hasn't yet done it... Maybe he doesn't think he'll get another chance. Let's print that! I'm an official familiar with his response. He's giving up!!

I'm not sure which situation has me chuckling more - Donald Trump inviting himself to throw out the first pitch via press conference, only for it to not happen, or you spending so much time to write such a spirited defense of a rather comedic occurrence, despite it being plausible for a person who is infamously impulsive and vain.

Sure, this is all a lie by the NYTimes that's relying solely on POTUS' most ardent opponents as unnamed sources. Yeah, that seems a lot more likely than Trump wanting to take back the spotlight and saying he is going to do something before checking everyone's schedule.

Ehgads.

Probably about 50/50. Some people take the Bible on faith. Others take the NYT on faith.

I pretty much do neither.


The NYT is not as reliable as you think.

(07-28-2020 11:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 09:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote: “Randy Levine is a great friend of mine from the Yankees,” Mr. Trump, referring to the president of the baseball team, told reporters on Thursday as Dr. Fauci was preparing to take the mound. “And he asked me to throw out the first pitch, and I think I’m doing that on Aug. 15 at Yankee Stadium.”

There was one problem: Mr. Trump had not actually been invited on that day by the Yankees, according to one person with knowledge of Mr. Trump’s schedule. His announcement surprised both Yankees officials and the White House staff.

But Mr. Trump had been so annoyed by Dr. Fauci’s turn in the limelight, an official familiar with his reaction said, that he had directed his aides to call Yankees officials and make good on a longtime standing offer from Mr. Levine to throw out an opening pitch. But no date was ever finalized.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/us/po...fauci.html

This is just another example of you guys 'making up' controversies. I'm sure it reads very well in an echo chamber where everything he does is a travesty of justice.... but to most people, it's just 'noise'.

Read carefully your own article.
'Randy Levine asked me to throw out the first pitch.'
There DOES appear to be a long-standing offer from Mr Levine for him to do just that, according to your quote.... so this statement is true.
'I think I'm doing that on August 15th'.
While certainly presumptive.... He never said he'd contacted the Yankees about that date, nor did he imply that his staff had set something up. He has an open invitation to do something, and he's thinking he's going to take them up on that offer for 8/15. As many games don't have a first pitch and certainly not a Presidential first pitch, I suspect his presumption is correct, that the invitation was open and had virtually no restrictions... That if he decided he wanted to do it on the 15th, that he could do it on the 15th. I also suspect his staff would 'make it happen' if that is what he wanted to do.

An official familiar with his reaction. AOC?

The entire premise of this is just so weak, I can't believe you think it even worth posting.... or others (meaning consumers of press) think worth reading such that the press would feel a desire to print it. It's literally insulting to one's intelligence to not see the clear bias in the reporting here.

As to whether someone thinks he's doing it because Fauci was getting limelight... I think Obama did it 4 or 5 times... whom was HE trying to grab attention from?

Any embarrassment that an older President might have been worried about just got thrown out the window (or down the first base line) with Fauci... or more likely based on his history, he has some confidence in his ability.... and/or he'd LOVE to have you guys make fun of him... and then he'd challenge Biden... and make references to Obama.... and make a big deal out of the left's reaction to his 'perfect pitch'.

Maybe it's just something that Presidents fairly regularly do... and best I know, he hasn't yet done it... Maybe he doesn't think he'll get another chance. Let's print that! I'm an official familiar with his response. He's giving up!!

I'm not sure which situation has me chuckling more - Donald Trump inviting himself to throw out the first pitch via press conference, only for it to not happen, or you spending so much time to write such a spirited defense of a rather comedic occurrence, despite it being plausible for a person who is infamously impulsive and vain.

Sure, this is all a lie by the NYTimes that's relying solely on POTUS' most ardent opponents as unnamed sources. Yeah, that seems a lot more likely than Trump wanting to take back the spotlight and saying he is going to do something before checking everyone's schedule.

Ehgads.

Probably about 50/50. Some people take the Bible on faith. Others take the NYT on faith.

I pretty much do neither.


The NYT is not as reliable as you think.

Well, let's check in on Trump and what he is planning to do on Aug 15:

Quote:“Because of my strong focus on the China Virus, including scheduled meetings on Vaccines, our economy and much else, I won’t be able to be in New York to throw out the opening pitch for the Yankees on August 15th. We will make it later in the season!”

(07-28-2020 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not sure which situation has me chuckling more - Donald Trump inviting himself to throw out the first pitch via press conference, only for it to not happen, or you spending so much time to write such a spirited defense of a rather comedic occurrence, despite it being plausible for a person who is infamously impulsive and vain.

Sure, this is all a lie by the NYTimes that's relying solely on POTUS' most ardent opponents as unnamed sources. Yeah, that seems a lot more likely than Trump wanting to take back the spotlight and saying he is going to do something before checking everyone's schedule.

Ehgads.

Yeah, I was going to ask, which is a worse look for Trump and his supporters? These tweets, or the responses to post #13093 above?