What if?

easyrider16 · Post by **easyrider16** » Mar 22nd, '23, 10:13

I would agree that the comments Trump allegedly made to associates may or may not be true, and anonymous sources cannot always be trusted. But the surmise that Trump is trying to create a media spectacle over this is supportable by his social media posts alone, which claimed in a provocative manner that he would be arrested on Tue (which didn't happen) and he wants people everywhere to protest. But you can continue to stick your head in the sand on this issue if you like.

Mister Moose · Post by **Mister Moose** » Mar 22nd, '23, 10:22

There's a big difference between head in sand and head in tabloids.

easyrider16 · Post by **easyrider16** » Mar 22nd, '23, 10:23

Forbes and New York times are tabloids now?

As for the publisher not wanting to own the story, I'm not sure where you get that from. It's pretty standard for a media report to disclose the source of a quote, or for it to disclose that the quote was provided by an anonymous source. It seems to me that if the media outlet thought the anonymous source was unreliable, they probably wouldn't run the story.

Do you disagree that Trump is trying to turn this into a media spectacle? If so, how do you square that with Trump's own social media posts?

G-smashed · Post by **G-smashed** » Mar 22nd, '23, 10:29

I'd like to see him put in general population with a jar of vaseline and no pants. He should also get a severe beating every night.

Mister Moose · Post by **Mister Moose** » Mar 22nd, '23, 11:09

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Mar 22nd, '23, 10:23 Forbes and New York times are tabloids now?

As for the publisher not wanting to own the story, I'm not sure where you get that from. It's pretty standard for a media report to disclose the source of a quote, or for it to disclose that the quote was provided by an anonymous source. It seems to me that if the media outlet thought the anonymous source was unreliable, they probably wouldn't run the story.

Do you disagree that Trump is trying to turn this into a media spectacle? If so, how do you square that with Trump's own social media posts?

Tabloid journalism is tabloid journalism.

If the article contains Neither the Guardian nor the Times’ sources were certain how serious Trump’s comments are and whether they’re just “bravado”
That means they don't want to own the story. That means they took something he (allegedly) said offhand, and published it as 'Gee, he might have been serious!'.... but we're not certain!

And do I think Trump is/could be/frequently is courting the media? This is the most obtuse thing you've said in a while. I mean really? All Trump does is court the media, when it suits him.

easyrider16 · Post by **easyrider16** » Mar 22nd, '23, 12:26

Um, I never said he was courting the media... and I still don't agree that a publisher reporting that their sources were uncertain of how serious Trump's words were or if they were "just bravado" is the publisher not owning the story. Shouldn't they accurately report what the source says? And should they not ask if his words were serious or just bravado? I don't see how asking that is any indication that they doubt the words were actually said.

Also, I don't think it's tabloid journalism for a newspaper to report what a former president and future candidate is saying behind the scenes about his possible indictment if they have a reliable source. That seems like news to me. No matter what you think of this investigation, it's a big story, and Trump's reaction to it is part of that story.

Honestly, this conversation has become obtuse. You're arguing semantics at this point. I think we both agree that Trump is trying to turn this into a spectacle, which was the original point.

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Mar 22nd, '23, 15:20

GOP is talking about putting a state DA in jail and declaring war if Trump is indicted ... ya'll are talking about semantics.

Moose - do you believe Trump attempted to overturn the results of a free and fair election?

deadheadskier · Post by **deadheadskier** » Mar 22nd, '23, 15:36

I've been waiting for Moose to levy a legitimate criticism against Trump since 2015 and it's never happened. Just deflection or gaslighting for the Red team. He's part of the cult.

deadheadskier · Post by **deadheadskier** » Mar 23rd, '23, 09:32

Sure seems like one big grift by Donny

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-r ... reddit.com

What kind of idiot sends a billionaire money he can use on legal fees?

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Mar 23rd, '23, 09:40

deadheadskier wrote: ↑Mar 23rd, '23, 09:32 Sure seems like one big grift by Donny

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-r ... reddit.com

What kind of idiot sends a billionaire money he can use on legal fees?

Creates a feeling that they're part of the Tribe.

easyrider16 · Post by **easyrider16** » Mar 23rd, '23, 13:32

For a second day in a row, the Manahttan DA's tell the grand jury to stay home. I wonder if Bragg's team is having trouble convincing the grand jury to issue an indictment. Hopefully the grand jury refuses to indict. That would take some serious wind out of Trump's sails and it would embarrass Bragg.

G-smashed · Post by **G-smashed** » Mar 28th, '23, 12:29

If Trump is put in the super max where he belongs he will be confined to a cell 23 hours/day. It shouldn't be that difficult to protect him there. I would like to see him put in general population in a max security prison with no protection, no pants, and no vaseline.

asher2789 · Post by **asher2789** » Apr 5th, '23, 21:28

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Mar 22nd, '23, 10:23 Forbes and New York times are tabloids now?

As for the publisher not wanting to own the story, I'm not sure where you get that from. It's pretty standard for a media report to disclose the source of a quote, or for it to disclose that the quote was provided by an anonymous source. It seems to me that if the media outlet thought the anonymous source was unreliable, they probably wouldn't run the story.

Do you disagree that Trump is trying to turn this into a media spectacle? If so, how do you square that with Trump's own social media posts?

forbes is garbage and the NYT is the mouthpiece of the state dept.

asher2789 · Post by **asher2789** » Apr 5th, '23, 21:39

XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Mar 22nd, '23, 15:20 GOP is talking about putting a state DA in jail and declaring war if Trump is indicted ... ya'll are talking about semantics.

Moose - do you believe Trump attempted to overturn the results of a free and fair election?

people think im nuts, and i get it, but ive been saying for a while now that we are entering extremely dangerous territory as a country and are on the verge of a civil war.

you have to remember who his supporters are: they're hard right, patriarchal, "religious christians", conservative, overwhelmingly white, q anon followers, want the world to go back to the good old days of the 1950s where minorities and women knew their place and LGBTQ people were in the closet.

i bolded religious because many of these so called "religious" people are recent "born again" type of christians "reawakened" by trump, and they hold extreme christian views like there's a "war" on their religion in this country which most sane people know is absolute nonsense. i bolded q anon for similar reasons - the whole "trust the plan" nonsense, it is like a religious cult.

now we have people like MTG comparing trump to jesus being tried in rome... and we have this cult of personality around him, lots of his supporters see him as a messiah.

its not really a much of a leap to see how his supporters who are fervent believers in jesus, see themselves in a holy war, see their messiah being held to account by the government, are going to be willing to die for this f*** creep and likely take out some of their perceived enemies along the way. and liberals arent going to act until its too late, until these nutjobs go after them specifically. and they will. don't think theyre just gonna stop at migrants or trans people. they're coming for anyone that so much as tolerates people different from them. liberals make a massive massive mistake assuming that their opponents will behave like they would towards a loss or a disagreement - ie, accept defeat or difference of opinion, shake hands and move on. but that's not whats going to happen. if their messiah goes down they might bring the country down with him...

when this happens, dont act surprised while the minorities these psychos target (such as myself) warn you about whats coming. we're not crazy, we're students of history, and while it rhymes rather than repeats the current situation is not looking good. keep that in mind when dems want to enact gun control laws that are only going to make it harder for targeted minorities to protect themselves from these fascists.

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. - Barry Goldwater

KillingtonZone.com

What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?

Re: What if?