d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Senate Impeachment Trial 2020
Prev12324252627134Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 93,004
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,214.94
Jan 24 2020 03:18pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Jan 24 2020 02:00pm)
I wonder if anyone ever really tracked which spats Trump shot first, because it seems a rarity. He always punches back when provoked and never lets up, even once they're dead. But seems its always someone taking shots at him first. If you look at the genesis of back and forths with a lot of the RINO figures and other personalities, the original sin is most likely Trumps lack of PC filter and unabashed birtherism in the Obama years. He made himself toxic enough for those who he neither attacked nor offended to take shots at him to distance themselves and save their own skins, and unlike Milo getting stabbed in the back by the GOP, Trump rose again on the third day more powerful than they could imagine. Which led to all those awkward schisms like McCain

But I'm pretty sure at least a few times in his twitter rants he's taken a shot once or twice at folks undeservedly who didnt fire at him first. Id be curious which ones, none come to mind.

Trumps pugilism isnt the same as being a firebrand though. He has indeed been on the receiving end of far worse than he spits out and he generally stays civil with those who stay civil with him. Thats not true of his opposition whos ranks are filled with maniacs. Blaming Trump is like blaming the lightning rod for the storm


campaign trail 2016 Trump would shoot first at whomever is in the lead. first "Low Energy Jeb", then "just look at that face" Carly Fiorino, then "Little Marco Rubio", then "Lyin Ted Cruz", then "Zodiac Killer Sr. Cruz".

obviously as it got going everyone was coming at him, but he came out guns blazing. invoking Iraq 1 and 2 with the bush family, Bush's soft immigration stance, etc.
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Jan 24 2020 03:18pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Jan 24 2020 03:00pm)
I wonder if anyone ever really tracked which spats Trump shot first, because it seems a rarity. He always punches back when provoked and never lets up, even once they're dead. But seems its always someone taking shots at him first. If you look at the genesis of back and forths with a lot of the RINO figures and other personalities, the original sin is most likely Trumps lack of PC filter and unabashed birtherism in the Obama years. He made himself toxic enough for those who he neither attacked nor offended to take shots at him to distance themselves and save their own skins, and unlike Milo getting stabbed in the back by the GOP, Trump rose again on the third day more powerful than they could imagine. Which led to all those awkward schisms like McCain

But I'm pretty sure at least a few times in his twitter rants he's taken a shot once or twice at folks undeservedly who didnt fire at him first. Id be curious which ones, none come to mind.


I don't necessarily agree with this point, but how is it at all relevant? Trump responding to criticism in his classically immature, thin-skinned way by leveling charges back isn't the main issue. It's the content of what he levels back. Maybe McCain criticized Trump first. Hard to believe, because it's not like Trump says shit worthy of criticism every day, but let's assume he did. How does that justify Trump making a comment about not liking POWs who were captured? McCain opposing a rushed healthcare bill is supposed to justify Trump constantly criticizing a dead man?

It's the same with the Dingell situation. Dingell's wife criticizes Trump's behavior in office, supports impeachment, therefore Trump is justified in smearing her and her dead husband in ridiculous ways?

I don't know why this needs to be explained... anyone with a base level of morals and decency can understand proportionality. I suppose it's true that Trump doesn't have the intellectual and rhetorical abilities to defend his conduct and offer legitimate criticism of detractors. But that doesn't excuse his behavior, it just explains it.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jan 24 2020 03:22pm
Member
Posts: 93,004
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,214.94
Jan 24 2020 03:21pm
Quote (IceMage @ Jan 24 2020 03:18pm)
I don't necessarily agree with this point, but how is it at all relevant? Trump responding to criticism in his classically immature, thin-skinned way by leveling charges back isn't the issue. It's the content of what he levels back. Maybe McCain criticized Trump first. Hard to believe, because it's not like Trump says shit worthy of criticism every day, but let's assume he did. How does that justify Trump making a comment about not liking POWs who were captured?

It's the same with the Dingell situation. Dingell's wife criticizes Trump's behavior in office, supports impeachment, therefore Trump is justified in smearing her and her dead husband in ridiculous ways?

I don't know why this needs to be explained... anyone with a base level of morals and decency can understand proportionality.


On one hand i dont feel sorry for people who approach a clearly maniacal homeless man on the street then get attacked for their kindness. and on the other hand having a maniacal homeless man as POTUS is really bad.
Member
Posts: 53,368
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Jan 24 2020 03:33pm
Quote (Goomshill @ 24 Jan 2020 15:00)
I wonder if anyone ever really tracked which spats Trump shot first, because it seems a rarity. He always punches back when provoked and never lets up, even once they're dead. But seems its always someone taking shots at him first. If you look at the genesis of back and forths with a lot of the RINO figures and other personalities, the original sin is most likely Trumps lack of PC filter and unabashed birtherism in the Obama years. He made himself toxic enough for those who he neither attacked nor offended to take shots at him to distance themselves and save their own skins, and unlike Milo getting stabbed in the back by the GOP, Trump rose again on the third day more powerful than they could imagine. Which led to all those awkward schisms like McCain

But I'm pretty sure at least a few times in his twitter rants he's taken a shot once or twice at folks undeservedly who didnt fire at him first. Id be curious which ones, none come to mind.

Trumps pugilism isnt the same as being a firebrand though. He has indeed been on the receiving end of far worse than he spits out and he generally stays civil with those who stay civil with him. Thats not true of his opposition whos ranks are filled with maniacs. Blaming Trump is like blaming the lightning rod for the storm


Probably just Obama and that’s enough of a spat which Trump started that he kinda invites attacks on himself. But when it comes to the 2016 election and beyond it’s been rare to see him launch attacks first, just people like to pretend he doesn’t counter attack (see the Dingell tweet for example) since denying reality suits election-deniers and never-Trumpers
Member
Posts: 50,928
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,335.99
Jan 24 2020 04:05pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 24 2020 03:02pm)
Didnt Trump once tell a guy at his rally that he's a fat loser and should leave the building, only to find out that the dude was actually an avid supporter, not a heckler? :rofl:


Stuff like that, yeah. I'm sure there's also been a few more high profile celebrity or politician moments where Trump struck first.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jan 24 2020 03:18pm)
campaign trail 2016 Trump would shoot first at whomever is in the lead. first "Low Energy Jeb", then "just look at that face" Carly Fiorino, then "Little Marco Rubio", then "Lyin Ted Cruz", then "Zodiac Killer Sr. Cruz".

obviously as it got going everyone was coming at him, but he came out guns blazing. invoking Iraq 1 and 2 with the bush family, Bush's soft immigration stance, etc.


Not sure how much can be excused as 'its a primary its their job to attack each other like its the WWE', but there was definitely some points where it went dark and personal. Light hearted jibes about 'low energy' weren't even bad, hell Jeb became an internet meme on par with milhouse because of it. But when it got into the stuff about Ted Cruz vs Trump bringing up wives and the pics of Melania and his dad, I can't remember who started it, might have been Trump, but that went bitter. Then they got over it.

I think excellence is right Obama's probably the best example. Obama didn't give a shit about Trump, Trump fueled the birtherism unprovoked, and then Trump and Obama went back and forth on it.
and as 2016 showed, there were no saints, nobody taking the high road and keeping their hands clean. They had opportunities to turn it around, Trump sure wasn't going to 'be the bigger man', but neither was Obama even when given the opportunity.
Member
Posts: 53,368
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Jan 24 2020 04:07pm
Quote (IceMage @ 24 Jan 2020 16:18)
I don't necessarily agree with this point, but how is it at all relevant? Trump responding to criticism in his classically immature, thin-skinned way by leveling charges back isn't the main issue. It's the content of what he levels back. Maybe McCain criticized Trump first. Hard to believe


er what?
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/248232-mccain-trump-fired-up-the-crazies
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45313845
Quote
While the senator may have been the first to fire, Mr Trump was swift to respond.


McCain insulted Trump’s supporters, so Trump responded to him. Then again this is a politician (McCain) who called his own wife (the one he married for her daddy’s money and Arizona connections) a trollop during a senate campaign, and then in 2008 attacked his own VP nominee like a deranged misogynist

This post was edited by excellence on Jan 24 2020 04:08pm
Member
Posts: 26,025
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Gold: 5,300.00
Warn: 10%
Jan 24 2020 04:40pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Jan 24 2020 12:42pm)
if you take it a step further you'd realize they did an investigation against Clinton because (both being political) they didnt have enough for impeachment. they got the "impeachable offenses" from the investigation.

whereas a president potentially strong arming a foreign govt to punish a domestic political opponent is already enough to investigate in the legislature through the impeachment process, both in the grand jury stage in the house and the actual trial in senate.

your problem is you're looking for differences (i.e. a lack of independent investigation) to maintain your biases. without actually doing the thinking part of asking whether those differences matter. probably because you read/heard somewhere about how no independent investigation was done, how that really matters, and you drank is down in one pull.

do not assume what i am doing. you have done nothing but try to assassinate my character in this discussion. you have refused to accept any of the facts i laid out to suggest this impeachment has been breaking all sorts of previous precedent.
i have been speaking specifically about "precedent". something you claim this impeachment follows, but have proven to have no response to suggest such.

i was looking for "differences" because that's how you make an argument suggesting "precedent" has been broken in this process.
i asked you for similarities though, and you started barking at me because you had no response for it 3 different times.

you are the biased one here. you are giving up 0 ground on an argument you have not even been able to defend. instead, resorting to character assassination.
Member
Posts: 54,191
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Jan 24 2020 05:16pm
Quote (IceMage @ 24 Jan 2020 22:18)
Maybe McCain criticized Trump first. Hard to believe, because it's not like Trump says shit worthy of criticism every day, but let's assume he did. How does that justify Trump making a comment about not liking POWs who were captured?


The POW episode is easily explained by Trump instinctively trying to "out-alpha" the other guy. It's textbook "winners arent losers" mentality. Of course it's class- and tactless and on the intellectual, emotional and rhetorical level of 9 year old boys fighting over the pecking order on the schoolyard.

Actually, when you think about it, a fuckton of Trump's behavior becomes understandable when you just assume that he's a 73 year old man who's stuck on the emotional development level of a 9 year old boy.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Jan 24 2020 05:27pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 24 2020 05:16pm)
The POW episode is easily explained by Trump instinctively trying to "out-alpha" the other guy. It's textbook "winners arent losers" mentality. Of course it's class- and tactless and on the intellectual, emotional and rhetorical level of 9 year old boys fighting over the pecking order on the schoolyard.

Actually, when you think about it, a fuckton of Trump's behavior becomes understandable when you just assume that he's a 73 year old man who's stuck on the emotional development level of a 9 year old boy.


Yeah, literally what weve said since day 1
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Jan 24 2020 05:30pm
https://www.hughhewitt.com/wp-content/uploads/01-23hhs-goldberg.mp3

Jonah slaps Hugh around on this. Usually when I listen to these sort of interviews I'm disappointed that the anti-Trump voice doesn't grasp the facts well enough. Jonah understands the issue.


Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 24 2020 06:16pm)
The POW episode is easily explained by Trump instinctively trying to "out-alpha" the other guy. It's textbook "winners arent losers" mentality. Of course it's class- and tactless and on the intellectual, emotional and rhetorical level of 9 year old boys fighting over the pecking order on the schoolyard.

Actually, when you think about it, a fuckton of Trump's behavior becomes understandable when you just assume that he's a 73 year old man who's stuck on the emotional development level of a 9 year old boy.


He's a weird guy. Charismatic, but very strange psychologically.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12324252627134Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll