Page 7 of 25 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 250

Thread: And can you still support him?

  1. #61
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,789
    Amen (Given)
    263
    Amen (Received)
    1450
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Quote exactly what he said, in context, that supports your two claims I questioned. That is the actual evidence, not what some third party thinks his words imply.




    I don't believe he did exactly that, at all, and I've listened carefully to that section of the interview (see the YouTube link to the ABC segment) repeatedly. Can you quote just what he said that leads you to think that?

    I'll give my rough transcript of the interview from the YouTube link, and include my thoughts. I'm doing your job for you, BTW. Feel free to supply a better transcript, with your thoughts.



    Specifically he said that he would listen if someone like Norway (that was the example he gave) said they had information on a political opponent. Not 'secret' and not 'dirt' (although it would probably be negative information, I grant that. However I don't recall him using the word 'dirt', or 'secret' at all. You're using prejudicial language here.

    Trump said calling the FBI was not needed, and Wray was wrong specifically in the context of a congressman being approached 'by someone' who said they had information of an opponent. The references to foreign entities came after that in the interview.
    Trump then said, in response to the interviewer asking 'Your campaign this time round, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?'

    (Note that the interviewer is a little hard to hear compared to Trump, and this question shifts from 'Your campaign' (the campaign staff (and Trump)??) to 'you' (Trump or the campaign as a whole??) to 'they' (not Trump, presumably the campaign). It's a poorly worded question, making it less clear exactly what Trump understands it to be asking, and what he is replying to.

    Trump's reply to this question was "I think maybe you do both.[i.e. listen AND contact the FBI] I think maybe you might wanna listen. There's nothing wrong with listening. If someone called from a country - Norway - "I have information on your opponent" I think you'd wanna hear it." [Trump doesn't say if a foreign entity offered information he would not contact the FBI. The question is ambiguous (Your campaign-you-they) and so it's unclear precisely who he means by 'you' in his reply. He may mean himself, or his campaign (staff) or both. Either way, certainly doesn't promise not to contact the FBI. (That was one of your claims about what he said).

    The interviewer then asks 'You want that kind of interference from the Russians?'

    Trump replies: 'It's not an interference. They have information. I think I'd take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go - maybe to the FBI [there seems to be slight pause after 'go', which may indicate he's deciding who he would go to], if I thought there was something wrong.'


    Trump rejects that it would be interference (he may be wrong about that) so he is not saying that he wants Russia to interfere (as he understands interfere); and he indicates that he would go to someone - maybe the FBI - about it if he felt there was something wrong. It's not clear what 'something wrong' is intended to mean (favourable to Trump interpretations could include: an attempt at subverting the election process? The information shows that a third party has compromised someone in the election? Trump feeling that it's an attempt to compromise him? Something else?)


    Is everything Trump said OK and do I agree with it all? No, but there is a lot of ambiguity in the interview segment, which is only part of a conversation - it finishes with Trump apparently poised to say more - what we don't know. That said, he clearly did not 'ask for foreign help' (you claimed he did), nor 'promise not to contact the FBI if foreigners did contact him' (again you claimed he did). Both of those are your claims, they are what I want you to support by looking at what Trump said, in context. I have shown that they are - to the best of my knowledge - not supported at all by what he said in that interview segment. They are misrepresentations of Trump, and are very serious accusations. If someone accused you of saying anything as serious as that, you would want them to back their accusation up with actual quotes, in context. Please do so.





    You're assuming what you've been asked to show: that Trump actually said those things.






    I haven't attacked you personally. I simply have said what I think to be the case - that you're prejudiced against Trump, and prone to attacking the character and integrity of anyone who disagrees with you on anything about Trump. Which you did when you called me 'naive'. I have supported my view with references to things you've posted in this very thread. If you want me to think differently, show me wrong. You have made specific claims about what trump said in that interview, I am asking you to back them up with reference to what Trump actually said, in context.


    Here's an opportunity to engage in a close consideration of what Trump actually said, in context.
    I dont attack peoples character. To say you are being naive is a simple fact in this case.

    Look, every issue that gets raised raised concerning trump on this website is ignored or dismissed. So i restrict myself at this point to truly egregious issues. Issues that raise the bar yet more. Here we are talking about a sitting president publically declaring he will accept help winnig an election from a covert foreign contact, and that he doesnt see a need to report it in spite of the fact that is the law. And prior to that, he said he would not allow the cia to use or recruit kim jong un's brother as an asset.

    And you are just playing games trying to imply it didn't actually happen. On the one case you are pretending the words dont have the specified meaning, the other you just ignore, as if it wasnt a big deal.

    All im doing is making you own your choice to avoid the issue rather than acknowledge its severity.

    You are smart enough maxvel to understand what trump said and what it means in a context where the Russians (at least) are actively trying to steer our election process. And in a context where nk has nuclear weapons and a delivery system for them

    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-15-2019 at 08:11 AM.
    OK - maybe there are 'some' friends

  2. #62
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,789
    Amen (Given)
    263
    Amen (Received)
    1450
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I dont attack peoples character. To say you are being naive is a simple fact in this case.

    Look, every issue that gets raised raised concerning trump on this website is ignored or dismissed. So i restrict myself at this point to truly egregious issues. Issues that raise the bar yet more. Here we are talking about a sitting president publically declaring he will accept help winnig an election from a covert foreign contact, and that he doesnt see a need to report it in spite of the fact that is the law. And prior to that, he said he would not allow the cia to use or recruit kim jong un's brother as an asset.

    And you are just playing games trying to imply it didn't actually happen. On the one case you are pretending the words dont have the specified meaning, the other you just ignore, as if it wasnt a big deal.

    All im doing is making you own your choice to avoid the issue rather than acknowledge its severity.

    You are smart enough maxvel to understand what trump said and what it means in a context where the Russians (at least) are actively trying to steer our election process. And in a context where nk has nuclear weapons and a delivery system for them

    Jim
    As a follow on, not as a reply to any particular post.

    The white house is aggressively pursuing damage control as it relates to Trump's comments on taking dirt and not calling the FBI. The FEC commisioner has weighed in, making it absolutely clear such action is illegal. Blame has been cast on Sarah Sanders for allowing too much access to the president as part of pointing fingers over who to blame for the incident.

    And yet here on Tweb people are unwilling to even admit he said it, and are, once again, still willing to support Donald Trump, no matter what.

    Jim
    OK - maybe there are 'some' friends

  3. #63
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,958
    Amen (Given)
    5522
    Amen (Received)
    5508
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I dont attack peoples character.
    The sad thing is, I bet you really believe that.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  4. Amen Cerebrum123, One Bad Pig, MaxVel, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  5. #64
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,958
    Amen (Given)
    5522
    Amen (Received)
    5508
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    You're assuming what you've been asked to show: that Trump actually said those things.
    Let's assume for a moment that ox is 100% correct, and that Trump actually did say that he would be willing to listen to information about a political opponent brought to him by a foreign national, and that he wouldn't report it to the FBI.

    The best response is "So what?" That's just Trump's answer to a hypothetical question, but liberals are acting like what Trump said is somehow worse than what Hillary, the Democrats, and our own intelligence agencies actually did! The disconnect here is mind boggling.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  6. Amen NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  7. #65
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,789
    Amen (Given)
    263
    Amen (Received)
    1450
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    As a follow on, not as a reply to any particular post.

    The white house is aggressively pursuing damage control as it relates to Trump's comments on taking dirt and not calling the FBI. The FEC commisioner has weighed in, making it absolutely clear such action is illegal. Blame has been cast on Sarah Sanders for allowing too much access to the president as part of pointing fingers over who to blame for the incident.

    And yet here on Tweb people are unwilling to even admit he said it, and are, once again, still willing to support Donald Trump, no matter what.

    Jim
    Errrrr, with the possible exception of mm whose posts I've not seen.

    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-15-2019 at 12:18 PM.
    OK - maybe there are 'some' friends

  8. #66
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,410
    Amen (Given)
    1029
    Amen (Received)
    1527
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I dont attack peoples character. To say you are being naive is a simple fact in this case.

    Please don't be so obtuse. When I say that you're not objective when it comes to Trump that's an "ad hominem" attack. When you say that I'm naive that's just a "simple fact". Double standard much?



    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    Look, every issue that gets raised raised concerning trump on this website is ignored or dismissed.
    That's simply not true. I specifically looked in detail at two claims you made about Trump. I asked you repeatedly to show me where Trump said something that supported those two claims. You won't. I spent a fair bit of time watching the interview and making a rough transcript - something that you should have been willing to do if you were sincere about finding the truth, and supporting your claims. It turns out that both your claims are false, misrepresentations. You hand-waved that away by saying 'implication'. You are the one ignoring and dismissing things that get raised.


    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    So i restrict myself at this point to truly egregious issues. Issues that raise the bar yet more. Here we are talking about a sitting president publically declaring he will accept help winnig an election from a covert foreign contact, and that he doesnt see a need to report it in spite of the fact that is the law. And prior to that, he said he would not allow the cia to use or recruit kim jong un's brother as an asset.

    And you are just playing games trying to imply it didn't actually happen. On the one case you are pretending the words dont have the specified meaning, the other you just ignore, as if it wasnt a big deal.
    I don't care to address the CIA thing, I have no opinion either way on that as I haven't looked at it at all. You may well be right about it for all I know. I am only addressing what YOU said Trump said in that interview. And I have shown that he did not say either of those things. He did not 'ask for foreign help', and he did not 'promise not to contact the FBI if such help was offered'.


    You have repeatedly failed to engage with the facts - what Trump actually said, in context. I have done that. You have no basis to disagree with me, since you have not even attempted to show where he said what you said he did, and what he did say is not what you said he did.

    Trump may be wrong, he may be corrupt, he may be a bad President - but you don't do an honest job of showing that. You misrepresent what he said, and when called on it, you double down and accuse me of being 'naive', and 'playing games'. I said at the outset that I felt you were incapable of being objective about Trump, and that you resort to personal attacks instead of dealing with data when people disagree with you. You have (sadly) repeatedly demonstrated that to be true.


    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    All im doing is making you own your choice to avoid the issue rather than acknowledge its severity.

    You are smart enough maxvel to understand what trump said and what it means in a context where the Russians (at least) are actively trying to steer our election process. And in a context where nk has nuclear weapons and a delivery system for them

    Jim

    Who's 'avoiding the issue'? Not me. I actually looked in detail at what Trump said, in it's context. I have not said that what he said was good, or even OK. All I have argued for is that he did not say what you claimed. I have shown that, and you refuse to acknowledge that you got it wrong. You refuse to show where he said what you claimed - because you can't - and instead resort to shifting the goalposts and personal attacks on me.

    You are actually making Trump more credible, not less. When you raise an issue like this, and people look into the substance of it, and find that you misrepresent Trump, and won't address the relevant data (his actual words, in context), and resort to personal attacks on people who disagree with you, you make yourself less credible, the sources you cite less credible (the MSM) and Trump more sympathetic and more believable.


    I don't care if Trump does something good or something bad, I care about the truth. I refuse to believe something just on your say so, when you won't support your claims.

    I reject your attacks on my intellectual and moral integrity, simply because I honestly disagree with you. They are untrue, and deeply unchristian. You should be ashamed of yourself. We're done.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  9. #67
    tWebber firstfloor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    invalid value
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,844
    Amen (Given)
    16
    Amen (Received)
    346
    Liberal democracy is under attack everywhere. People feel that their prosperity has been undermined by foreign workers; their availability has kept wages low for about 10 years since the financial collapse of 2008. Trump and his like are the response to austerity.
    ďI think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.Ē ― Oscar Wilde
    ďYou can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.Ē ― Anne Lamott
    ďAnd if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existenceĒ ― Bertrand Russell

  10. #68
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,410
    Amen (Given)
    1029
    Amen (Received)
    1527
    Quote Originally Posted by firstfloor View Post
    Liberal democracy is under attack everywhere. People feel that their prosperity has been undermined by foreign workers; their availability has kept wages low for about 10 years since the financial collapse of 2008. Trump and his like are the response to austerity.
    I think there's a fair bit of truth in that. I see Trump as more of a symptom, rather than as a cause.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  11. #69
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,789
    Amen (Given)
    263
    Amen (Received)
    1450
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Please don't be so obtuse. When I say that you're not objective when it comes to Trump that's an "ad hominem" attack. When you say that I'm naive that's just a "simple fact". Double standard much?





    That's simply not true. I specifically looked in detail at two claims you made about Trump. I asked you repeatedly to show me where Trump said something that supported those two claims. You won't. I spent a fair bit of time watching the interview and making a rough transcript - something that you should have been willing to do if you were sincere about finding the truth, and supporting your claims. It turns out that both your claims are false, misrepresentations. You hand-waved that away by saying 'implication'. You are the one ignoring and dismissing things that get raised.




    I don't care to address the CIA thing, I have no opinion either way on that as I haven't looked at it at all. You may well be right about it for all I know. I am only addressing what YOU said Trump said in that interview. And I have shown that he did not say either of those things. He did not 'ask for foreign help', and he did not 'promise not to contact the FBI if such help was offered'.


    You have repeatedly failed to engage with the facts - what Trump actually said, in context. I have done that. You have no basis to disagree with me, since you have not even attempted to show where he said what you said he did, and what he did say is not what you said he did.

    Trump may be wrong, he may be corrupt, he may be a bad President - but you don't do an honest job of showing that. You misrepresent what he said, and when called on it, you double down and accuse me of being 'naive', and 'playing games'. I said at the outset that I felt you were incapable of being objective about Trump, and that you resort to personal attacks instead of dealing with data when people disagree with you. You have (sadly) repeatedly demonstrated that to be true.





    Who's 'avoiding the issue'? Not me. I actually looked in detail at what Trump said, in it's context. I have not said that what he said was good, or even OK. All I have argued for is that he did not say what you claimed. I have shown that, and you refuse to acknowledge that you got it wrong. You refuse to show where he said what you claimed - because you can't - and instead resort to shifting the goalposts and personal attacks on me.

    You are actually making Trump more credible, not less. When you raise an issue like this, and people look into the substance of it, and find that you misrepresent Trump, and won't address the relevant data (his actual words, in context), and resort to personal attacks on people who disagree with you, you make yourself less credible, the sources you cite less credible (the MSM) and Trump more sympathetic and more believable.


    I don't care if Trump does something good or something bad, I care about the truth. I refuse to believe something just on your say so, when you won't support your claims.

    I reject your attacks on my intellectual and moral integrity, simply because I honestly disagree with you. They are untrue, and deeply unchristian. You should be ashamed of yourself. We're done.
    Well, i can tell you feel snubbed, and I am sorry about that.

    But for the life of me what trump said is in my earlier posts and quoted in the articles Iinked to, and articles others linked to, so I could not fathom why you would be demanding a lengthy transcript from me when it was all there before you or a google away.

    As for my prickly tone, this is a very hostile environment if one is not a Teump supporter,, and sometimes I make the mistake of assuming hostility. I'll be sure the next time you post to me, if you choose to do so, that I am less prickly.

    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-16-2019 at 05:33 PM.
    OK - maybe there are 'some' friends

  12. #70
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,789
    Amen (Given)
    263
    Amen (Received)
    1450
    So - as I expected - give it a little time and someone with access to the full interview will produce a full transcript - something I could not do. Here is a link to the transcipt at ABC, and the following is the relevant portion of the interview:

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tran...ry?id=63749144
    Source: above

    STEPHANOPOULOS: (inaudible) going to the FBI when he got that email.

    TRUMP: Okay, letís put yourself in a position: youíre a congressman, somebody comes up and says, ďHey I have information on your opponent.Ē Do you call the FBI?

    STEPHANOPOULOS: (inaudible) if itís coming from Russia you do.

    TRUMP: Iíll tell you what: Iíve seen a lot of things over my life. I donít think in my whole life Iíve ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You donít call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Al Gore got a stolen briefing book. He called the FBI.

    TRUMP: Well, thatís different. A stolen briefing book. This isnít a (inaudible). This is somebody who said ďWe have information on your opponent.Ē Oh, let me call the FBI. Give me a break, life doesnít work that way.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: The FBI Director says thatís what should happen.

    TRUMP: The FBI Director is wrong. Because, frankly, it doesnít happen like that in life. Now, maybe it will start happening. Maybe today you think differently, but two or three years ago, if somebody comes into your office with oppo research--they call it oppo research--with information that might be good or bad or something, but good for you, bad for your opponent, you donít call the FBI. I would guarantee you that 90 percent, could be 100 percent of the congressmen or the senators over there, have had meetings, if they didnít they probably wouldnít be elected, on negative information about their opponent--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: From foreign countries?

    TRUMP: They donít pro--possibly. Possibly. But they donít call the FBI. You donít call the FBI every time some--you hear something that maybe--. Now, you see the people. The meeting, it also sounds to me, I donít know anything about that meeting, but it sounds to me like it was a big nothing. That meeting was a big nothing. But I heard about my son, who is a great young man, going to jail over a meeting where somebody said I have information on Hillary Clinton. Sheís the one who should be in jail. She deleted 33--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: She should be in jail?

    TRUMP: She deleted 33,000 emails from, sent by the United States Congress. They gave a subpoena to Hillary Clinton for 33,000 emails. After the subpoena was gotten, she deleted them. Thatís called obstruction. And her lawyer should also be looked at because her lawyer, sheís got to have the greatest lawyer on earth because she does that, he did the deleting supposedly, not only did they delete, but they acid washed them.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: That, thatís been investigated.

    TRUMP: Now thatís called the--no, no. No, no. Itís being investigated I assume now.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Itís been investigated.

    TRUMP: I donít know, I stay uninvolved. I stay totally uninvolved--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: You havenít asked (inaudible) to take a look into--

    TRUMP: --and I donít talk to, I donít talk to. We have a great attorney general now. I donít talk to my attorney general about that, but Iíll tell you what: when you send 33ÖThey requested 33,000 emails. She got the request. They deleted every one of them. Okay? If you did that, you wouldíve been put in jail--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?

    TRUMP: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen, I donít, thereís nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, ďWe have information on your opponent.Ē Oh, I think Iíd want to hear it.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: You want that kind of interference in our elections?

    TRUMP: Itís not an interference, they have information. I think Iíd take it. If I thought there was something wrong, Iíd go maybe to the FBI. If I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, that they come up with oppo research. Oh, letís call the FBI. The FBI doesnít have enough agents to take care of it, but you go and talk honestly to congressmen, they all do it, they always have. And thatís the way it is. Itís called oppo research.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Surprising. Thank you.

    TRUMP: Thank you. Okay. Fine.

    © Copyright Original Source



    The first thing one can note is that there is nothing in what has already been cited from the interview that is a misquote. They are direct quotes. As for context and whether or not the context somehow softens the blow of his words - primarily what I see in this interview is that he projects his own corrupt sense of what he should or would do on every one else. So, while he is quite clear he would take information from a foreign power, and while he makes it clear he thinks calling the FBI is not something he would or should do, he characterizes these two facts as being things 'everyone' would do or does.

    I don't have a lot of time to take it apart in detail this morning, I'm sure there will be comments, but I'll return to it tonight to give my take on it. What I have time to point out now is what I've already pointed out - Even the white house understands Trump to have made the claim I have pointed out in this thread and which he has been called on publicly in most media outlets - and they are trying to control its impact, spin it in some less destructive way.


    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-17-2019 at 03:52 AM.
    OK - maybe there are 'some' friends

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •