POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

Yeah, I saw your original response, and it's ridiculous. The quotes are what made it seem like he was being shady. The recording does not come across as someone trying to pressure an investigator into reporting fraud that doesn't exist. It sounds like a guy who truly believes the fraud is out there and is asking her to look into it.

I'm not saying it's a good look for Trump by any means, or that the call was appropriate. But the fake quotes definitely made it out to be significantly worse than it actually was.

 

Why was he calling in the first place? What was the purpose? What had he been arguing in regards to the election in Georgia prior to the call? How was he trying to use the power of the presidency here?

Ridiculous? You have to be [uck fay]ing kidding me. You've so overvalued your arrogant sense of your own "non-bias" you still fail to see, as I said, the forest from the trees. Again, you try to focus on some semantics games on one quote while missing the larger picture, the same as you did with Trump's role on the insurrection. He pushed for the lie of a stolen election in Georgia. He called the secretary in Georgia to pursue this angle. This shit isn't hard unless you are looking to make it so or attempt to find an angle to absolve someone in some absurd manner.

So, yep, still 100%, absolutely, positively fine with my understanding of the situation.

 

Is this the recording that they found in a woman's "recycle bin" that she allegedly forgot she had?

 

nm

 

The idea of anyone calling someone out for semantics in a forum where Float exists and posts regularly is hilarious. Jesus

Trump felt that there was fraud in Georgia. He called the investigator and asked her to look into it. The article claimed that he was "pressuring" her to fabricate fraud that he didn't actually believe existed. The quotes supported that. If the quotes don't actually matter, why were they referenced in his [uck fay]ing impeachment trial? For [uck fay]'s sake, man.

My bias? You're a joke. I just said in my previous post that I'm not saying it's a good look for Trump or that the call was appropriate. The only thing I'm absolving him of is having said the things that he factually did not say, and pressuring the woman to fabricate fraud, which, without the quotes, it really doesn't seem like he did. That's all.

Meanwhile, you're going to keep pretending that a significant news source, which claims to be a purveyor of truth and says things like "Democracy dies in darkness" falsely quoting the [uck fay]ing President of the United States isn't a big deal, and then take it a step further to claim that these quotes, in particular, being false does not impact how one should view this situation.

 

Uni claiming others fail to see due to their own bias will always be funny. Always

 

I have no idea.

 

None of you people know what a semantics argument is.

A semantics argument is not one based on whether a given word pivots an outcome.

A semantics argument is one where the outcome is agreed upon, but a word disagreement occurs.

Every single one of you that call any argument with me based on semantics are doing it while we are in disagreement about the facts of the case, or the outcome.

 

The point was he is claiming no bias and is, therefore, an arbiter well above any of the "heavily left leaning folks on this site being incapable of letting go of their bias to see a situation for what it is". I'm also not claiming his bias for not being able to see the forest from the trees, merely that he is doing so and his thinking others have bias but he doesn't makes him a greater authority.

I am glad Indy liked your post, since it collectively noted how neither of you bothered to read the quote by me. Of course, bias is one of the stupider arguments to make in order to criticize or dismiss a post anyway.

 

"He called the investigator and asked her to look into it" is about the most benignly absurd rendering of Trump's efforts in the case as possible. The investigator's knew he thought there was fraud. The purpose of the call wasn't to make them aware of their belief in fraud existing. The purpose was to manipulate and it was completely and utterly evident.

The point here is you fixate on these quotes, but the real important part was the efforts by Trump, for months, to manipulate an election he lost, which was blatantly and overtly occurring. That's the overriding concern, the threat to our democracy.

So, tell me, which is more important, a sitting president trying multiple avenues to steal an election or a newspaper getting a quote wrong? I would like the latter to be remedied, but the former is significantly more important. And, no, the latter did not change the former one little bit.

 

thanos vibes in this post

 

Okay, Grandpa.

 

I honestly don’t believe Trump was trying to “steal” an election. I honestly believe that Trump was convinced that he lost because of fraud.

Maybe he thought they weren’t taking it seriously or weren’t looking hard enough. The jump to claiming the call was manipulative just doesn’t make sense to me. And if it’s manipulative without the quotes, why make up the quotes in the first place?

It’s also kind of weird to continuously hear about what a threat Trump was to our democracy. Power transferred, just like it always does, and Biden is now president. I don’t know that it was ever really in doubt for anyone who isn’t an alarmist and wasn’t over dramatically trying to demonize Trump as the second coming of Hitler. Even the Capitol riots, while bizarre, troubling and certainly problematic, didn’t delay the process even a full 24 hours.

Voting and elections drive democracy, and people drive that voting. If people are being fed BS by a news media that the people believe to be a source of truth, it’s a massive problem. Way bigger, in my mind, than Trump crying about election fraud.

Don’t you teach history? Why is it that authoritarian governments always try to maintain a firm grasp on the media/news? Is it because controlling a narrative with false information and lies makes it easier to maintain power? I’ll hang up and listen.

 

Your contention that he wasn't a threat to democracy is he was unsuccessful in his attempt or incompetent in his various efforts to undermine the election? Does it make a difference if he was trying to undermine an election or believed in a delusion he was defrauded, then tried to undermine the election, in regards to a threat to democracy (or the republic), if it ends up in the same place?

And, you extrapolate the quoting of someone who didn't get the quote exactly correct with a danger to democracy? I mean, a months long (really, year long effort with the rhetoric, interference in the post office and other aspects) effort to overturn a free and fair election is not means for the utmost concern for the stability of the country, but extrapolating one quote which was made in error, then corrected, is cause to equate to an authoritarian government? The conversation still exactly represented the efforts of Trump to undermine the election and the quote, one way or the other, did not change the existence of the impeachment nor one single vote. Shit, ask the Republican, Trump supporting Secretary and Governor of Georgia of the intentions and efforts of Trump in Georgia. They know. I can't believe we are even trying to make a comparison between the two.

If the media [uck fay]ing up one quote is devastatingly dangerous to our survival, then how do we assess the relentless right wing media assault on the bogus voter fraud claims (much less the political figures doing so, beginning with the President of the United States)? You know the ones where they got sued by the company who manufactures the voting machines and forced Fox, OAN and NewsMax to make statements later disavowing their earlier claims on this matter (while still pushing other specious voter fraud claims, lies, to this day)?

Is it because they are not the lefty Washington Post that they don't register on your radar of threats to western civilization or whatever?

I really have no [uck fay]ing idea what world you live in. It's almost as if you are trying to find a way to make the most non-sensical take viable in some way as a challenge or something. Otherwise, this is really the most absurd take I've ever seen you make between the downplaying of an actual, physical attack on the institution of government and the sensationalizing of the Post quote to society changing levels. And, you won't ever get off this complete and utter ridiculousness, likely, so, [uck fay] it. Have at it.

But, Jesus Christ is it [uck fay]ing astounding. [dadgum] nuts.

 

If I truly believe that your car is mine, and I make multiple efforts to take your car, I believe you would tell the police I am trying to steal your car. Motives are different from actions.

Trump's motive might have been he actually believed he won, but his actions were to steal the election.

No two ways about it.

 

Big LOL at Float liking this analogy instead of ripping it apart like he tries to do with any other analogy he pretends is faulty because it disagrees with him.

How are you trying to “take” my car? Are you hopping in the driver’s seat, turning the key and driving off? Are you physically beating me in an attempt to take the keys from me? Or are you going to a lawyer and telling him/her that my title for the car is fraudulent and should be scrutinized?

All 3 actions are pushing the same direction- towards “taking” what you believe is yours. Only 2 of them are attempts to “steal” the car from me.

This call with Trump seems a lot more like number three than numbers 1 or 2. Uni is suggesting Trump’s call was akin to you going to a lawyer and trying to create a passable fake title to be held up against my real one. But, to me, the call doesn’t feel like that’s what Trump is doing, especially once you remove the “find the fraud” and other quote that we now know didn’t exist.

 

Now weight it by going to 53 lawyers, multiple state supreme courts, the actual Supreme Court... and still trying.

How do you call it, then.

 

So I see where the current administration isn't allowing any of the conditions inside of the migrant facilities to be videotaped by the media. Could you imagine the outrage that would've been caused if this was the Trump administration? It's absolutely astounding to me that this isn't getting more attention.

 

I do not like it. At all.

There are pretenders on both sides. More pretenders than people who actually care, it seems.

 

You're last statement hit the nail on the head and it's really unfortunate.