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

I'd say yes.

 

Do they use tear gas if they are just clearing the park to build fences a few hours later?

Do they tell the people “look you gotta go or we are going to make you go in a couple hours” if Trump doesn’t decide to walk down there?

I don’t know the answers to these questions or whether they even matter, but they are legit questions.

 

Then the narrative was bull shit. The narrative was that Trump had “peaceful” protesters removed from an area for a photo op, and that the removal of those protesters turned forceful and violent.

It's just not true.

 

Well, you are not stating the facts accurately just now. The removal of the protesters did turn forceful and violent. In fact, people who were associated with the church and not even protesting or on public property were violently repelled. I'm going to repeat, wrongdoing was found. Remember, this was recorded. Anyone can see the violent removal of protesters, members of the media doing their constitutionally protected jobs violently assualted, and people being gassed. Without cause. We saw it. You're reaching far beyond "Trump didn't order the removal" to say what physically occurred did not.

 

The entire thing has to be true for the narrative to be true. Me saying the narrative wasn’t true does not mean I’m denying that protesters were forcefully removed. But you know that.

 

You said the narrative was bullshit, and explicitly listed the part that was true.

 

I listed that part because it is part of the narrative. Again, if a narrative has 4 parts, and 3 of the 4 parts are true, then the 1 part that isn't true makes the entire narrative false.

The narrative was that (1) Trump had "peaceful" protesters (2) removed from an area for a (3) photo op, and that the (4) removal of those protesters turned forceful and violent.

1. Not true. They weren't removed because Trump commanded they be removed. Their removal was already planned.
2. True. They were removed.
3. True. A photo was taken.
4. True. The removal was forceful and violent.

3 true parts, 1 false part = narrative was bullshit. And, if we are being honest, the biggest part of the narrative was the Trump part. It gave people another excuse to call him a fascist.

Are we aligned now?

 

Well, no. As it turns out, they were not removed for a photo op, though one occurred.

 

That's why I put the (3) before the word "photo" and not before the word "for" or the word "removed." Because a photo op did occur. Trump took a photo. But the protesters weren't removed for it.

 

Feels like we should be shocked by this but, really, I’m not.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/...inistration.html?referringSource=articleShare

 

Rent free

 

LOL

 

Democrats are living rent free in Trump's head? I imagine that bothers you..

 

LOL

 

Rent free? What the [uck fay]? This is actually a very serious issue and violation of the Trump Administration coming to light just now, forcing a corporation to secretly mine data of political adversaries and media sources critical of him, including a minor. "Unprecedented" is the key term in the story.

So, no, this is quite a big deal.

 

Yep, rent free.

 

Always the Trump Dodge. Instead of engaging in a meaningful response or discussion, it's some sort of set rhetorical responses to avoid any real critical discussions of the guy, like:

"Living rent free!"

"Oh, just Orange Man Bad"

"I don't like Trump, but everyone else must be perfect before we discuss him"

"The media!"

and on and on. All not to have to say anything more than cursory critique of Trump and turn criticism back on the commenter. In the thread dedicated to talking about his presidency, no less.

But, point of fact here is any president who had done this, any president, would be a serious issue to investigate after their presidency. What makes you afraid to engage in this type of discussion?

 

Were the leaks criminal in nature?

 

Was what was "leaked" then true? Because we were told it wasn't true that he had contacts with Russia. That never got resolved, how the leaks could be leaks if they weren't true. Then they'd be rumors.

And regardless if they were criminal in nature, if the investigation had found no connection to the parties being investigated (which is the case), but the monitoring continued, it would cease to be a legitimate investigation.

 

Were the leaks in question only related to Russia? It is possible to leak focus of an investigation but the core issue being focused on could also be untrue.

I haven’t read up on this so I honestly don’t know the circumstances. But a suponea by DOJ into the email of a political opponent of the administration isn’t alone an atrocious act. Obviously it could become one depending on scope and cause.