marc9000 writes:
Let's try this again. You and Faith have claimed that attacks and insults from Trump are not something he initiates but are only his response to attacks and insults from Democrats and the mainstream media. This is what Trump said today in London in answer to a question about House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff:
quote:
"I’ve learned nothing from Adam Schiff. I think he’s a maniac. Adam Schiff is a deranged human being. I think he grew up with a complex for lots of reasons that are obvious. I think he is a very sick man. And he lies. Adam Schiff made up my conversation with the president of Ukraine.
...
"This guy is sick. He made up the conversation. He lied. If he didn’t do that in the halls of Congress, he'd be thrown in a jail. But he did it in the halls of Congress, and he’s given immunity. This is a sick person. He is a liar."
Trump mentions Schiff's parody of Trump's phone conversation with Zelensky, but that was way back in September.
At least he didn't call him a MF'er. But "parody"? It's actually more accurate to call it what it was, a lie.
Except it wasn't a lie. It's just that Trump calls anything uncomplementary that anyone says about him a lie. Everyone knows this. Schiff preceded his parody with words making clear that it was a parody, stating that he was putting the phone call into a crime boss context:
quote:
It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates.
Schiff was trying to mislead...
As Schiff's words that I just quoted say, he wasn't trying to mislead at all. You can argue that it isn't appropriate for a U.S. Congressman to engage in parody, or you can argue that it's bad parody, but you can't call it a lie because it accurately captured Trump's meaning.
he wasn't considering the possibility that Trump just might release the transcripts of the actual phone call. When Trump did that, it laid bare Schiff's lie. Schiff made a clumsy attempt to do what he often sees the news media do for Democrats, and it backfired on him. The news media has been very impressive in their attempts to cover it up.
You're off in la-la land now. Schiff's parody occurred a couple days after the Trump White House released the transcript.
What current attack or insult is Trump responding to here? Or is it your contention that once Trump concludes he's been attacked or insulted that he has infinite license for issuing future attacks and insults?
That is my contention,...
Really? You're arguing that once some Democrat or liberal or news media attacks/insults Trump once that it justifies all subsequent Trump attacks/insults? Well, okay, that's exactly what Trump is doing, because all by himself he makes more attacks and insults than everyone else combined, including his fellow Republicans.
Current attacks/insults score: Trump: 49; Democrats: 1
Well if I could afford it, I could hire a dozen or so people to monitor different segments of the mainstream media in a 24 hour period.
It's just me you're dealing with, Marc. I'm just one person. I don't have a team of a dozen people. I just read the news. If you did the same you would see the exact same reports of Trump attacks/insults that I see, and then you only have to find what attack/insult Trump is responding to.
(the asterisk in front of some names indicates a gay one)
I think you have some 'splainin' to do.
Oh no, I left a lot of names out, I only included the ones that I have specifically seen do Trump put-downs with my own eyes, many of them quoted on Fox News.
Since you've witnessed these attacks/insults on Trump, you obviously don't need a team of a dozen people to find them and report them here. So why don't just you go ahead and do it?
And I can see far more harm to our society by such biased mainstream news reporting.
Though made many times, your claim of biased mainstream news reporting remains unsubstantiated.
And it's clear to me that anti-Trump bias is about more than just hate,...
Opposition to Trump does not derive from hate. Opposition is driven by the actions and words of Trump and his administration. For myself, I operate from evidence, not hate.
I think all the high level Democrats and the mainstream media are chasing a big fat carrot. If Michael Bloomberg can pledge $100 million in anti Trump ads, what is to stop George Soros from offering that much or more to any person or group who he would consider most influential in getting Trump removed from office before his first term is up? With possibly a somewhat lessor amount to any Democrat who could beat him in 2020. They all look to me like they are chasing the money.
So your logic is that because some wealthy people back Democrats that Democratic presidential candidates are just chasing the money. So what is Trump doing when he holds rallies that bring in millions of dollars? Have you perhaps heard of the billionaire Koch brothers who back Republicans (one passed away recently)? Does it perhaps make more sense that neither side lacks billionaire supporters and that it would be better to get the money out of politics, starting by the Supreme Court reconsidering their ruling that money is speech.
I caught ABC World News Tonight with *David Muir each evening this week. I think it was Monday, Trump was described as "furious", as he calmly spoke about what he thought of Schiff, or something similar.
The last time you criticized ABC World News Tonight I found a YouTube video of the precise broadcast you referenced, and it contradicted your claim. Your claims are typically unreliable, so I'm not going to track this one down and will disregard it.
But Trump
*was* described as furious about what happened at the NATO summit, for example,
Trump Furious - Leaves NATO Meeting Early - Mocked By World Leaders - Jim Heath TV. SNL's cold open was about the NATO summit this week.
But the mainstream news media aren't the only ones who occasionally judge Trump's mood as "furious," for example, this headline from Fox News:
'Furious' Trump sounds off on whistleblower, inquiry in exclusive interview with Dan Bongino | Fox News.
The next night he was described as "lashing out", for a similar, matter-of-fact statement.
You provide no evidence to support this, no details to make possible tracking this down, so I'll just disregard this one, too. But even Fox News will describe Trump as lashing out, for example,
Trump: Impeachment probe has been 'very hard' on family:
quote:
Speaking in friendly territory in a state he carried in 2016 by 20 percentage points, Trump lashed out at Democratic investigators and what he called a "deranged impeachment witch hunt."
It would seem the mainstream media is joined by Fox News in describing Trump as furious and lashing out.
Then, Thursday evening, both Joe Biden's and Edith-Bunker Pelosi's meltdowns were reported on. But Pelosi's DON'T MESS WITH ME!!!! tirade wasn't described as "furious" or "lashing out".
You are such a poor researcher. You say so many false things that you could avoid saying with a simple Google. I had no trouble finding an article saying Pelosi "lashes out":
https://thehill.com/...hes-out-at-reporter-dont-mess-with-me
She just "fired back" according to *Muir.
"Fired back" sounds accurate, too.
Same with Biden, who said YOU'RE A DAMN LIAR to an elderly man who was, admittedly, being somewhat hostile while asking about his son Hunter.
Somewhat hostile? Have you watched the video? Badgering and accusatory is more like it.
This guy was just a member of the general public, it's not exactly presidential,...
I agree.
...probably the first time in history a presidential candidate used a 4 letter word while describing to his face one member of the general public.
You mean where he called the man a "damn liar?" I disapprove of that, too.
But Biden got pretty much a free pass on it, and of course it's forgotten in the following evening's newscast.
Biden didn't get a free pass. Here are some of the headlines:
While descriptions of "furious" and "lashing out" against Trump often go on several evenings in a row, for only one event.
This is clearly false. Trump's manic driving of the news cycle means that any specific indiscretion survives only a short time.
If you think Trump's responses to this ridiculous impeachment stunt are more damaging to the country than *Muir's fake news alone, then we just have to leave our disagreement there.
You haven't supported your opinions with any actual facts, and what you did say was pretty easy to rebut. In fact, except for noting my misspelling of Mark Levine's name, you've pretty much managed to make it through an entire post without saying a single true thing.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)
