Antagonist in Chief

[Gold]

Ah, yes, "the narrative" must be served. The truth, however, is that a Bernie supporter shot a Republican congressman at a baseball game. No Democrats were injured.

That is the truth but Pucho said if you were there you could reasonably be considered shot at. Either way if it suits the argument.

 

[pucho812]

If you read Rand Paul's own words, it doesn't really sound like he was that close. It sounds like it was over by the time he knew what was happening. You're really stretching the definition of "being shot at," which I typically wouldn't be all that concerned with, except today it seems to have fallen to me to correct conservatives on matters of fact and be ignored or outright dismissed. On a certain level I'm thrilled that you and John have "risen" to the occasion so predictably, illustrating a common problem with conservatives--a great many of them are largely incapable of acknowledging mistakes or renouncing beliefs that are demonstrably in error.

I mean, really, what good is the truth if it doesn't support what one wishes to believe?

(***I don't wish to dismiss the possibility that Rand Paul suffered trauma due to his proximity to this shooting, but sorry--he wasn't shot at.)

As long as we’re predictable, I predict they pelosi will soon back track on this statement. If she hasn't already done so.

 

[Recording Engineer]

I’m so confused. Did I miss something? Why was Rand Paul originally brought up, alone, I guess in the context of this shooting, rather than Steve Scalise or all Republicans there, as a whole, in the first place? What specifically about Rand Paul, in this shooting, and no one else?

 

[Gold]

I’m so confused. Did I miss something? Why was Rand Paul originally brought up, alone, I guess in the context of this shooting, rather than Steve Scalise or all Republicans there, as a whole, in the first place? What specifically about Rand Paul, in this shooting, and no one else?

I think Pucho thought Rand Paul was Steve Scalice at the baseball game. It was an example of targeted political violence from the left to the right.

Lets pretend Steve Scalice is playing short stop and Corey Booker is on second. The shooter runs on the field. I doubt Corey Booker is thinking “no sweat I’m a Democrat “. He’s probably running for cover like every one else.

 

[Recording Engineer]

That’s what I sorta gathered. If that was the case though, why no “You’re right, I was thinking of Scalise”? This is not making sense. Why go down a rabbit hole instead?

The Gabby Gifford shooting goes the other way. Both represent the worst and results of extreme rhetoric from both sides.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I think Pucho thought Rand Paul was Steve Scalice at the baseball game. It was an example of targeted political violence from the left to the right.

Rand Paul was one of the first to give a statement to the press and was one of the witnesses.

Lets pretend Steve Scalice is playing short stop and Corey Booker is on second.

We could play "pretend" and serve the narrative. Or we could examine the actual facts. The event happened the day before the game between the Dem and Rep teams. It happened during the Rep practice game. Spartacus had yet to take the field.

The shooter runs on the field.

The shooter never ran onto the field. He shot from outside the perimeter fence as was clearly illustrated in the diagram I posted yesterday.

I doubt Corey Booker is thinking “no sweat I’m a Democrat “. He’s probably running for cover like every one else.

Spartacus was not present. The shooter was designated a domestic terrorist and the event an act of terrorism. He specifically targeted Republicans. I realize that your preferred "news" sources likely left out some or all of these facts because they have a motive that doesn't include truth.

Work on your search-fu.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting

 

[Gold]

I said my example was hypothetical. The facts don’t change that if you there you were in danger. Regardless of the jersey you were wearing.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I said my example was hypothetical. The facts don’t change that if you there you were in danger. Regardless of the jersey you were wearing.

The facts are that the leftist shooter targeted the Republican practice event. No one is hypothesizing that, oh, John McCain might have been at the Giffords event and been "shot at," for example. Why? Because it would be stupid to do so. Give it up, man. Take the L.

 

[Gold]

The political affiliations of the security guards who stopped it are unknown. Political violence is a danger to everyone.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

The political affiliations of the security guards who stopped it are unknown.

Irrelevant. They were not the intended targets. Once Capitol Police and local police engaged the shooter with gunfire of their own, he chose to fire back.

Political violence is a danger to everyone.

I never said otherwise.

 

[Gold]

Irrelevant. They were not the intended targets. Once Capitol Police and local police engaged the shooter with gunfire of their own, he chose to fire back.



I never said otherwise.

So the police weren't in danger because they weren't the intended target? A random person who happens to be there wouldn't be in danger because they were not the intended target?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

So the police weren't in danger because they weren't the intended target? A random person who happens to be there wouldn't be in danger because they were not the intended target?

Not what I said. Just answer the simple question: who did the shooter intend to injure and/or kill? Take the L.

 

[Gold]

Not what I said. Just answer the simple question: who did the shooter intend to injure and/or kill? Take the L.

I agreed with you a bunch of posts back when you first said it. It’s not a disputed fact. Now I’m confused.

 

[hodad]

So I was thinking today--as I noted long ago upstream, the facts in Trump's theft of top secret document are pretty hard to dispute: He did it, got caught, did not come fully clean, got his house searched. And he was found to be hanging on to more stuff he shouldn't have had, and even worse did not have it in a properly secured location.

To paraphrase AP's comment to Paul above, why can't you guys just take the L? Trump was criming and got busted. Pretty damn simple. Why is it that conservatives here and everywhere feel the need to rally around Trump when he is so clearly and egregiously in the wrong? I have to wonder if it's some sort of group pathology, the same thing that causes pucho to claim Hillary didn't concede, and JR to pull random numbers out of Sean Hannity's bunghole.

 

[Matador]

is it that conservatives here and everywhere feel the need to rally around Trump when he is so clearly and egregiously in the wrong?

 

[Recording Engineer]

33,000 emails was a number Trump argued in a debate.

You’ve said before, you believe him because he was the president and not previously in politics.

I don’t believe him because he’s f-ing Trump!

You say he’s a blowhard, but a blowhard you can trust?

Come on! If you ever dealt with this guy in your personal life, you would have wrote him off instantly, not ever believing a damn thing coming out his mouth! He gets a pass on all his endless, blatantly-obvious BS, over even the stupidest crap, because he was the president and not previously officially in politics while heavily rubbing elbows with politicians on both sides all his life?

Defending him under any circumstance for sake of party is nothing new, but to say you truly believe this blowhard? To stand on that hill for this guy? This is insanity.

 

[pucho812]

So I was thinking today--as I noted long ago upstream, the facts in Trump's theft of top secret document are pretty hard to dispute: He did it, got caught, did not come fully clean, got his house searched. And he was found to be hanging on to more stuff he shouldn't have had, and even worse did not have it in a properly secured location.

To paraphrase AP's comment to Paul above, why can't you guys just take the L? Trump was criming and got busted. Pretty damn simple. Why is it that conservatives here and everywhere feel the need to rally around Trump when he is so clearly and egregiously in the wrong? I have to wonder if it's some sort of group pathology, the same thing that causes pucho to claim Hillary didn't concede, and JR to pull random numbers out of Sean Hannity's bunghole.

As I said previously, I was unaware she gave a concession speech as she didn't give it the very night she lost the election. She wasn't prepared because who would have thunk she would lose, or maybe she was prepared but couldn't face the crowd that evening. Who knows, I don't care. the moment it was clear we would have a new person, was more prudent to focus on them and their policies.

What documents did he actually take? I read the search warrant affidavit lots of pages for an affidavit, 38 in total and over 20 of them were redacted.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

So I was thinking today--as I noted long ago upstream, the facts in Trump's theft of top secret document are pretty hard to dispute: He did it, got caught, did not come fully clean, got his house searched. And he was found to be hanging on to more stuff he shouldn't have had, and even worse did not have it in a properly secured location.

To paraphrase AP's comment to Paul above, why can't you guys just take the L? Trump was criming and got busted. Pretty damn simple. Why is it that conservatives here and everywhere feel the need to rally around Trump when he is so clearly and egregiously in the wrong?

I'm still waiting for all the facts to come out while trying to ignore the spin from both sides. It might be a long wait, which is troubling due to recent past events like the Russian interference hoax and Hunter's laptop which took years to begin clearing up. This seems to be intentional.

I have to wonder if it's some sort of group pathology, the same thing that causes pucho to claim Hillary didn't concede, and JR to pull random numbers out of Sean Hannity's bunghole.

I'd prefer a better candidate with similar convictions (America first, secure the border, reduce gov size and waste, help American businesses compete and operate HERE by sanitizing regulation and accounting for its lack in foreign countries, etc.) but with a better temperament and broader knowledge base. If there's any pro-globalism, neo-racism, or spinelessness, that person will not get my vote.

 

[hodad]

As Hillary famously said" What Difference At This Point Does It Make?!"

Apparently in Trump's case, it may have cost lives. There's something in the NYT this morning, and I suspect more will be coming out in the days ahead.

You sound angrier than usual, please try to calm down and be civil.

One of your classic deflections. Not angry, just befuddled.

EDIT: I just thought I'd add a little whataboutism to keep this post in line with the Brewery style gudelines:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...am-have-used-unofficial-communications-tools/

 

[crazydoc]

How anyone could vote for a completely untrustworthy lying narcissist to be head of government is beyond my poor ability to understand. I wouldn't trust him to feed my pet cockroaches while I was on vacation. My take is that he held the documents hostage, to be used in exchange for leniency and plea deals in future legal proceedings.