The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[UKMikey]

If he said it, he didn't mean it.
If he meant it, you didn't understand it.
If you understood it, it's not a big deal.
If it is a big deal, other people have said worse.

[Repeat ad infinitum]

If other people haven't said worse, than he was only joking.
If he wasn't joking, then the other guy deserved it.
If he didn't deserve it, then fawf fwff fwof... sorry, it's hard to speak with all this boot leather in my mouth.

Besides, the witnesses at the shooting were all commies, anyway. The police wouldn't lie to cover their asses. You're all biased because you're not fixating instead on the hard drive Rudy somehow found with real Russian emails to Biden whose metadata dates are later than Rudy getting the laptop. Etc.

 

[Pigems]

So we have gone from Trump's death squads, to Trump's semantics in one evening. Nice!

Literally, what would it take for you to turn on Trump? Is there anything at all he could do, that you wouldn’t try to justify somehow?

 

[Dotini]

Trump said that federal agents under his control went with the express intent of not arresting this man. That's denying him due process as stated in 5A. Trump also said this:

Trump said that federal agents under his control went with the express intent of not arresting this man (a suspect in a crime, not a convicted criminal), and that's the way it has to be. That's denying him due process as stated in 5A, and Trump defending it as a normal situation... for someone suspected of a crime.

"If you want justice, you've come to the wrong place."
- Tyrion Lannister to Oberyn Martell, Game of Thrones​

I learned this long ago. In the US, if you're wanted on a gun crime and a fugitive, your rights and your life are essentially forfeit. Ask David Koresh and his family at Waco. Ask Randy Weaver and his family at Ruby Ridge.

Do I like this? No. But since it's the reality, it must be accepted as such.

"He who lives by the gun shall die the same way"
- old American saying

"Live by the sword, die by the sword"
- Matthew 26, 26:52​

 

[Famine]

So we have gone from Trump's death squads, to Trump's semantics in one evening. Nice!

You certainly have, but we haven't. You introduced these concepts in an attempt to deflect, thinking nobody would notice.

I was told Trump was violating the 5A. I was asked what I thought about it. I said I don't think he was violating the 5A, and that I thought the notion was absurd. That is my opinion, that was my answer. The way the question was put to me it might as well have been "when did you stop beating your wife?".

This wasn't the question. Again, you're attempting to deflect, thinking nobody would notice.

I didn't say Trump was violating 5A, because we have no evidence that he did. It's certainly a possibility in this case (one of two), but we can't say for sure, which is why it isn't part of the question.

I said that Trump was denying 5A protections. We have literally open and shut evidence of this, which is Trump stating that federal officials went after this suspect with no intent to arrest him, and that's the way, he says, it has to be:

We sent in the US Marshals, took 15 minutes and it was over... 15 minutes it was over, we got him. They knew who he was, they didn’t want to arrest him, and 15 minutes that ended. Anywaaaah.

This guy was a violent criminal, and the U.S. Marshals killed him. And I will tell you something, that’s the way it has to be. There has to be retribution when you have crime like this.

5A says the exact opposite, guaranteeing citizens accused of a crime due process. Trump says the federal agents had no intent to follow due process and says that's the way it has to be, thus Trump is denying 5A protections. Whether there was a gunfight or not isn't relevant to Trump's position here - he says they had no intent to follow due process and he supports them in that action by saying that's how it has to be, when 5A says the exact opposite.

It couldn't be clearer. It's all right there in those two quotes on this one case. Trump denies 5A protections.

The questions remain. Are you okay with this? Why?


Your answers so far, of different questions, suggest that you are indeed okay with a sitting President denying 5A protections. The why is its own issue.

 

[BobK]

A question for @Chrunch Houston:

Obama once ordered the extrajudicial summary execution of an American citizen (@Famine referenced it recently in fact). Were you okay with that too. or did you condemn the obvious 5A violation?

 

[McLaren]

@Liquid pretty much nailed it.

Trump could slap a certain member's wife and he'd ask, "Well honey, what did you do to deserve it?"

 

[Danoff]

Selective Rigor

Hillary's email transgressions require more nuance to understand than just about anything Trump has done recently. And yet all of the conservatives got their pencils out and put on their thinking caps for that one. "Lock her up"! But when Trump actually comes out and states that extrajudicial killing is acceptable, fuzzy rationale like that the guy was a scumbag and had it coming (just like Floyd and basically any other case denying due process) comes out and the thinking cap comes off. "It was a campaign rally! don't take him seriously!" The same thing goes for the drop boxes in California, and just about every issue with trump (like seizing personal property to build a wall and being promised a pardon for violating the law - which violates search and seizure protections). Are the boxes still there? He was joking! The thinking cap is off, pencil is put away, neurons will not be exercised any further.

 

[Biggles]

I hate to pile on ... but:

At a rally in Arizona President Trump gave a scenario of what he could do: "Don't forget, I'm not bad at that stuff anyway, and I'm president.

"So I call some guy, the head of Exxon. I call the head of Exxon. I don't know."

President Trump went on to describe a hypothetical conversation: "How are you doing? How's energy coming? When are you doing the exploration? Oh, you need a couple of permits?"

"When I call the head of Exxon I say, 'You know, I'd love [for you] to send me $25m [£19m] for the campaign.' 'Absolutely sir,'" he added.

"I will hit a home run every single call," Mr Trump said. "I would raise a billion dollars in one day if I wanted to. I don't want to do that."

Trump says it the way it is - no politically correct BS. No need to pursue bribery behind closed doors - just do it right out in the open.

 

[Danoff]

I hate to pile on ... but:

At a rally in Arizona President Trump gave a scenario of what he could do: "Don't forget, I'm not bad at that stuff anyway, and I'm president.

"So I call some guy, the head of Exxon. I call the head of Exxon. I don't know."

President Trump went on to describe a hypothetical conversation: "How are you doing? How's energy coming? When are you doing the exploration? Oh, you need a couple of permits?"

"When I call the head of Exxon I say, 'You know, I'd love [for you] to send me $25m [£19m] for the campaign.' 'Absolutely sir,'" he added.

"I will hit a home run every single call," Mr Trump said. "I would raise a billion dollars in one day if I wanted to. I don't want to do that."

Trump says it the way it is - no politically correct BS. No need to pursue bribery behind closed doors - just do it right out in the open.

[critical thinking switch turned to the off position] that's not bribery. He didn't literally say that the permits were contingent on the campaign donation. Fake nooz. Don't take him so seriously, this was a hypothetical bri... conversation.

 

[UKMikey]

I hate to pile on ... but:

At a rally in Arizona President Trump gave a scenario of what he could do: "Don't forget, I'm not bad at that stuff anyway, and I'm president.

"So I call some guy, the head of Exxon. I call the head of Exxon. I don't know."

President Trump went on to describe a hypothetical conversation: "How are you doing? How's energy coming? When are you doing the exploration? Oh, you need a couple of permits?"

"When I call the head of Exxon I say, 'You know, I'd love [for you] to send me $25m [£19m] for the campaign.' 'Absolutely sir,'" he added.

"I will hit a home run every single call," Mr Trump said. "I would raise a billion dollars in one day if I wanted to. I don't want to do that."

Trump says it the way it is - no politically correct BS. No need to pursue bribery behind closed doors - just do it right out in the open.

Sounds like the kind of publicity Exxon could do without, judging by how quickly they rushed to disavow any dealings with Agolf.

 

[Danoff]

Agolf.

omg

 

[novcze]

Funny enough most Hispanic people I know who aren't from here vote Republican cause, the Democrats "are doing what we moved away from"...

I know about one guy from CZE who fled from communists (some 45 years ago) and lives in the US (property developer) and he says that most immigrants from CZE he knows are voting Republicans/Trump

 

[UKMikey]

omg

Apologies if I caused offence. I was under the impression that the Twitler/Turd Reich jokes were well established by now.

 

[Danoff]

Apologies if I caused offence. I was under the impression that the Twitler/Turd Reich jokes were well established by now.

I'm not offended, just hadn't seen it before and it's very clever.

 

[Biggles]

Here's a clip of the actual comments:

 

[Keef]

Saying and doing are two different things. This was at a campaign event.

Biden said this at a campaign event, "If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data.". Should Biden be held to account for such libelous treachery? Of course not. He was campaigning. So was Trump.

So we have a guy who holds the office of president, and is the highest law enforcement officer in the land, stating that the other officers whom he commands should kill violent criminals without a trial, versus a guy who holds no office and has no power and commands nobody merely critiquing how good the pres is at his job.

Can you not spot the difference between these two things? One of these guys is just a regular guy with no power, like you or me, sharing his opinion. The other guy is in charge and gives orders to police.

Trump: "...they ended up in a gunfight.". This clearly indicates that Trump thinks the kill was appropriate. And if true, it was.

That's a big "if" given that there were numerous eyewitnesses and not a single one of them said a gunfight occurred. To be clear, Trump was not one of those eyewitnesses.

all this boot leather in my mouth.

Is it wrinkly and tan? Because that, uh...

 

[Joey D]

Agolf.

If there's one thing I love, it's a quality pun.

 

[UKMikey]

Thanks... I wasn't sure whether I was going over the line with that one.

That's a big "if" given that there were numerous eyewitnesses and not a single one of them said a gunfight occurred. To be clear, Trump was not one of those eyewitnesses.

Eyewitness testimony is overrated when you can Smecker your way to the conclusion.

Is it wrinkly and tan? Because that, uh...

Ugh. Mental picture, do not want

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

[critical thinking switch turned to the off position] that's not bribery. He didn't literally say that the permits were contingent on the campaign donation. Fake nooz. Don't take him so seriously, this was a hypothetical bri... conversation.

It was a perfect call.

 

[McLaren]

Something must have made Trump mad during the interview to cut it short, b/c he tweeted an attack tweet towards the interviewer (Lesley Stahl) about her not wearing a mask.

After camera crews set up at the White House on Monday, Trump sat down with host Lesley Stahl for about 45 minutes on Tuesday before he abruptly ended the interview and told the network he believed they had enough material to use, according to two sources.

"He said, 'You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.' He said that," Stahl said.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/20/politics/trump-interview-60-minutes/index.html

 

[Danoff]

Something must have made Trump mad during the interview to cut it short, b/c he tweeted an attack tweet towards the interviewer (Lesley Stahl) about her not wearing a mask.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/20/politics/trump-interview-60-minutes/index.html

From the article:

"On Monday he called Dr. Anthony Fauci a "disaster" and accused the news media of being "criminals" for not covering unfounded accusations against Biden."

1st amendment takes another hit. He's chipping away at it constantly.

Edit:

I know that it's not that surprising at this point. We've all gotten used to Trump's attacks on the media. But this the president of the united states calling the media criminal for not covering his selected story. Let that one stew for a moment...

Run my story that I made up that makes me look good or you're a criminal.

We got here in 4 years...

 

[Biggles]

From the article:

"On Monday he called Dr. Anthony Fauci a "disaster" and accused the news media of being "criminals" for not covering unfounded accusations against Biden."

1st amendment takes another hit. He's chipping away at it constantly.

Edit:

I know that it's not that surprising at this point. We've all gotten used to Trump's attacks on the media. But this the president of the united states calling the media criminal for not covering his selected story. Let that one stew for a moment...

Run my story that I made up that makes me look good or you're a criminal.

We got here in 4 years...

Hmmm ... I'm starting to suspect you might be one of those "Never Trumper" types.

 

[UKMikey]

From the article:

"On Monday he called Dr. Anthony Fauci a "disaster" and accused the news media of being "criminals" for not covering unfounded accusations against Biden."

1st amendment takes another hit. He's chipping away at it constantly.

Edit:

I know that it's not that surprising at this point. We've all gotten used to Trump's attacks on the media. But this the president of the united states calling the media criminal for not covering his selected story. Let that one stew for a moment...

Run my story that I made up that makes me look good or you're a criminal.

We got here in 4 years...

To say nothing of leading his mob in another "lock her up" chant against Ilhan Omar based on evidenceless accusations. OK, @Danoff, you win... I'm getting scared now.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ally-today-speech-2020-election-b1084365.html

 

[Imari]

Standing on a tarmac in Arizona on Monday, Trump acknowledged he was upset.
"I'm not running scared," Trump told reporters. "I think I'm running angry."

Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to asylum in Russia to avoid your crimes catching up to you.

 

[McLaren]

Standing on a tarmac in Arizona on Monday, Trump acknowledged he was upset.
"I'm not running scared," Trump told reporters. "I think I'm running angry."

Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to asylum in Russia to avoid your crimes catching up to you.

Did you ever hear the Tragedy of Darth Trump, the con? I thought not. It's not a story Fox News would tell you.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

...thinking nobody would notice.

...thinking nobody would notice.

That's some pretty good mind reading there, because I didn't even know that that was what I was thinking.

It couldn't be clearer. It's all right there in those two quotes on this one case. Trump denies 5A protections.

I have not seen anything that would indicate to me the Trump has denied anyone anything. You have posted things he said after the fact. Post something that has to do with the orders Trump gave to the marshals telling them to kill the guy before they killed the guy. That would be much more convincing. Or you could ask the question as a hypothetical, in which case I would say "no, I would not be ok with that".

Trump is not the only one who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so has every law enforcement officer in this country. Saying Trump denied this guy his fifth amendment rights impunes everyone in the chain of command from Trump all the way down to the marshals that killed the guy.

Now. I have quoted the questions so that my answers will be clear to all.

Are you okay with this?

I've seen no evidence that there is a 'this'.

Why?

not applicable

 

[Biggles]

Seems like excellent timing for the release of Borat's subsequent moviefilm:

Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

It will be out on Friday on Amazon. I shall be watching on Saturday.

 

[Famine]

That's some pretty good mind reading there, because I didn't even know that that was what I was thinking.

It's SOP.

I have not seen anything that would indicate to me the Trump has denied anyone anything.

It's literally right there. He straight up denies the protections of 5A.

You have posted things he said after the fact.

After what fact? The things he said are where he denies 5A.

Post something that has to do with the orders Trump gave to the marshals telling them to kill the guy before they killed the guy. That would be much more convincing.

But... that's not the point of it. The point is Trump denying 5A.

He said, out loud, that when federal agents go in with no intent to arrest a suspect, that's how it has to be. This is literally Donald Trump saying that people do not have the right to due process.

Trump is not the only one who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so has every law enforcement officer in this country. Saying Trump denied this guy his fifth amendment rights impunes everyone in the chain of command from Trump all the way down to the marshals that killed the guy.

No, not "denied this guy his fifth amendment rights". He denied the entire Fifth Amendment.

He said, out loud, that when federal agents go in with no intent to arrest a suspect, that's how it has to be. This is literally Donald Trump saying that people do not have the right to due process.

I've seen no evidence that there is a 'this'.

He literally said it. The words came out of his actual mouth. He straight up said that sometimes federal agents have to go after suspects with the intent to not arrest them. 5A says the exact opposite of this.

The current, sitting President says that people do not have the protections of 5A. You do not have any 5A rights according to Donald Trump.

Clearly, given your continued efforts to deflect and evade, you are totally fine with this... which still leaves the why.


The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect civilians from a tyrannical government, but Trump is denying that one of the provisions even exists. How can you be fine with it?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

It's SOP.

It's literally right there. He straight up denies the protections of 5A.

After what fact? The things he said are where he denies 5A.

But... that's not the point of it. The point is Trump denying 5A.

He said, out loud, that when federal agents go in with no intent to arrest a suspect, that's how it has to be. This is literally Donald Trump saying that people do not have the right to due process.

No, not "denied this guy his fifth amendment rights". He denied the entire Fifth Amendment.

He said, out loud, that when federal agents go in with no intent to arrest a suspect, that's how it has to be. This is literally Donald Trump saying that people do not have the right to due process.

He literally said it. The words came out of his actual mouth. He straight up said that sometimes federal agents have to go after suspects with the intent to not arrest them. 5A says the exact opposite of this.

The current, sitting President says that people do not have the protections of 5A. You do not have any 5A rights according to Donald Trump.

Clearly, given your continued efforts to deflect and evade, you are totally fine with this... which still leaves the why.


The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect civilians from a tyrannical government, but Trump is denying that one of the provisions even exists. How can you be fine with it?

So your beef is not that he is actually denying people their rights, your beef is just that he said it. Well that's very different.

Yeah, I wish he wouldn't say stuff like that, but what are you gonna do? At least he didn't drone an American and his kid.