9
   

What happens if everyone's worst case scenario happens?

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 03:43 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
A foreign policy expert who is in the business of advising presidential candidates to bring them up to speed on foreign policy is not going to allow his name to be used if he has any stories which show his former client in a bad light. If reporters instituted a rule that all their sources be named when they write or broadcast a story, journalism will be severely handicapped.

There is no evidence that this incident really occurred. It's hearsay. Someone said that someone told him. Someone might just as well claim that Mrs. Clinton told an acquaintance that she worships the devil. It's worthless if it rests solely on an unnamed source, although it's clear that you are happy to repeat it.
snood
 
  4  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 04:32 am
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Only if tRump is a zombie.

I don't think that Trump would be very successful zombie. He hasn't worked a single day of hard labor in his life. I don't think he'd know how to get any live victims to eat their brains. He'd wander into one of his gold plated bathrooms and never come out. Staring at his own image until his brain dead body completely rotted out....


Funniest thing in a while. LOL! Trump would be too lazy and hapless to be a good zombie!
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 06:10 am
@snood,
Oh, I don't know snood, he is pretty good at inciting violence, he could delegate other zombies to terrorize the populace while sitting on a zombie throne high up in a city built by the sweat and oppression of the countries' citizens.
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2016 08:22 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
Oh, I don't know snood, he is pretty good at inciting violence, he could delegate other zombies to terrorize the populace while sitting on a zombie throne high up in a city built by the sweat and oppression of the countries' citizens.

Actually, 99.9% of the violent acts which occurred at the campaign events were committed by Mr. Trump's opponents. The Secret Service had to whisk him off the stage twice when his political opponents tried to rush the stage. I don't remember any instances whatever of Trump supporters committing attacks at Hillary or Bernie events.
revelette2
 
  4  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2016 09:23 am
@Brandon9000,
I said he is good at inciting violence, not that his supporters have been committing violence. How quickly you have forgotten the violence against the protestors who had shown up at his rallies and he said he would pay for their legal bills. Not to mention his hint to gun enthusiast to do in Hillary before she gets elected president so she won't elect judges who will take their guns away. Go ahead and tell me how the guy who tells it like it is didn't mean that.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2016 11:06 am
@revelette2,
Why people can't see Donald Trump for the dangerous crazy guy that he is is a mystery. That's after watching his rallies where he actually encourages violence, and claims he'll pay for their legal fees.
This is the crazy man running for president with many supporters in this country.
How often does our country get to these lows in our citizenry? It takes the likes of the Donald to take us there.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2016 10:03 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote Brandon:
Quote:
There is no evidence that this incident really occurred. It's hearsay. Someone said that someone told him. Someone might just as well claim that Mrs. Clinton told an acquaintance that she worships the devil. It's worthless if it rests solely on an unnamed source, although it's clear that you are happy to repeat it.

A newspaper article is not a trial, so going into "hearsay" a legal term, is not even appropriate.. Many, many great exposés have been written based on sources that dare not give their name. To say that such journalistic efforts, which have yielded so much in the way of truth, are to be disregarded is the kind of thing a child would say.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2016 04:07 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Quote Brandon:
Quote:
There is no evidence that this incident really occurred. It's hearsay. Someone said that someone told him. Someone might just as well claim that Mrs. Clinton told an acquaintance that she worships the devil. It's worthless if it rests solely on an unnamed source, although it's clear that you are happy to repeat it.

A newspaper article is not a trial, so going into "hearsay" a legal term, is not even appropriate.. Many, many great exposés have been written based on sources that dare not give their name. To say that such journalistic efforts, which have yielded so much in the way of truth, are to be disregarded is the kind of thing a child would say.

The fact that there have been good exposés doesn't imply that everything you read is true. Anyone can claim anything. Provide a scrap of evidence that the incident really occurred.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2016 04:58 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
I said he is good at inciting violence, not that his supporters have been committing violence. How quickly you have forgotten the violence against the protestors who had shown up at his rallies and he said he would pay for their legal bills. Not to mention his hint to gun enthusiast to do in Hillary before she gets elected president so she won't elect judges who will take their guns away. Go ahead and tell me how the guy who tells it like it is didn't mean that.

So, let's compare the violence at political rallies committed by the pro-Trump forces and the anti-Trump forces.

First I'll do the pro-Trump forces. Once or twice loud anti-Trump protesters inside Trump rallies got punched. Trump made a comment that may or may not have been a joke about 2nd Amendment supporters getting guns. He certainly never said anything about "doing in Hillary."

Now let's talk about violence by the anti-Trump people. There have been dozens of violent protests outside of Trump rallies including one in Chicago in March so severe that Trump cancelled the rally out of concern that violence might occur. On two occasions, anti-Trump protesters rushed stages where he was speaking to attack him. In late April, anti-Trump demonstrators attempted to roll over cars, including a police cruiser, outside of the OC Fair & Event Center in Costa Mesa, CA, where Trump was campaigning ahead of California’s June 7 primary. Also in April, as Trump supporters waited in line to be admitted to a Trump rally in downtown Pittsburgh, protesters began to pepper spray and attack police. Police were sprayed, kicked and one protester jumped on a policeman's back. Outside a Trump rally in Albuquerque New Mexico in late May demonstrators threw burning T-shirts, plastic bottles and other items at police officers, overturned trash cans and knocked down barricades. In early June in San Jose, CA, protesters broke car windows and threw bricks. Trump supporters were punched, egged and kicked.

That's just a small number of examples of violence committed against Trump and people attending his rallies. It is crystal clear which side the actual violence is coming from.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2016 06:42 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
There have been dozens of violent protests outside of Trump rallies including one in Chicago in March so severe that Trump cancelled the rally out of concern that violence might occur.

The protest was so violent that people were concerned that violence might actually occur? WTF?
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2016 06:50 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote Brandon:
Quote:
The fact that there have been good exposés doesn't imply that everything you read is true. Anyone can claim anything. Provide a scrap of evidence that the incident really occurred.

Well, Brandon, the evidence for discussion is whether the source is generally regarded as reliable, such as the Washington Post or the New York Times. Reporters' job is to bring people the news, and they frequently must promise to the source that they will not reveal their name. Reporters have gone to jail because a trial came up and they quoted a source as saying they saw something illegal, and the judge had the reporter locked up until he revealed the source or until the trial was over.

Of course, such evidence is not enough to send someone to jail at a trial, but for public knowledge, it counts as evidence. To do what you suggest-maintain that for discussion or public knowledge purposes, the level of evidence must be that of a criminal trial and reports from reputable news sources are to be discounted as "hearsay" not fit to bring up in discussion-is to seriously hamstring any rational discussion of any topic.

I don't see any reason to change the rules of discussion to suit your purposes. Frankly, it sounds like you have drunk deep at the fountain of talk radio, where all knowledge must first go through the filter of right wing news sources before they are ready to be distributed to the masses.
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2016 06:59 am
@Brandon9000,
Going into nick picking over the details of Trump's rhetoric of which I have done at other times in other places already, is just too tedious to contemplate this morning.
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2016 09:21 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
nick picking over the details of Trump's rhetoric


I don't blame you, just wading through a tRump word salad makes me tired and feeling dirty.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2016 04:18 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
There have been dozens of violent protests outside of Trump rallies including one in Chicago in March so severe that Trump cancelled the rally out of concern that violence might occur.

The protest was so violent that people were concerned that violence might actually occur? WTF?

Good point. As you probably actually know, the protests were so violent that Mr. Trump cancelled the rally to try to minimize injuries.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2016 04:20 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Quote Brandon:
Quote:
The fact that there have been good exposés doesn't imply that everything you read is true. Anyone can claim anything. Provide a scrap of evidence that the incident really occurred.

Well, Brandon, the evidence for discussion is whether the source is generally regarded as reliable, such as the Washington Post or the New York Times. Reporters' job is to bring people the news, and they frequently must promise to the source that they will not reveal their name. Reporters have gone to jail because a trial came up and they quoted a source as saying they saw something illegal, and the judge had the reporter locked up until he revealed the source or until the trial was over.

Of course, such evidence is not enough to send someone to jail at a trial, but for public knowledge, it counts as evidence. To do what you suggest-maintain that for discussion or public knowledge purposes, the level of evidence must be that of a criminal trial and reports from reputable news sources are to be discounted as "hearsay" not fit to bring up in discussion-is to seriously hamstring any rational discussion of any topic.

I don't see any reason to change the rules of discussion to suit your purposes. Frankly, it sounds like you have drunk deep at the fountain of talk radio, where all knowledge must first go through the filter of right wing news sources before they are ready to be distributed to the masses.

Give me a scrap of evidence that the event occurred.
Brandon9000
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2016 04:22 am
I love the bravery and honesty of board members who vote down a post which consists of a simple listing of widely verifiable facts which they lack the ability to counter by comment.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2016 05:03 am
@Brandon9000,
And I love the vulnerability of those who whine over it.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2016 01:07 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote Brandon:
Quote:
Give me a scrap of evidence that the event occurred.




Look at the two minute mark approximately. The man being interviewed is former CIA director Hayden.

RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2016 07:48 pm
@Blickers,
In reply to the theme of this post I dont think we could put up with how much better our government would be with Hillary.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2016 04:58 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Quote Brandon:
Quote:
Give me a scrap of evidence that the event occurred.


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSffjlttTys[/youtube]

Look at the two minute mark approximately. The man being interviewed is former CIA director Hayden.

And where in this video is there a scrap of evidence that he asked about nuclear weapons in Europe? This reference by Joe Scarborough on his show to an unnamed foreign policy expert is the sole indicator that this even occurred. Why do we not know who this unnamed source is? Had this been true, it would have been top news in every newspaper and TV news show and it wasn't. Pardon me for using vulgar language, but I'm calling bulls..t on this. What would you think if one commentator on one show said that an unnamed source claimed that Hillary Clinton had told him she worshiped the devil?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 10:24:16