Unbelievable, but predictable.No, just a distortion of a single question and answer at a press conference.
Unbelievable, but predictable.No, just a distortion of a single question and answer at a press conference.
Ok. Maybe you really are all in on this. I hope you'll come back and bump this thread when none of this comes true. Could be a breakthrough for you.Obviously you're much too behind the daily, macabre strategies being employed by Team Bitch to rig the final outcome.
Less time defending right wing murderers would help keep you up to date.
The best response available to you, given the exchange, and no confirming statement by Trump.Unbelievable, but predictable.
Trump ran the US for 4 years and now the elections aren't trustworthy.The logic of the trumpists show the weakness of their brains: The only president that can save USA from the mess the current President has created is Trump.
You do know that that cannot happen. Well obviously you do not. As often as he has tried to show that mail in ballots will lead to abuse' etc he has failed. I know now you are going to quote Hannity or some already discredited study. The chosen one is counting on that stupidity and gullibility of his followers. He can count on you.So is mailing a ballot sent anonymously without ID more than once.
No the best response would have been that the chosen one has committed to the peaceful transition of power. But that has not happened.The best response available to you, given the exchange, and no confirming statement by Trump.
You may have been sleeping but there is a pandemic happening and most states permit voting by mail and several have been using it for many years without problem.in the circumstances if Americans cannot drag their asses to vote in person they probably deserve to be ruled by a mentally disturbed Russian agent
Once again you and/or your friends have to explain what the greatest communicator in the history of the universe (perhaps the solar system) meant when he was asked a simple question and gave an unequivocal answer.No, just a distortion of a single question and answer at a press conference. You guys constantly make the case that Trump is sloppy in his communcations, but then when it suits you, you want to interpret his answers so clinically.
The reporter did use the term "peaceful transition" in his question, but I'd bet the farm and everything else I could lay my hands on that Trump was entirely focussed on the word "transition" in his answer. In essence, all Trump said was that he would not promise that he wouldn't legally challenge electoral improprieties. He did not say, or speak to in any way, any determination that he would only leave office by military or civil force. He'll clarify that, but not before the DEMs attempt to scare as many weak minded people as possible.
Even the statements of a great communicator (and I'm not claiming Trump is one) can be distorted by those determined to do so. See above.Your friends have to explain the history of the universe when asked a simple question.
I agree. Words can subject to interpterion. In each case, however, with the stable communicator you and your friends are not interpreting his words you are making assumptions about what he must have heard or what he must have been thinking. Very different. Why not take his answer and tell us what alternative interpretation there is without pretending to be able to read his mind.Even the statements of a great communicator (and I'm not claiming Trump is one) can be distorted by those determined to do so. See above.
I'd be in line at 6am. Voting by mail is going to lead to challenges and republican electors and the tangerine's second term. Then maybe other members of his family will run - and win. Fuck that shit.You may have been sleeping but there is a pandemic happening and most states permit voting by mail and several have been using it for many years without problem.
When someone isn't a great communicator (and I think that's the rule, rather than the exception), rather than just throwing my hands up into the air in frustration, or picking the interpretation most adverse to them in order to teach them some absurd lesson, I look for context.I agree. Words can subject to interpterion. In each case, however, with the stable communicator you and your friends are not interpreting his words you are making assumptions about what he must have heard or what he must have been thinking. Very different. Why not take his answer and tell us what alternative interpretation there is without pretending to be able to read his mind.
Trump has stated he will contest the results of the election, using republican governors to overturn the votes of those states and a personally chosen SC judge to back him up.When someone isn't a great communicator (and I think that's the rule, rather than the exception), rather than just throwing my hands up into the air in frustration, or picking the interpretation most adverse to them in order to teach them some absurd lesson, I look for context.
In this case, if Trump were even thinking about resisting transition through force, I think there would have been some reference to the force that would be employed. There wasn't. He only talked about legal challenges. Instead, I think he believes that the press aren't very precise in their communication (either intentionally or unintentionally). Some press talk about "peaceful transition" as meaning "transition without a fuss - without disputes or challenges". Of course, that's not the literal meaning of those words. There's nothing "unpeaceful" about legal challenges relating to an election. If there were, the tradition of "peaceful transition" was broken last election, and the election before, and the election before that (and so on). I don't think it even crossed Trumps mind that someone would be stupid enough to think he'd resist leaving office through the use of force. Or maybe he thought the left wing media would be that stupid. And he looks forward to telling the public how stupid they are, along with all the Democrats echoing that interpretation - at the appropriate time.
When you have an opponent, you really need to decide whether they are smart or stupid if you want to be able to predict and counter their tactics. And you'd better make the right call, or your opponent will always have the upper hand.
Trump wants massive riots in the streets; Then the call for a strongman will appear. Fascist playbook 101.Trump has stated he will contest the results of the election, using republican governors to overturn the votes of those states and a personally chosen SC judge to back him up.
That will result in people on the streets protesting his actions to overturn democracy.
You may be omniscient. I am not. You can speculate all you like about what he meant or why he said something but that does not change the fact that its just that. Speculation. To paraphrase I think Maya Angelou "when someone says something believe it".When someone isn't a great communicator (and I think that's the rule, rather than the exception), rather than just throwing my hands up into the air in frustration, or picking the interpretation most adverse to them in order to teach them some absurd lesson, I look for context.
In this case, if Trump were even thinking about resisting transition through force, I think there would have been some reference to the force that would be employed. There wasn't. He only talked about legal challenges. Instead, I think he believes that the press aren't very precise in their communication (either intentionally or unintentionally). Some press talk about "peaceful transition" as meaning "transition without a fuss - without disputes or challenges". Of course, that's not the literal meaning of those words. There's nothing "unpeaceful" about legal challenges relating to an election. If there were, the tradition of "peaceful transition" was broken last election, and the election before, and the election before that (and so on). I don't think it even crossed Trumps mind that someone would be stupid enough to think he'd resist leaving office through the use of force. Or maybe he thought the left wing media would be that stupid. And he looks forward to telling the public how stupid they are, along with all the Democrats echoing that interpretation - at the appropriate time.
When you have an opponent, you really need to decide whether they are smart or stupid if you want to be able to predict and counter their tactics. And you'd better make the right call, or your opponent will always have the upper hand.
All you are saying is that everyone should simply accede to the de-legitimization of the election process approved by multiple states and used without issue in some cases for many years because there is someone in the WH who is prepared to lie cheat and steal to hold on to power aided and abetted by his stooges like Barr and Dejoy and his employees in the Senate.. I agree that it would be preferable but what would be most preferable would be if the stable Russian dupe would honor the US constitution and the laws of the states.I'd be in line at 6am. Voting by mail is going to lead to challenges and republican electors and the tangerine's second term. Then maybe other members of his family will run - and win. Fuck that shit.
Maya forgot to add the caveat that you can only use her advice if you're sure you understand what someone says.You may be omniscient. I am not. You can speculate all you like about what he meant or why he said something but that does not change the fact that its just that. Speculation. To paraphrase I think Maya Angelou "when someone says something believe it".
I also have dreams and wishes, but we live in reality...what would be most preferable would be if the stable Russian dupe would honor the US constitution and the laws of the states.
When someone uses plain unambiguous language that does not require looking into his mind it should be obvious. What was ambiguous about the words he used?Maya forgot to add the caveat that you can only use her advice if you're sure you understand what someone says.