Chris Wallace Destroys trump

[+OverSword]

 

[+and-then]

I can't imagine him not trying to.  I wouldn't count Trump out just yet.  He has a way of overcoming obstacles unlike any person I've ever seen.  Unfortunately, I think that if he won in a major Electoral College landslide, the Left will never accept it and will continue escalating until force is used to disrupt the nation.  That mail in ballot system that some states already use is fine but if an untried system is used in Battle ground states we are headed for conflict, guaranteed.  IMO, that's exactly what the plan is.

Si Vis Pacem...Parabellum.

[+OverSword]

Or Jo......

[Wistman]

21 minutes ago, and then said:

I can't imagine him not trying to.  I wouldn't count Trump out just yet.  He has a way of overcoming obstacles unlike any person I've ever seen.  Unfortunately, I think that if he won in a major Electoral College landslide, the Left will never accept it and will continue escalating until force is used to disrupt the nation.  That mail in ballot system that some states already use is fine but if an untried system is used in Battle ground states we are headed for conflict, guaranteed.  IMO, that's exactly what the plan is.

Si Vis Pacem...Parabellum.

Projection and threats.  Again.  You've already telegraphed for months now what the right's plan is for Trump to keep office, no matter what.  Violence.  And you're ready.  Like you love the thought of it. 

I don't understand you.  I think you're a very decent person at heart.  But you love the threat and the thought of mass violence, even as you project that onto the other side.

[quiXilver]

17 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

Projection and threats.  Again.  You've already telegraphed for months now what the right's plan is for Trump to keep office, no matter what.  Violence.  And you're ready.  Like you love the thought of it. 

I don't understand you.  I think you're a very decent person at heart.  But you love the threat and the thought of mass violence, even as you project that onto the other side.

She's got a big hawkish hard on for violence against 'the foes of 'murica', (who conveniently consists of anyone who doesn't agree with her policy leanings it seems) her responses to political tension seems to always lean toward and praise violent responses to those who she deems different.

[Tatetopa]

45 minutes ago, and then said:

I can't imagine him not trying to.  I wouldn't count Trump out just yet.  He has a way of overcoming obstacles unlike any person I've ever seen.  Unfortunately, I think that if he won in a major Electoral College landslide,

Chris Wallace did not destroy the President, he just kept some of the exaggerations and truthful hyperboles in check.

Nor would i count out Trump.  He stands a better than even chance of winning even now. It may be a squeaker more than a landslide though.  If it turns out to be a landslide, I think a vote recount would be requested in areas where 10,000 votes or less swung the electors of a state.

[+OverSword]

6 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Chris Wallace did not destroy the President, he just kept some of the exaggerations and truthful hyperboles in check.

Nor would i count out Trump.  He stands a better than even chance of winning even now. It may be a squeaker more than a landslide though.  If it turns out to be a landslide, I think a vote recount would be requested in areas where 10,000 votes or less swung the electors of a state.

Destroys may have been strong. More like helped him look pretty ignorant about so many, many things.  I notice that since this interview last Sunday he changed his tone quite a bit and is wearing a mask.  Maybe he watched it.

[Tatetopa]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Destroys may have been strong. More like helped him look pretty ignorant about so many, many things.  I notice that since this interview last Sunday he changed his tone quite a bit and is wearing a mask.  Maybe he watched it.

Chris Wallace allowed Donald Trump enough latitude to look ignorant and kept a check on the assertions he made to cover it up.  You may be onto something.  I doubt he would miss a 40 minute program about himself.  What he might not have seen is the grimaces and shaking heads of his staff as they watched it.

[Jerry Gallo]

Question, if Wallace put forth the same effort, how would Biden look coming out of it? Trump still isn't a trained politician, there are likely things he doesn't have a clue about or how to properly articulate it. Joe's been in the game for 50 years and still rambles incoherently about certain topics. That said, Trump supporters likely don't care and his detractors were likely watching with lotion and tissues.

[Raptor Witness]

32 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

......

I don't understand you.  I think you're a very decent person at heart.  But you love the threat and the thought of mass violence, even as you project that onto the other side.

The cult will always lie for its leader.

There is an element of anarchy to everything Trump does. 

Think Slytherin and you’d be closer to the truth.

 

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Question, if Wallace put forth the same effort, how would Biden look coming out of it? Trump still isn't a trained politician, there are likely things he doesn't have a clue about or how to properly articulate it. Joe's been in the game for 50 years and still rambles incoherently about certain topics. That said, Trump supporters likely don't care and his detractors were likely watching with lotion and tissues.

A good indication may have been his last interview with Pelosi

[_Only]

32 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

She's got a big hawkish hard on for violence against 'the foes of 'murica', (who conveniently consists of anyone who doesn't agree with her policy leanings it seems) her responses to political tension seems to always lean toward and praise violent responses to those who she deems different.

The type of juvenile, personally emotionally charged comment no one should take seriously, especially in this case, where you guys are trying to make her say things she did not. Biggest over reaction (in your guys' 2 comments) I've seen in a thread in awhile. 

and then: This could lead to bigger conflict.

The Wistman: You love the thought of mass violence and want it!

Quixilver: She has the biggest boner for violence against people she disagrees with!

You guys should be ashamed for being this asinine and unfair. IT absolutely detracts from and promotes against logical, rational discussion, which is all and then 'attacked' you with. Welcome to the new age of 'discussion', people.

Edited July 22, 2020 by _Only

[+Liquid Gardens]

16 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Chris Wallace did not destroy the President, he just kept some of the exaggerations and truthful hyperboles in check.

What's a 'truthful hyperbole'?  If it's hyperbole it's a distorted truth by definition.  "Biden wants to defund/abolish the police" counts as a bit more than 'exaggeration' on his part, but demagogues got to demagogue I guess.

I'm also not sure why some refer to this as a 'tough' interview.  The questions weren't really that tough, it was just tough for Trump because for once someone wasn't going to just let him lie to their face or provide necessary qualification to his self-promotion (his whole 'aced the cognitive test that's designed to be super easy' lunacy).  Don't lie and misrepresent so much and the interview should be straightforward.

[Tatetopa]

1 minute ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Question, if Wallace put forth the same effort, how would Biden look coming out of it? Trump still isn't a trained politician, there are likely things he doesn't have a clue about or how to properly articulate it. Joe's been in the game for 50 years and still rambles incoherently about certain topics. That said, Trump supporters likely don't care and his detractors were likely watching with lotion and tissues.

Answer, marginally better than Trump did. None of the questions were really about  the intricacies of foreign policy or the function of the government  so being a trained politician has little bearing. I would suggest though that anybody who is president bone up on those topics just in case they are needed to run the country.  I guess we will have to see when it happens. Rambling is not so bad until you get lost in the weeds  bragging about taking a dementia detection test, especially when you aver that the last 5 questions were really hard,and very few people can answer them. In addition to Chris Wallace, even the designer of the test said it is not created to be difficult  for people who are not experiencing decline.

I know that makes little difference to Trump supporters, that is OK too.  

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

"Biden wants to defund/abolish the police"

Only the abolish part because he did sign on to moving police funding to other related services like mental health workers, that is actually defunding the police.  Not saying it's a wrong move but trump was not completely wrong, but I'm sure it was an accident.  My favorite one of those was when Wallace points out that trump predicted that corona would burn itself out and trump replied sooner or later I will be right about that 

[_Only]

4 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

for once someone wasn't going to just let him lie to their face or provide necessary qualification to his self-promotion 

"For once"! Sir or ma'am, there has been a nonstop blitzkrieg doing that for 4 years now.

 

[Tatetopa]

4 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What's a 'truthful hyperbole'? 

I picked that up from the Trump camp.  The argument goes that he is an optimist and cheerleader for America, and that some of the things he says are designed to inspire us and are based on a kernel of truth at the core.   Before that it was Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts".  Various ways to excuse the President from being tethered to facts.

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 minutes ago, _Only said:

The type of comment no one should take seriously, especially in this case, where you guys are trying to make her say things she did not. Biggest over reaction (in your guys' 2 comments) I've seen in a thread in awhile. 

and then: This could lead to bigger conflict.

The Wistman: You love the thought of mass violence and want it!

Quixilver: She has the biggest boner for violence against people she disagrees with!

You guys should be ashamed for being this asinine and unfair.

I'm kinda confused, "she"?  Aren't you referring to andthen, who I thought was a 'he'?

I don't see anything to be ashamed about, 'their' mentions of violence are a pattern that has existed for a long time as Wistman already noted.  I'm rarely on these particular boards but I've read in previous posts his suggestions, joking or not, that illegal immigrants should just be shot down at the border, and the whole 'if you ever come for our guns you better prepare for bloody civil war' gets periodic mentions.  Since there's so much evidence, seems pretty rational then and definitely isn't unfair.  I'd be surprised if he'd disagree, I think he's wrong on just about everything but to his credit I don't think he'd refuse to 'own' something like this, I'd be surprised if he's unaware of the frequency of his mentions or predictions of violence.

[+Liquid Gardens]

11 minutes ago, _Only said:

"For once"! Sir or ma'am, there has been a nonstop blitzkrieg doing that for 4 years now.

If that were true then this interview would not really be noteworthy.  

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, The Wistman said:

Projection and threats.  Again.  You've already telegraphed for months now what the right's plan is for Trump to keep office, no matter what.  Violence.  And you're ready.  Like you love the thought of it. 

I don't understand you.  I think you're a very decent person at heart.  But you love the threat and the thought of mass violence, even as you project that onto the other side.

Trump is providing more-than-adequate justification for a revolt against his regime.  His goon squads in Oregon, for example.  This is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

The left has long said that the revolution begins when we shoot back.  They're already shooting at us.

Doug

[Doug1029]

7 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm kinda confused, "she"?  Aren't you referring to andthen, who I thought was a 'he'?

I don't see anything to be ashamed about, 'their' mentions of violence are a pattern that has existed for a long time as Wistman already noted.  I'm rarely on these particular boards but I've read in previous posts his suggestions, joking or not, that illegal immigrants should just be shot down at the border, and the whole 'if you ever come for our guns you better prepare for bloody civil war' gets periodic mentions.  Since there's so much evidence, seems pretty rational then and definitely isn't unfair.  I'd be surprised if he'd disagree, I think he's wrong on just about everything but to his credit I don't think he'd refuse to 'own' something like this, I'd be surprised if he's unaware of the frequency of his mentions or predictions of violence.

I doubt anybody is ever "coming for their guns."  That's not how it will be done.  When someone breaks the law, then guns can be seized at the time of arrest.  But if nobody is breaking the law, there's no reason to seize their guns.

Doug

[simplybill]

19 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Trump is providing more-than-adequate justification for a revolt against his regime.  His goon squads in Oregon, for example.  This is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Homeland Security is in Portland to protect Federal property from destruction by violent protesters. It’s not a 1st Amendment issue.

“To the extent provided for by transfers made pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Secretary of Homeland Security (in this section referred to as the “Secretary”) shall protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

Homeland Security is in Portland to protect Federal property from destruction by violent protesters. It’s not a 1st Amendment issue.

Then why are they attacking demonstrators?  They shot one guy in the head with a rubber bullet (potentially lethal).  They beat a Navy vet who just wanted to talk to them.

They are there to foment trouble that will rile up Trump's base so (he hopes) they will vote for him.  They are provoking trouble, begging for someone to shoot them and they don't even have the brains to see that that is what Trump wants to happen.

 

I sincerely hope that nobody jumps the gun and actually shoots one of them before Election Day.  Once that's over, the problem should just go away.  If it doesn't, then it's time for some drastic action.

Doug

 

[+OverSword]

15 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Then why are they attacking demonstrators?  They shot one guy in the head with a rubber bullet (potentially lethal).  They beat a Navy vet who just wanted to talk to them.

They are there to foment trouble that will rile up Trump's base so (he hopes) they will vote for him.  They are provoking trouble, begging for someone to shoot them and they don't even have the brains to see that that is what Trump wants to happen.

 

I sincerely hope that nobody jumps the gun and actually shoots one of them before Election Day.  Once that's over, the problem should just go away.  If it doesn't, then it's time for some drastic action.

Doug

 

So if trump were to be re elected we should ignore the election results and take drastic action?

Edited July 22, 2020 by OverSword

[simplybill]

1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

Then why are they attacking demonstrators?  They shot one guy in the head with a rubber bullet (potentially lethal).  They beat a Navy vet who just wanted to talk to them.

They are there to foment trouble that will rile up Trump's base so (he hopes) they will vote for him.  They are provoking trouble, begging for someone to shoot them and they don't even have the brains to see that that is what Trump wants to happen.

 

I sincerely hope that nobody jumps the gun and actually shoots one of them before Election Day.  Once that's over, the problem should just go away.  If it doesn't, then it's time for some drastic action.

Doug

 

Those ‘demonstrators’ are using lasers to permanently blind the Federal agents assigned to protect Federal property. They’re attempting to burn down the Federal buildings that the agents are assigned to protect. That Navy vet was told to disperse along with the rest of the rioters who were attacking Federal agents, and he refused. Which side is fomenting trouble?

   https://apple.news/AZH7WBaQVRby1GRSdYAkNpw