Scumbag Behavior - Trump at Arlington

[WrestlingRasta]

30 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The more they try to insinuate that Trump disrespected someone, the worse the exposure for the kakkling kandidate. 

To the select few nut swinging parrots.......yes.   To the vast majority of the general public......

[Scouts Honor]

 

[Scouts Honor]

a parrot swinging by his nuts..

interesting thought

[Bigbrog]

58 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

 

LOL...wow.  You are so full of contradiction and failure to have any sort of objective look at this and what I wrote...by the way how does one make "observations" yet not trying to paint a picture?? LOL  And again super weird how you can't fathom someone being able to talk about a situation and the details of that situation without having some underlining motive based on politics.  Can one assume that YOU may have a biased view of this situation because it's Trump and you disdain him??

The article you posted doesn't say what you think it says...again you must have a problem with context...he didn't say the whole thing was made up, rather the employee's version of what truly happened was made up in terms of being "pushed"/"moved aside"/"brushed aside", etc...but as I have said a couple times now, I sure hope the actual footage comes out as that won't lie.  And the context of him being the president and almost being assassinated (not just simply shot in the ear...nice try) is very important.  That has nothing to do with the support for our fallen soldiers and your attempt to try and assume I am insulting them is, well...pathetic and not something I would ever have expected out of you.  TPT/RL/RV must be rubbing off on you.

Done discussing this with you as you once again can't maintain any sort of objectivity, and resort to trying to insinuate things and insult me.

[Bigbrog]

26 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

To the select few nut swinging parrots.......yes.   To the vast majority of the general public......

Good post TPT/RV/RL  And you speak for the vast majority of the general public...yes that is 

[WrestlingRasta]

5 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

LOL...wow.  You are so full of contradiction and failure to have any sort of objective look at this and what I wrote...by the way how does one make "observations" yet not trying to paint a picture?? LOL  And again super weird how you can't fathom someone being able to talk about a situation and the details of that situation without having some underlining motive based on politics.  Can one assume that YOU may have a biased view of this situation because it's Trump and you disdain him??

The article you posted doesn't say what you think it says...again you must have a problem with context...he didn't say the whole thing was made up, rather the employee's version of what truly happened was made up in terms of being "pushed"/"moved aside"/"brushed aside", etc...but as I have said a couple times now, I sure hope the actual footage comes out as that won't lie.  And the context of him being the president and almost being assassinated (not just simply shot in the ear...nice try) is very important.  That has nothing to do with the support for our fallen soldiers and your attempt to try and assume I am insulting them is, well...pathetic and not something I would ever have expected out of you.  TPT/RL/RV must be rubbing off on you.

Done discussing this with you as you once again can't maintain any sort of objectivity, and resort to trying to insinuate things and insult me.

Now that was a humorous post.  I will respect your desire to no longer discuss.

[WrestlingRasta]

4 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Good post TPT/RV/RL  And you speak for the vast majority of the general public...yes that is 

Wait....I thought you no longer wanted to discuss.   Well that didn't take long.

Would you have been more comfortable if I said "whackadoodle", or one of those other terms,  since you are so against name calling those who disagree with you.  I just want to make sure I have the proper etiquette that keeps you comfortable.

[Bigbrog]

9 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Wait....I thought you no longer wanted to discuss.   Well that didn't take long.

Would you have been more comfortable if I said "whackadoodle", or one of those other terms,  since you are so against name calling those who disagree with you.  I just want to make sure I have the proper etiquette that keeps you comfortable.

Did I address the topic we had been discussing...nope...again, context is super hard for you isn't it??

You don't have to change anything about you Rasta...post how you post...I'm not about trying to control anyone's speech or the language they use, unlike some I don't expect people to conform to how I think or words I use to describe things.  But I do like to call out hypocrisy, false logic, biased stances, or just false incorrect "things". 

So, if you like to call people immature names like TPT/RV/RL does, go for it big guy

[WrestlingRasta]

5 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Did I address the topic we had been discussing...nope...again, context is super hard for you isn't it??

You don't have to change anything about you Rasta...post how you post...I'm not about trying to control anyone's speech or the language they use, unlike some I don't expect people to conform to how I think or words I use to describe things.  But I do like to call out hypocrisy, false logic, biased stances, or just false incorrect "things". 

So, if you like to call people immature names like TPT/RV/RL does, go for it big guy

That's a lot to type to be done with the discussion (yes it was same topic, an extension of that topic is not a different topic).    Funny that Mr. Whackadoodle wants to talk about immature names.....and hypocrisy.

This is how you end a conversation:   Have a great weekend!!  

[Bigbrog]

9 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

That's a lot to type to be done with the discussion (yes it was same topic, an extension of that topic is not a different topic).    Funny that Mr. Whackadoodle wants to talk about immature names.....and hypocrisy.

This is how you end a conversation:   Have a great weekend!!  

LOL  Have a great weekend Rasta!!

[VakAttack]

3 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

But aren't you avoiding some of those pesky facts in your rants??  Conveniently I may add....let's see, the families ASKED to have videos and pictures taken...please explain and define for us "he and his team proceeded to lose their ***ducking** minds"....and this is my favorite "put hands on someone just doing their job", don't you think context matters here??  And here is the final one, you argue McCain apologized and took the video down...did Trump post it anywhere?  Put it in a political ad?  Darn those pesky facts...all just to manufacture hate for Trump...LOL

1.  The family doesn't get to change federal law.

2.  "Proceeded to lose their ***ducking** minds."  They touched this staffer in some manner; they have called her mentally ill; they have attacked the Army over their statement on the issue.

3.  What's the context that makes it ok for them to touch the employee just doing her job?

4.  Yes, it was posted as an ad on Trump's tikTok, and as of 5 seconds ago, still there.

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, Offthemat said:

The more they try to insinuate that Trump disrespected someone, the worse the exposure for the kakkling kandidate. 

hey not everyone thinks its bad

 

[Bigbrog]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

1.  The family doesn't get to change federal law.

2.  "Proceeded to lose their ***ducking** minds."  They touched this staffer in some manner; they have called her mentally ill; they have attacked the Army over their statement on the issue.

3.  What's the context that makes it ok for them to touch the employee just doing her job?

4.  Yes, it was posted as an ad on Trump's tikTok, and as of 5 seconds ago, still there.

1.  Never said they did...I said I agree with the law and they made a mistake.  My point was it wasn't Trump walking in there saying he was going to take pictures and videos for political reasons...period.  You can choose not to believe that but that is just your bias showing through.

2.  Again, your definition of losing their ducking minds and mine are different.  I would, and apparently you would have too, handled the situation differently but to me it is just a case of he said she said and Trump and his team have every right to defend their position and story just as the woman does (again, I am not saying I agree with how they did it as again I wouldn't have done it that way, but it doesn't change the fact that maybe, just maybe their side of the story may be true.  And again, is why I wish they would release the video of the incident.

3.  The same context I explained to Rasta...ex POTUS who just weeks early had an assassination attempt on his life...gee...maybe...just maybe his detail was a little more on edge, and rightfully so!  If you think that that doesn't matter than once again, like him, it is pure bias and irrational mental gymnastics.  Again...I wish they would release the video!!

4.  If that so called post on tikTok is in fact an ad (I don't have tikTok)  than the Army should file an injunction to have it taken down as it violates federal law...and/or charge him and his campaign with a crime.

Edited September 5 by Bigbrog

[uncle bernard]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

1.  Never said they did...I said I agree with the law and they made a mistake.  My point was it wasn't Trump walking in there saying he was going to take pictures and videos for political reasons...period.  You can choose not to believe that but that is just your bias showing through.

2.  Again, your definition of losing their ducking minds and mine are different.  I would, and apparently you would have too, handled the situation differently but to me it is just a case of he said she said and Trump and his team have every right to defend their position and story just as the woman does (again, I am not saying I agree with how they did it as again I wouldn't have done it that way, but it doesn't change the fact that maybe, just maybe their side of the story may be true.  And again, is why I wish they would release the video of the incident.

3.  The same context I explained to Rasta...ex POTUS who just weeks early had an assassination attempt on his life...gee...maybe...just maybe his detail was a little more on edge, and rightfully so!  If you think that that doesn't matter than once again, like him, it is pure bias and irrational mental gymnastics.  Again...I wish they would release the video!!

4.  If that so called post on tikTok is in fact an ad (I don't have tikTok)  than the Army should file an injunction to have it taken down as it violates federal law...and/or charge him and his campaign with a crime.

When Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his supporters would defend him, he was talking about you. He does not respect you.

Edited September 5 by uncle bernard

[VakAttack]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

1.  Never said they did...I said I agree with the law and they made a mistake.  My point was it wasn't Trump walking in there saying he was going to take pictures and videos for political reasons...period.  You can choose not to believe that but that is just your bias showing through.

2.  Again, your definition of losing their ducking minds and mine are different.  I would, and apparently you would have too, handled the situation differently but to me it is just a case of he said she said and Trump and his team have every right to defend their position and story just as the woman does (again, I am not saying I agree with how they did it as again I wouldn't have done it that way, but it doesn't change the fact that maybe, just maybe their side of the story may be true.  And again, is why I wish they would release the video of the incident.

3.  The same context I explained to Rasta...ex POTUS who just weeks early had an assassination attempt on his life...gee...maybe...just maybe his detail was a little more on edge, and rightfully so!  If you think that that doesn't matter than once again, like him, it is pure bias and irrational mental gymnastics.  Again...I wish they would release the video!!

4.  If that so called post on tikTok is in fact an ad (I don't have tikTok)  than the Army should file an injunction to have it taken down as it violates federal law...and/or charge him and his campaign with a crime.

1.  It was 100 percent him taking the videos for political reasons.  That's why it was his campaign taking the videos.  If the family wanted personal footage, they could have filmed on their phones and/or just hired a photographer.  You are giving a benefit of the doubt to a man where it is not only clearly unearned, it runs counter to what actually happened.

2.  The campaign claimed they have video completely exonerating them (my phrasing, their meaning) and then just...never released it.  Weird how that happens.  And yes, going out and giving public statements calling the staffer a liar and calling the same staffer just doing her job "mentally ill" and attacking her and the Army for enforcing previously existing laws is "losing their **** minds."  You're trying to parse semantics but it doesn't change what happened.

3.  That MIGHT make sense if it was his security team or Secret Service that touched her.  By all accounts, it was the campaign staff, and they grabbed her as she was telling them to stop.  Zero people have said she came anywhere actually near Trump. And that's ignoring that this is the middle of a federally protected cemetary with clear sight lines everywhere; nobody is claiming they thought Trump was under attack.  Again, you're creating a scenario and then using it to justify, even though they themselves haven't made the argument.

4.  It's on TikTok.  I don't have an account for it either, but you can go look at it right now using a computer.  And why should they have to charge him with a crime?  Why can't he just remove the footage like McCain did?  This also flies counter to the argument that people are just looking to charge him with crimes any way they can; they're actively trying not to get involved with the election to avoid looking like they're taking a political side or advocating for a candidate, they were just trying to enforce their own laws.  The idea that this is incumbent on them and not the person and his campaign apparatus violating the law is hilarious.

 

[Ohio Elite]

8 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

When Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his supporters would defend him

He never said that...

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Ohio Elite said:

He never said that...

 

[Ohio Elite]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

 

He said he wouldn't lose any voters. You said he said his supporters would defend him. I'm just playing semantics UB lol.  I knew what you ment. Just giving ya a hard time 

[Scouts Honor]

16 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

When Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his supporters would defend him, he was talking about you. He does not respect you.

listen fat

[Bigbrog]

18 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

When Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his supporters would defend him, he was talking about you. He does not respect you.

Again showing your lack of reading comprehension.  Why is it so hard for people to understand that arguments can be made about a situation without it meaning they have undying support for the people or peoples involved???  You, rasta, and @VakAttack keep saying, "see you only see it that way because you love Trump"...using your logic, did you ever once think that maybe you all see it your way solely because you hate Trump??

[Scouts Honor]

they see it only one way b/c of their love and bias for someone and against someone

[Bigbrog]

18 hours ago, VakAttack said:

1.  It was 100 percent him taking the videos for political reasons.  That's why it was his campaign taking the videos.  If the family wanted personal footage, they could have filmed on their phones and/or just hired a photographer.  You are giving a benefit of the doubt to a man where it is not only clearly unearned, it runs counter to what actually happened.

2.  The campaign claimed they have video completely exonerating them (my phrasing, their meaning) and then just...never released it.  Weird how that happens.  And yes, going out and giving public statements calling the staffer a liar and calling the same staffer just doing her job "mentally ill" and attacking her and the Army for enforcing previously existing laws is "losing their **** minds."  You're trying to parse semantics but it doesn't change what happened.

3.  That MIGHT make sense if it was his security team or Secret Service that touched her.  By all accounts, it was the campaign staff, and they grabbed her as she was telling them to stop.  Zero people have said she came anywhere actually near Trump. And that's ignoring that this is the middle of a federally protected cemetary with clear sight lines everywhere; nobody is claiming they thought Trump was under attack.  Again, you're creating a scenario and then using it to justify, even though they themselves haven't made the argument.

4.  It's on TikTok.  I don't have an account for it either, but you can go look at it right now using a computer.  And why should they have to charge him with a crime?  Why can't he just remove the footage like McCain did?  This also flies counter to the argument that people are just looking to charge him with crimes any way they can; they're actively trying not to get involved with the election to avoid looking like they're taking a political side or advocating for a candidate, they were just trying to enforce their own laws.  The idea that this is incumbent on them and not the person and his campaign apparatus violating the law is hilarious.

 

1.  Okay you take your biased Trump hate point of view.  I'll take what the FAMILY'S THEMSELVES said.

2.  I agree...and have said so multiple times...the video should and needs to come out.  Then you won't have to keep making overly emotion biased statements like "losing their **** minds" and we can all go about our business.

3. Or it makes sense because it is probably why it happened.

4.  Again, did you miss the part of agreeing it should be taken down if it was put up as a political ad??  Why and how is what I wrote something you need to argue....are you arguing with yourself, because it surely can't be me.  I do get a kick out of your circular argument (with whom I am not sure) about how they shouldn't charge Trump with anything so close to the election because of perception, but yet think Trump should be charged with everything (financial fraud, hush money, election interference, etc)...which is it??  Is it so no matter what happens you can say "See, I told you"??  Is this a lawyer technique??

[WrestlingRasta]

21 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

1.  Never said they did...I said I agree with the law and they made a mistake.  My point was it wasn't Trump walking in there saying he was going to take pictures and videos for political reasons...period.  You can choose not to believe that but that is just your bias showing through.

2.  Again, your definition of losing their ducking minds and mine are different.  I would, and apparently you would have too, handled the situation differently but to me it is just a case of he said she said and Trump and his team have every right to defend their position and story just as the woman does (again, I am not saying I agree with how they did it as again I wouldn't have done it that way, but it doesn't change the fact that maybe, just maybe their side of the story may be true.  And again, is why I wish they would release the video of the incident.

3.  The same context I explained to Rasta...ex POTUS who just weeks early had an assassination attempt on his life...gee...maybe...just maybe his detail was a little more on edge, and rightfully so!  If you think that that doesn't matter than once again, like him, it is pure bias and irrational mental gymnastics.  Again...I wish they would release the video!!

4.  If that so called post on tikTok is in fact an ad (I don't have tikTok)  than the Army should file an injunction to have it taken down as it violates federal law...and/or charge him and his campaign with a crime.

Ahhhh a new day, a new sunshine.  Let us being....

 

1.  Never said they did...I said I agree with the law and they made a mistake.  My point was it wasn't Trump walking in there saying he was going to take pictures and videos for political reasons...period.  You can choose not to believe that but that is just your bias showing through.  

>>  Can only assume that since you are taking such a hard and damning stance on that aspect, you must have been in the room and in the meetings prior to the visit where they were discussing their plans and intent for said visit, and then accompanied them on their visit, and therefore have first hand knowledge of intent and plas.  And the fact that the Trump campaign released video of the gravesites almost immediately, but has not released video of the incident, that was verified by the Army and Pentagon, but would allegedly completely exonerate them from what they are accused.  Is a person allowed critical thinking to factor that in, or is it just bias?

2. Again, your definition of losing their ducking minds and mine are different.  I would, and apparently you would have too, handled the situation differently but to me it is just a case of he said she said and Trump and his team have every right to defend their position and story just as the woman does (again, I am not saying I agree with how they did it as again I wouldn't have done it that way, but it doesn't change the fact that maybe, just maybe their side of the story may be true.  And again, is why I wish they would release the video of the incident.

>>  And since his definition is different that yours, it is just pure bias?  As far as the video, I think we all would like it's release.  Which begs three questions: 1) who took the video, 2) who has access and ability to release the video, 3) why have they not?

3. The same context I explained to Rasta...ex POTUS who just weeks early had an assassination attempt on his life...gee...maybe...just maybe his detail was a little more on edge, and rightfully so!  If you think that that doesn't matter than once again, like him, it is pure bias and irrational mental gymnastics. 

>>  If you truly believe that it is in any way excusable to shove an officer out of the way who is trying to forbid you from violating federal law, a law implemented solely for the respect of soldiers who were killed in battle, because you are an ex-president who got shot in the ear....and that anyone that thinks that is not excusable is nothing but bias and mental gymnastics........well we're just too far apart on what it means to be a decent human being to really cover this aspect any more.  I'm still kind of shocked.  If his detail is not able to conduct themselves in a professional manner, over something like a federal officer doing the right thing, then maybe they are not fit for that detail.

4.  If that so called post on tikTok is in fact an ad (I don't have tikTok)  than the Army should file an injunction to have it taken down as it violates federal law...and/or charge him and his campaign with a crime.

>>  This one is pretty interesting.   This video has in fact been released, posted, and verified.  But you don't have tikTok, so its "if so called video.... and if in fact", even though you don't have to have a tikTook account to very easily find it and watch it.    I just don't get that, especially when your whole argument on anything about this situation that is counter to you, is nothing but pure bias.  

 

[WrestlingRasta]

21 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

1.  Okay you take your biased Trump hate point of view.  I'll take what the FAMILY'S THEMSELVES said.

2.  I agree...and have said so multiple times...the video should and needs to come out.  Then you won't have to keep making overly emotion biased statements like "losing their **** minds" and we can all go about our business.

3. Or it makes sense because it is probably why it happened.

4.  Again, did you miss the part of agreeing it should be taken down if it was put up as a political ad??  Why and how is what I wrote something you need to argue....are you arguing with yourself, because it surely can't be me.  I do get a kick out of your circular argument (with whom I am not sure) about how they shouldn't charge Trump with anything so close to the election because of perception, but yet think Trump should be charged with everything (financial fraud, hush money, election interference, etc)...which is it??  Is it so no matter what happens you can say "See, I told you"??  Is this a lawyer technique??

Can you clarify where you read that he stated that's what they should be or shouldn't be doing?  Because when I read, and then re-read his statement, what I am reading is his stating what they are doing.  I don't see should be doing this or shouldn't be doing that anywhere in that statement regarding charges.  And that should be is the central piece to your "I get a kick out of your circular argument".....argument, so it's kind of important whether or not that's what he said, or if that's just how you decided to accept it?

[VakAttack]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

1.  Okay you take your biased Trump hate point of view.  I'll take what the FAMILY'S THEMSELVES said.

2.  I agree...and have said so multiple times...the video should and needs to come out.  Then you won't have to keep making overly emotion biased statements like "losing their **** minds" and we can all go about our business.

3. Or it makes sense because it is probably why it happened.

4.  Again, did you miss the part of agreeing it should be taken down if it was put up as a political ad??  Why and how is what I wrote something you need to argue....are you arguing with yourself, because it surely can't be me.  I do get a kick out of your circular argument (with whom I am not sure) about how they shouldn't charge Trump with anything so close to the election because of perception, but yet think Trump should be charged with everything (financial fraud, hush money, election interference, etc)...which is it??  Is it so no matter what happens you can say "See, I told you"??  Is this a lawyer technique??

1. You're just muttering nonsense here.  I believe and am totally fine with the family iunviting Trump, him going there, them being mad at the current administration, whatever.  There's no evidence I can find (although I'll admit I didn't do an exhaustive search) that shows the family asked him or the campaign to film anything; some news sources quote the Trump campaign as saying they had "express permission to bring campaign designated media".  In the end, though, none of that matters.  Arlington national Ceremony is not the domain of those families or any of the families; it is governed by federal law, and filming anything for campaign purposes, which is literally what it was filmed for, is against the law.

2.  Your portrayal of a fairly benign descriptive sentence as "overly emotional" is very telling.  I have no personal investment in this situation; however, I do have a problem with people with power abusing people with less power, as has happened here.

3.  Unfortunately, as near as I can tell, YOU are the only person saying that's why it happened.  The staff has said both that nothing happened at all, and then also that she had a mental breakdown, has mental illness, and the "woke Army" is out to get them.  And again, they said they had some sort of exonerating video that they never released for...reasons.

4.  You're just making things up.  My point was not that he should be charged.  My point was he should take the video down.  My final point was that, the fact that they are not bringing any sort of charges or suit runs counter to the conservative narrative that all these "deep state" actors are just out to get Trump and will charge him with anything.  You not being able to understand simple sentences is not my problem.

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Again showing your lack of reading comprehension.  Why is it so hard for people to understand that arguments can be made about a situation without it meaning they have undying support for the people or peoples involved???  You, rasta, and @VakAttack keep saying, "see you only see it that way because you love Trump"...using your logic, did you ever once think that maybe you all see it your way solely because you hate Trump??

When did I say you love Trump?  I'm pretty sure you'll vote Trump, but I have no idea about your personal emotions, and I certainly never said anything like that in this thread.