DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Parkland School Shooting..17 dead

40, do you see Fight in this man's eyes?

Anyway, has everyone placed armed guards and metal detectors at their schools yet?

The airports are safe.
The Government officials are safe.
Are our kids now safe?

Look at the Fight in their eyes. I bet they would've rushed in unarmed to stop the shooting if they were there.

I think five deferments to not serve in Vietnam should give you every indication you need 40.

I mean surely you don't believe a 70 something overweight Trump is more ready to face gunfire than a young and strong Trump do you?

You really think President Bone Spur would do today what he did everything to avoid over 50 years ago?

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm...

The header for this article is the video where Trump got startled when a protester approached him at a rally (the one 40 somehow thinks looks like a sweaty geriatric ready to fight).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig...m=.40ff0fd74a0d

President Trump, again, overcompensates for cowardice

President Trump is not known for personal courage. He used “bone spurs” to get out of military service in Vietnam. (He apparently is not scared of stairs, but is petrified of sharks and, by his own account, is revolted by the sight of blood. He’s also a germaphobe.) He’ll fire people, but not if he has to confront the person directly. (He sent an aide to fire FBI director James B. Comey; gave up trying to fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III — when White House counsel Don McGahn wouldn’t do it; and backed off trying to remove deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe when FBI director Christopher A. Wray threatened to quit.) When caught saying or doing something he shouldn’t (e.g., mocking a reporter with a disability, calling African countries “shitholes,” calling Democrats “un-American” and “treasonous,” etc.), he figuratively flees the scene by either denying what he said, or pretending it was a joke. And, for whatever reason, he will bend over backwards to avoid offending Russian President Vladimir Putin.

So when he declared on Monday that, had he been at the site of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting, “I really believe I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon,” he was widely derided on social media. Obviously, few human beings, even brave ones, would race into a building to confront an active shooter with no weapon. In fact, it would be idiotic to do so. The fact that Trump felt compelled to brag about superhuman physical bravery (and further demean the school resource officer who failed to) is telling.

Lacking a service record of his own, he repeatedly feels compelled to equate military service with other conduct (e.g. sexual promiscuity, military school). He longs to be in the company of military men, but fails to understand the ethos of the American military. (Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis had to talk him out of adopting torture as a policy. He thinks the military wants a parade to show off.) He tries to ingratiate himself with the police by telling them that it is fine to rough up suspects. During the campaign, he said about a protester: “I’d like to punch him in the face.” In office, he called the Kim Jong Un “short and fat” and then made an empty boast that his nuclear button is “bigger” than the North Korean dictator’s nuclear button. His efforts to project manly strength are laughable.

You don’t have to have a medical degree to notice his ocean of insecurity and his need to overcompensate. (“They say X has never been done.” “They say X is the biggest ever.”) And you don’t have to be a political scientist to see that his insatiable need to prove his own worth may lead to international confrontations and domestic dysfunction.

In the case of Trump, his empty bravado has another ramification, a legal one. Trump faces a real confrontation that could end his presidency and land him in a heap of legal trouble, namely an interview with the special counsel about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and Trump’s actions after the investigation began. The president has bragged he’d love to talk to Mueller, but for now is hiding behind his lawyers’ skirts. His lawyers think he is so dishonest that he will lie under oath or is so foolishly loquacious that he’ll implicate himself in wrongdoing. They have resorted to silly excuses. (Too busy!) But, of course, Trump could override his lawyers; he is the client.

Moreover, he is the president, who is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, which entails getting to the bottom of a plot to interfere with our election. A refusal to testify would be tantamount to admitting that his personal interests conflict with his obligations as chief executive.


The Wall Street Journal reports that his team is even considering a legal fight to prevent Mueller from questioning him.

“President Donald Trump’s lawyers are considering ways for him to testify before special counsel Robert Mueller, provided the questions he faces are limited in scope and don’t test his recollections in ways they say could unfairly trap him into perjuring himself, a person familiar with his legal team’s thinking said.”

It is a ridiculous gambit since the Supreme Court has consistently knocked down “executive privilege” as an excuse for the president and other senior executive-branch officials to avoid providing evidence. Trump could cut off his lawyers’ implicitly insulting line of defense by declaring that he is willing and eager to sit down for as long as Mueller wants and to answer any questions. But he doesn’t.

Trump could invoke the Fifth Amendment, despite the political firestorm it would ignite. Even with that certain political conflagration, Trump may be so afraid of facing Mueller (who served in Vietnam, by the way) that he might even resort even to pleading the Fifth rather than expose himself to the special counsel’s questions.

It’s ironic, isn’t it, that Hillary Clinton sat stoically before the GOP-controlled committee charged with investigation the Benghazi tragedy for eleven hours, but Trump cannot muster up the nerve to talk face-to-face with Mueller? Some people, I suppose, are just naturally more stouthearted than others.

Shooting survivor's father admits email changes in CNN spat

https://www.yahoo.com/news/shooting-survivors-father-admits-email-changes-cnn-spat-213024427.html

Whoops.

Don't hold your breath waiting on a Fox News retraction.

Or a Haus retraction.

We Interrupt This Thread for Breaking News!

Donald Trump will run for a second term as president and has named Brad Parscale, his 2016 digital strategist, as his campaign manager for 2020.

YES, WOW, GREAT, Pee, WO HOO!

...We now return you to your regularly scheduled Thread.....

Look at the Fight in this man's eyes.

That was good practice for thumping Washington!

This really hits the nail on the head. I think it's spot on.

But, what is probably needed (but probably unattainable) is a unifying concept of God.

Think outside the box.

God... that's your answer? GMAB.

I've seen Christian's back an accused pedo in a Church! Ain't that enough GOD for you! This meme just invokes GOD to give the feeble minded die hard 2nd amendment gun toting NRA types a talking point in the face of yet more kids being killed. A RIDICULOUS talking point.

By the same logic - druggies are going to get high, right? Glue, Purple Dank, Weed, Crack, Cocaine.... they'll find a way. No point making any of those things illegal.

Just hearing the kids in florida are being threatened over their activism! smdh, You have to be pretty damn sick to threaten these kids after what they just went through! I hope the perps get arrested and get terrorism charges!

Considering your post lays the blame squarely on a godless society we better arm the churches as well.

This post clearly demonstrates the problem with society.

There probably can't be a unifying concept of god.

Not when about half or more of the population doesn't actually believe. The real silent majority are Atheist and other non-believers.

The new hip thing is the simulation hypothesis-- that our universe is actually a simulation and we were created by an all-knowing, all-powerful, and omnipotent superintelligence of some sort. Basically, God for atheists.

Well, nobody can make up and simulate what we have right now. Basically where you and a growing minority of our population believes Trump is god..

?

One 'Art of the Deal' joke in one of these threads aside, I don't actually think that.

It's ok if you do. We're all law biding citizens that have 1st amendment rights. The freedom of speech and religion and all that. I know a bunch of people that believe it. A ffew of them reside here daily.

There are also a few who spend most of their days on here ranting about Trump. I still don't think that can be healthy.

Sure it's not healthy! Trump makes me feel ill just thinking about him.

But somebody has to be here for 40 when the delusion breaks AND the game of whack-a-troll is epic!

Yeah I know. You should probably stop that.

Two different worlds. When I read 40's posts, I sense a guy who is funny and extremely clever. The way he needles some of the liberals on here, and pushes the boundaries of things only to back off is pretty hilarious. To be honest, I think you're one of the few (if only) who can really hang with him. Others just get so frustrated, sometimes emotional, that the nuance I described above is completely lost on them.

Don't be so sure that it is he who is under delusion.

Yeah that went completely over your head, and I'm not sure you even understand what 'ranting' means in this context.

You nailed it .. or part of it ... 40 is indeed a troll. And instead of getting upset or frustrated with him ignoring him is the correct course of action. And as for intelligent, if parroting a bunch of right wing spam counts for intelligence then sure.

What are you talking about? Posters here are constantly needling, provoking, and arguing with each other. If what you got out of my post is 'troll' then we are all trolls. It's not like there's a whole lot of in-depth policy discussion going on here.

I believe the real difference is that some of us actually try to discuss things in an earnest way. We may bicker and argue, but we actually try to convey what we believe. Where as 40 is a caricature whose main goal is to stir up trouble.

He posts a lot of takes and good info (more than most actually) and there's also a degree of banter and all that. I don't have any issue with that. Ever read PDF's posts? Spiral's? CHS, Swish... you name it. There's a lot of needling, a lot of hostility, and a lot of stirring up trouble. Even I get into it sometimes.

I know exactly what you mean. I go around and around with 40 sometimes. But I take everything he says with a grain of salt and I never actually get worked up about his posts. It's a funny thing the printed word. You have no idea the mood or the intent with which something is actually presented.

Most all the time I get a chuckle out of the responses of many posters. At worse I simply shake my head at some of the responses on here. I have my perception of posters based on how they post more than what they post. And from the experience of meeting many current and past posters on these boards, I've found the perception is just as often wrong as it is right when you meet them.

I have met people from another online community and my experience is pretty much the same. Perceptions are just as often wrong as they are right when you meet them. Also, in the cases that I've seen, any online 'grudges' disappeared in real life. I hope that would be the case with fellow Dawgs as well.

About the posts on here: it is what it is. You're a bit older than most on here and you have a certain amount of carefreeness about you. I've actually noticed that we disagree on a lot of things that don't really matter but agree on things that actually do (gun rights and immigration, to use two examples you mentioned in the other thread.)

This thread is going to be locked due to length soon. Maybe somebody should make another one that strictly deals with our thoughts about other posters. Just get it all out there. What's the worst that could happen..

I was reading one of the posts the other day with people going back and forwards over what it means to be poor, black and poor and wealthy and white ... etc ... just my 2 cents but I see nothing good out of a thread dedicated to people's opinions of other posters. . . Regarding 40 - I see 90% of his posts or more are aimed exclusively at saying something to antagonize people he doesn't agree with. When a 'real' debate or discussion starts and he doesn't like the direction, he simply reverts to type. To me that's 100% troll. jmo.

I actually thought the discussions about what it means to be poor and black vs poor and white were pretty insightful. It was a way for people to share their thoughts about something that many people haven't experienced for themselves.