• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breitbart Spokesman Resigns Over Trump Aide Assault

cpwill said:
:prof but not necessary for Trump fans.
Click to expand...

Audio isn't video. Even we non-Trump fans know the difference. I assume when he asked for video, he would get video evidence in return, not audio. The anti-Trumpers are sometimes as dumb as the Trumpettes.
 
tres borrachos said:
Well, you obviously have far better eyes than I do. I saw that video already and said before that it does not show an assault to me. I can't see it.
Click to expand...

The video linked there is her reaching for her, contrary to what he claimed, and in conjunction with both the audio and the eyewitness accounts. No other person reached for or grabbed her, and she was physically bruised from the incident. Nor does yanking require nearly yanking someone off their feet, however, in this incident, he appears to have yanked her back. There was one that showed it much better, despite the attempts at editing, but seems to have been since taken down by Anonymous:



I can't stand Lewandowski, which you probably already knew. I'm not that big an anti-Trumper that I see things that aren't there. And whatever dishonesty his campaign perpetrated afterwards is par for the course for the Trump campaign. But dishonest words to the Media don't make Lewandowski guilty of assault.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I think you are falling off the other side of the horse in order to try to be fair, but I understand that intent.
 
tres borrachos said:
Audio isn't video. Even we non-Trump fans know the difference. I assume when he asked for video, he would get video evidence in return, not audio. The anti-Trumpers are sometimes as dumb as the Trumpettes.
Click to expand...

....

are you accusing me of either being stupid, or lying to you?
 
cpwill said:
The video linked there is her reaching for her, contrary to what he claimed, and in conjunction with both the audio and the eyewitness accounts. No other person reached for or grabbed her, and she was physically bruised from the incident. Nor does yanking require nearly yanking someone off their feet, however, in this incident, he appears to have yanked her back. There was one that showed it much better, despite the attempts at editing, but seems to have been since taken down by Anonymous:





:shrug: I think you are falling off the other side of the horse in order to try to be fair, but I understand that intent.
Click to expand...


I said I don't see it. If you can prove that I'm lying, please do so. I have seen many others also say that they can't see this "assault". I also have bruises from work we did this weekend. I know you trust anyone from Breitbart or in the media. I don't. That link doesn't work for me, BTW.

I'm not falling on any horse. I'm not a disingenuous ass. If I don't see something, I won't pretend that I do just to jump on the "Trump's an asshole" circle jerk. There are plenty of reasons to go after Trump. This isn't one of them.
 
cpwill said:
....

are you accusing me of either being stupid, or lying to you?
Click to expand...

No, I read cabse's post, which was asking for video. Someone posted an ignorant post about including audio, and making an ignorant "reading is fundamental" comment. Yes, reading is fundamental. Video isn't audio. Maybe you didn't read the post exchange between them that you found so amusing. I did. The one who can't read is the one who mistook audio for video.

I'm done with this discussion. I leave you all to discuss this terrible assault that many others of us don't see.
 
Somerville said:
A fine example of the type of absolutist thinking so common among those who label themselves "Conservative". Everything must be THIS or THAT with nothing in between the two end points.

Rationally, one should say stuff like, "Some of the previous reports were accurate but some of them were also complete garbage, therefore I think I will see what others are saying about this topic - not just the Breitbartians"
Click to expand...

I'm curious why you would waste your time with such irrelevant and snarky blather?

The fact is, the mere mention of Breitbart, or a link to same, is immediately dismissed by the left. Very few people ever post a link to Breitbart for that very reason. It would be like posting a link to Salon, or ThinkProgress. Nothing but partisan hackery, so why use it as a source of information?

Now, all of a sudden, because these previously dismissed and denigrated journalists are bashing this reviled source, they are paragons of virtue.

It's interesting to observe ideologically subjective support like these.
 
tres borrachos said:
I said I don't see it. If you can prove that I'm lying, please do so.
Click to expand...

:confused: no one is saying you are lying. I am saying that the video that shows it best has been taken down and replaced by Anonymous (and linked it for you), and that the preponderance of evidence was all clear that A) the Trump campaign was lying and B) the reporter was telling the truth.

I have seen many others also say that they can't see this "assault". I also have bruises from work we did this weekend.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And they probably have the shape of what impacted you, right?

I know you trust anyone from Breitbart or in the media. I don't. That link doesn't work for me, BTW.
Click to expand...

WTF? I trust Breitbart about as far as I can toss a Ford F150.

I'm not falling on any horse. I'm not a disingenuous ass. If I don't see something, I won't pretend that I do just to jump on the "Trump's an asshole" circle jerk. There are plenty of reasons to go after Trump. This isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

Responding to campaign staff using physical coercion against female reporters by attacking the reporter is absolutely a mark against Trump. That doesn't make me a disingenuous ass. It makes me a goddam moral human being.
 
ocean515 said:
I'm curious why you would waste your time with such irrelevant and snarky blather?

The fact is, the mere mention of Breitbart, or a link to same, is immediately dismissed by the left. Very few people ever post a link to Breitbart for that very reason. It would be like posting a link to Salon, or ThinkProgress. Nothing but partisan hackery, so why use it as a source of information?

Now, all of a sudden, because these previously dismissed and denigrated journalists are bashing this reviled source, they are paragons of virtue.

It's interesting to observe politically subjective claims like these.
Click to expand...

That's what confuses me. If this Breitbart reporter wrote an article 6 weeks ago talking about the virtues of Ted Cruz, what do you think these people who are so convinced her words are true would be saying about her?

The irony here is amusing.
 
ocean515 said:
I'm curious why you would waste your time with such irrelevant and snarky blather?

The fact is, the mere mention of Breitbart, or a link to same, is immediately dismissed by the left. Very few people ever post a link to Breitbart for that very reason. It would be like posting a link to Salon, or ThinkProgress. Nothing but partisan hackery, so why use it as a source of information?

Now, all of a sudden, because these previously dismissed and denigrated journalists are bashing this reviled source, they are paragons of virtue.

It's interesting to observe ideologically subjective support like these.
Click to expand...


Who says they are "paragons of virtue"? Even pathological liars - not saying these people are such - have been known to say truthful things upon occasion. It is the bilateral thinking which drives me crazy. In human society, there is always a spectrum of views and positions on subjects of complexity.
 
cabse5 said:
How many death threats have been made on your life lately? To clarify, I'm not making one, I'm assuming Trump has received his share of them.
Click to expand...

Being the recipient of a death threat does not justify assaulting a nonviolent reporter...
 
tres borrachos said:
That's what confuses me. If this Breitbart reporter wrote an article 6 weeks ago talking about the virtues of Ted Cruz, what do you think these people who are so convinced her words are true would be saying about her?

The irony here is amusing.
Click to expand...

Unlike partisan hacks, i don't assume someone is wrong because they come from the other side of the aisle.

People normally don't quit their jobs for no reason, that's kindof a big deal. The evidence does show that the Trump campaign is lying and that her claim of assault may actually have merit.

You might not want to admit that because of your deeply held beliefs, but i'm going on the bruise on her arm, the video, and the eyewitness report.
 
Somerville said:
Who says they are "paragons of virtue"? Even pathological liars - not saying these people are such - have been known to say truthful things upon occasion. It is the bilateral thinking which drives me crazy. In human society, there is always a spectrum of views and positions on subjects of complexity.
Click to expand...

Who says? Well, I offer as evidence this very thread.

I too get crazy observing warped subjective thinking, which has been the basis of my comments. Obviously, more examples keep coming.
 
tres borrachos said:
He know he was killed by gunfire? No, he dead. And I suspect the bullets the doctors pulled out of his brains were kind of the proof everyone needed to know he was killed by gunfire. And I'm not sure what "who killed JFK" has to do with this discussion. Maybe you stumbled into the wrong forum. The Conspiracy Theory forum is that way------>

I do admire your vehement support of Breitbart staff though. Do you believe everything they say unquestioningly?
Click to expand...

There's no clear proof of who shot JFK either, but we know he was killed by gun fire.

I mean, right?

So if witnesses say they saw the assault, and Breitbart staff is quitting over it, then there's at a 100% chance that the assault happened and Breitbart covered it up - right?

Just like there's a 100% chance that JFK was killed buy gun fire.
Click to expand...

There, I fixed it for you, so can read it and gain a better understanding of it.

Now, show me where I'm supporting what Beirtbart is saying....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom