• 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!

What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,163
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When there's no "there" there:
What is it about so many people these days that they rail against empty personal barbs, or personal barbs they believe baseless? At least once every month since I joined DP I have at least remarked upon the notion of not dignifying insipid or baseless remarks by responding to them.

Almost weekly we see instances of Donald Trump responding directly to refute brickbats wherein part of his response is that the charge is baseless or untrue, which, frankly, is no more or less demonstratively probative than is the epithet to which he responded. Well, if the charge is indeed baseless, there's no need for one to respond to it, for its banality and inaccuracy -- that there's no "there" there -- will be endogenously and exogenously manifest.

All those vociferous vituperation does nothing but give life to something that deserves none.​

When there's lots "there" there:
What is it about so many people these days that they have no better sense than to publicly and vituperatively deny things of which they know there's plenty of "there" there? Why not just own "the ****" and move on, which, furthermore, allows "everyone else" to move on too? The fact of the matter is that when a charge has gravitas and can be deductively or inductively shown to be legit, there's no getting around it. Why prolong the agony?


Example:
On the matter of Trump and/or his campaign team's having colluded/conspired with Russian state actors.

  • [*=1]Trump (and/or his emissaries) weekly, if not daily, makes unsubstantiated assertions wherein he denies that there was collusion and disparages anyone, everyone, and everything brought into the quest to obtain a definitive and strongly corroborated answer to the question of whether any such comportment occurred.
    [*=1]Bob Mueller, in contrast, says nothing -- either way -- and has said nothing about the matter since the day he was appointed. He just goes about his job of trying to find out whether there was or was not criminally culpable conspiring and, if there was, who, if anyone, was party to it.
Is there any "there" there? The general public doesn't know. We'll find out when Mueller issues his report.




 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Hmm... Trump (et al) likely met with foreigners to attempt to obtain dirt (opposition research) on Hillary yet we know that Hillary (et al) paid to get said dirt (opposition research?) from foreigners (some Russian). Why is one rumored to be a criminal act and the other being blown off as politics as usual?
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

When there's no "there" there:
What is it about so many people these days that they rail against empty personal barbs, or personal barbs they believe baseless? At least once every month since I joined DP I have at least remarked upon the notion of not dignifying insipid or baseless remarks by responding to them.

Almost weekly we see instances of Donald Trump responding directly to refute brickbats wherein part of his response is that the charge is baseless or untrue, which, frankly, is no more or less demonstratively probative than is the epithet to which he responded. Well, if the charge is indeed baseless, there's no need for one to respond to it, for its banality and inaccuracy -- that there's no "there" there -- will be endogenously and exogenously manifest.

All those vociferous vituperation does nothing but give life to something that deserves none.​

When there's lots "there" there:
What is it about so many people these days that they have no better sense than to publicly and vituperatively deny things of which they know there's plenty of "there" there? Why not just own "the ****" and move on, which, furthermore, allows "everyone else" to move on too? The fact of the matter is that when a charge has gravitas and can be deductively or inductively shown to be legit, there's no getting around it. Why prolong the agony?


Example:
On the matter of Trump and/or his campaign team's having colluded/conspired with Russian state actors.

  • [*=1]Trump (and/or his emissaries) weekly, if not daily, makes unsubstantiated assertions wherein he denies that there was collusion and disparages anyone, everyone, and everything brought into the quest to obtain a definitive and strongly corroborated answer to the question of whether any such comportment occurred.
    [*=1]Bob Mueller, in contrast, says nothing -- either way -- and has said nothing about the matter since the day he was appointed. He just goes about his job of trying to find out whether there was or was not criminally culpable conspiring and, if there was, who, if anyone, was party to it.
Is there any "there" there? The general public doesn't know. We'll find out when Mueller issues his report.





The fact that the public doesn't know doesn't stop the media from pushing the narrative that there is something there...even though we don't actually know. But the media is very powerful when it comes to shaping public opinion and Trump needs to resist their narrative for that reason. That's why he responds.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

The fact that the public doesn't know doesn't stop the media from pushing the narrative that there is something there...even though we don't actually know. But the media is very powerful when it comes to shaping public opinion and Trump needs to resist their narrative for that reason. That's why he responds.

Trump (and Fox News) are also very powerful in shaping public opinion, so I think it works both ways. Either the liberal MSM narrative (trump guilty) or the trump & conservative MSM(mainly Fox News) narrative (trump innocent) will be correct, Mueller will answer that question for us hopefully in the near future! All I know is, trump and Fox News were wrong about Hillary Clinton being guilty and going to jail. Will they be correct this time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Trump (and Fox News) are also very powerful in shaping public opinion, so I think it works both ways. Either the liberal MSM narrative (trump guilty) or the trump & conservative MSM(mainly Fox News) narrative (trump innocent) will be correct, Mueller will answer that question for us hopefully in the near future! All I know is, trump and Fox News were wrong about Hillary Clinton being guilty and going to jail. Will they be correct this time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once most of those around Hillary were granted immunity it would have been terribly unfair to convict her for the private server fiasco. Clearly, folks have been charged with mishandling classified data (gross negligence) without any intent to transfer the data to enemy hands.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Once most of those around Hillary were granted immunity it would have been terribly unfair to convict her for the private server fiasco. Clearly, folks have been charged with mishandling classified data (gross negligence) without any intent to transfer the data to enemy hands.

Name three high level officials that were charged with mishandling classified data without any intent.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

WTH? Did any one of you who've so far responded actually understand the OP? I have to ask because not one of you has commented on what is the actual theme of the OP/title.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

WTH? Did any one of you who've so far responded actually understand the OP? I have to ask because not one of you has commented on what is the actual theme of the OP/title.

Deflecting to Hillary (or, in many cases, outright lying about Hillary or absurdly claiming that the Trump Tower meeting was a Hillary setup) is ALL THEY HAVE. They have no other response. They cannot defend Trump, so it's obfuscation and lying.

When you deal with the Trump fellaters, you're dealing with a bunch of ****ing liars. This is what liars do. They lie.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Deflecting to Hillary (or, in many cases, outright lying about Hillary or absurdly claiming that the Trump Tower meeting was a Hillary setup) is ALL THEY HAVE. They have no other response. They cannot defend Trump, so it's obfuscation and lying.

When you deal with the Trump fellaters, you're dealing with a bunch of ****ing liars. This is what liars do. They lie.

Red:
Well, maybe, but deflecting in this thread, given the thread's theme, is self-deriding.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Red:
Well, maybe, but deflecting in this thread, given the thread's theme, is self-deriding.

Doesn’t matter.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Trump (and Fox News) are also very powerful in shaping public opinion, so I think it works both ways. Either the liberal MSM narrative (trump guilty) or the trump & conservative MSM(mainly Fox News) narrative (trump innocent) will be correct, Mueller will answer that question for us hopefully in the near future! All I know is, trump and Fox News were wrong about Hillary Clinton being guilty and going to jail. Will they be correct this time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is only one reason Hillary didn't go to jail...and that's the same reason we have this Mueller witch hunt.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Name three high level officials that were charged with mishandling classified data without any intent.

The idea that a private server was established 'without intent' to gain control over who could see its content is precious. Her own claim that it was a 'mistake', that she takes 'full responsibility' and that 'it was allowed' indicates intent. With so much 'lack of intent' then why were so many around her granted immunity?
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

The idea that a private server was established 'without intent' to gain control over who could see its content is precious. Her own claim that it was a 'mistake', that she takes 'full responsibility' and that 'it was allowed' indicates intent. With so much 'lack of intent' then why were so many around her granted immunity?
rotflmao.gif





The idea that a private server was established 'without intent' to gain control over who could see its content is precious. Her own claim that it was a 'mistake', that she takes 'full responsibility' and that 'it was allowed' indicates intent. With so much 'lack of intent' then why were so many around her granted immunity?
calvinlaughing.jpg


The idea that a private server was established 'without intent' to gain control over who could see its content is precious. Her own claim that it was a 'mistake', that she takes 'full responsibility' and that 'it was allowed' indicates intent. With so much 'lack of intent' then why were so many around her granted immunity?

7mPF.gif





Reading the above documents one see why I find the whole of your remarks laughable and your having presented them irresponsibly reprehensible. I don't have problem with one's expressing one's ideas, but if one is going to express ideas on matters of which one is novel, at least qualify the remarks as such rather than positively presenting them.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Hmm... Trump (et al) likely met with foreigners to attempt to obtain dirt (opposition research) on Hillary yet we know that Hillary (et al) paid to get said dirt (opposition research?) from foreigners (some Russian). Why is one rumored to be a criminal act and the other being blown off as politics as usual?

Because that is not what HRC did
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Because that is not what HRC did

As post 13 also indicates, that member hasn't a goddamned clue of what he's talking about, yet he talks about the matters nonetheless, and with an abundance of perfidy to probity.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

There is only one reason Hillary didn't go to jail...and that's the same reason we have this Mueller witch hunt.

You do realize that Sessions could convene a grand jury any time he wants, right?

You do realize that Trump could replace him with an AG that will, right?



Guess not...
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

You do realize that Sessions could convene a grand jury any time he wants, right?

You do realize that Trump could replace him with an AG that will, right?



Guess not...

Sessions won't do that. But Huber probably will.

Trump won't do that, either.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Sessions won't do that. But Huber probably will.

Trump won't do that, either.

You have no sane complaint that Hillary should be charged but isn't when your team runs the show. If there was a there there, they'd have been all over it long ago. If there was something they thought they could spin into looking like a there, they would do it. They have no shame.

The simple fact of the matter is that everything you told yourself/selves about Hillary being this big horrible criminal is wrong. There are many ways in which she sucks, but they aren't the ways you've been going on about for years.

Really, just stop.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

You have no sane complaint that Hillary should be charged but isn't when your team runs the show. If there was a there there, they'd have been all over it long ago. If there was something they thought they could spin into looking like a there, they would do it. They have no shame.

The simple fact of the matter is that everything you told yourself/selves about Hillary being this big horrible criminal is wrong. There are many ways in which she sucks, but they aren't the ways you've been going on about for years.

Really, just stop.

Hillary is low priority.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Hillary is low priority.

:roll:

DOJ is more than big enough.




Really, just stop. It's silly.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

:roll:

DOJ is more than big enough.




Really, just stop. It's silly.

shrug...

You are the one who keeps talking to me. You stop.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

shrug...

You are the one who keeps talking to me. You stop.

Why stop when your continued responses make it increasingly clear how ridiculous your supposition of Hillary's guilt of something is?


First you defend by suggesting the DOJ isn't big enough for Sessions or a replacement AG to convene a grand jury (that takes one prosecutor).

Now, you deflect by taunting me to stop pointing out the absurdity of your claim?




:lamo
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

I think that the desperation of Trump supporters who cling to the last argument they heard in his favor is less about their faith in Donald Trump or their willingness to advance the party at the expense of their own credibility, and more about the public defense of their own judgement. I would wager that a majority of people who voted for Trump did so publicly in one form or another. At this point they're committed. Admitting to any weakness in Donald Trump is, in their minds, an admission of weakness in their own good judgement. Combine this with the strong public outcry against Trump, and they have to face the possibility of not only having made a foolish choice, but having done so in the face of overwhelming evidence that they should have known better.

This is about as socially uncomfortable a position as I can think of.
 
Re: What to do when there's no "there" there and when there's lots of "there" there

Why stop when your continued responses make it increasingly clear how ridiculous your supposition of Hillary's guilt of something is?


First you defend by suggesting the DOJ isn't big enough for Sessions or a replacement AG to convene a grand jury (that takes one prosecutor).

Now, you deflect by taunting me to stop pointing out the absurdity of your claim?




:lamo

You haven't understood a word I've said. Probably that TDS affecting you.

Oh well...
 
Back
Top Bottom