Trump's Obama Announcement

[Onkel Neal]

I have not read this while thread so this may in the discussion, but

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I have not read this while thread so this may in the discussion, but

Ok, I'm just going to say what I've said elsewhere: You guys should have another civil war. Just.. do it. Now.

[vienna]

Basically, what Trump and his far right fellow travellers are engaging in is an old (and bad) debater's trick. When you are unable to win an argument on the basis of facts that you can provide yourself or you can substatiate yourself, you cast a broad, vague net to "fish" for something, anything you can hang your argument on and hopefully distract from your lack of any cogent logic. The far right have really run out of any substantiative arguments able to result in a "body blow" to Obama, so they are just demanding more and more senseless "information" in the hope they may accidentally stumble on some way of winning an argument they have already lost long ago. I have even seen this tactic used in some of the threads and topics in these forums. It can be amusing to watch the drowning flail as they manage to swim farther and farther from solid ground...

In an effort to be of aid to the seriosly afflicted, I offer this to the far right in the hope it may assist them in their time of need:

http://gis.washington.edu/phurvitz/o...mearSpeech.htm

I also found this interesting:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-som...y-politics.htm

(Note the irony of the campaign ads in the article...)

<o>

[August]

Originally Posted by vienna

I have even seen this tactic used in some of the threads and topics in these forums.

Oh really? When was the last time you saw someone back it up with a seven figure reward in these forums? As a matter of fact any monetary reward?

[August]

And speaking of using movies. How about last minute the rewrite of the movie Seal Team 6 to better promote Obamas image by the films new Democrat owner?

Talk about shameless.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I have not read this while thread so this may in the discussion, but

Yikes. Now if GWB had done exactly what Obama did in regards to bin Laden, the GOP would be lobbying to have his face added to Mt. Rushmore.

[vienna]

I have not read this while thread so this may in the discussion, but

I don't know where to start on this...

I thought Scott Taylor was not showing his real face due to concerns about the safety of himself and his loved ones. Did a nice payday and, perhaps, an offer of a sinecure if the GOP wins eliminate those fears? I guess when you're raking in money and flogging a book any publicity is "good" publicity (yes, I know, the profits from his book are allegedly all going to charity, but what about his other "enterprises"?)...

And wht exactly is a "Spec Ops Education Fund"? The names the politicians (on both sides) give to their Pac beards is amazing...

Regarding the use of his position as a Navy Seal, there has long been a tradition and an almost unspoken rule that military personnel, particularly officers, do not tarnish the good name and reputation of the services by engaging in political matters while using their rank or affiliation. They particularly do not wear their uniforms when engaging in political matters (Taylor is not wearing his uniform in the ad). If you ever watch military officers testifying before Congress, unless it is regarding a directly military matter, they always wear civilian clothing. The last notable breach of this "rule" was when Oliver North appeared in full regalia to defend his own and the Reagan White House invlovment in Iran-Contra. There was a very rapid backlash in the senior military circles for his breach. The fact that he openly lied, under oath and penalty of perjury, and then bragged about his lies didn't help his standing in the military community. Even as recently as the Libya incident, military officers avoided tainting their services by not wearing uniforms. Taylor does little to add to and may even diminish the legacy of the SEALS and thier mission by injecting himself into partisan politics...

Here in California, I have yet to see even one ad from either side in the campaign; the GOP has apparently given up here and ceded the state to Obama. The California state GOP operation is actually bankrupt due to funds being channeled to PACs and SuperPACs instead of to sate prty headquarters. This may be the future of GOP and Dem politics: nomianl parties with all the power in the hands of the PACs...

<o>

[vienna]

Yikes. Now if GWB had done exactly what Obama did in regards to bin Laden, the GOP would be lobbying to have his face added to Mt. Rushmore.

This is far more true than it is funny...

<o>

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Yikes. Now if GWB had done exactly what Obama did in regards to bin Laden, the GOP would be lobbying to have his face added to Mt. Rushmore.

I have to agree, that would probably be the case.

[Buddahaid]

After reading all these posts, and thanks for keeping things civil, what I find abhorrent in the offer is it is trashy, tasteless, and low class. How much to buy the POTUS? Tune in next week!

Just proves you can't buy class no matter how much you have.

[August]

I don't see why you have to worry about things staying civil. It ain't like anybody here is gonna loose sleep over any of this.

Some of you see this as an attempt to buy the President and I understand where you're coming from but personally if it's for charity and all it involves is publishing my old college transcripts that are going to end up in my personal library anyways I could be had for far far less than 5 mill.

I just see this as no different than the walks and events we've participated in to benefit various charitable causes over the years. Haven't you guys ever walked a few miles to help cure Muscular Dystrophy or sent your mayor into the dunk tank with a well placed ball toss to benefit the Red Cross?

Now you guys can rightly question Trumps motives here but for that kind of cash going to the charity of my choice i'd release whatever personal records he wants then laugh in his ridiculous face as I take his money and make the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation or the Shriners Childrens Hospital have a banner fundraising year. A far better use for the money than sitting in in his bank account I'll tell you that.

Of course this only works if the records don't contain what Trump is hoping to find.

I could be had for far far less than 5 mill.

"But its for charity so it makes it alright really" Jimmy Saville(alledgedly)

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh I love this... Did anyone notice how the spin changed?

3 pages of left leaning members all crying about how this is all the birther conspiracy reborn....

The spin on that gets shot to pieces - its about questioning the man's character and honesty. Did he "cheat" to get financial aid?

Suddenly, all the posters who were yelling "BIRTHER, BIRTHER!" suddenly have to change tactics. Oh - well now its just low class and Obama shouldn't do it to because it is a "fishing expedition" that would set precedent.

Really? Ya'll are going to have to try yet another spin angle - because political folks have done "fishing expeditions" for a long time... doing so - and responding or not - is hardly "setting a precedent". Care to make up another one?

You see - this is a question about Character.
Obama promised to be transparent. He promised to run government in a transparent way... He even did a memorandum to that effect.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...penGovernment/

Of course - note the bottom of that document - its legalease for "the above document doesn't mean crap". For a man who wants the vote of the people and claims transparency - its a bit hypocritical to try and keep everything from Libya to Fast and Furious, from Obamacare to college records, away from the people.

You want to talk about setting precedent? If anything - setting a precedent that a man running for president should have an open book on his life is a good precedent for the American people. Sure - every candidate gets the "media exam" - but that has proven to be biased at times. If their history was truly an open book - a lot less politicians would run for POTUS, and those that would (regardless of "side") would be the best of the best in character. America deserves that - don't you think?

Or is it only a requirement when you don't like the other guy's politics. There mere fact that when one claim is debunked, you have to find another way to spin the issue - answers that for us.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I have to agree, that would probably be the case.

It's the ol' Swift Boat tactics: turn your opponent's strength into a weakness. Right outta the Karl Rove playbook.