Raid on President Trump's Home

@Cookie_
Sure thing.

Please define TDS for me, because I'm sure I don't understand it in the way you seem to see/use the phrase.
Despite your claims, I don't use the term often. At first, I actually thought it was stupid. But if I had to define it, I'd personally define its as a syndrome of someone who always takes the opposite side of Trump and/or looks for a way to explain away the lefts attempt to derail his presidency and then keep him from running in the future.
 
Last edited:
I think we had different readings of that article.

The author is highlighting how this could be "real big deal" or "nothing burger", based on how broad these legal codes can be applied. He isn't arguing that's a good thing, and literally starts the article
You think so? Did you deduce that from me outright saying you had a different reading than I did, and that I thought yours missed a serious issue with the overall article (presumably because the article openly begs the question and in part to your obvious confirmation bias)?

You forgot to include the second half of the opening paragraph. I am sure it wasn't malicious; just a innocent oversight. After he says, "I have long worried (here, and, more recently, here) about the adverse consequences of the Biden Justice Department using criminal process against former President Trump."

He follows with "I have also long worried (spurred by Garrett Graff) about the mischief, and potential criminal liability, that Trump might stir up after his presidency with access to classified information."

So he also said, and I am paraphrasing- "I think weaponizing the DOJ is a bad thing. It's already happened twice, I wrote two articles already. But, we all know- this Trump guy is trouble, so it's sort of warranted? He's never been convicted of a crime, sure- but I mean, come on. This guy is guilty of something, we just don't know what"

We have different readings because I accept both those views as shitty and borderline idiotic; one of those views align with your preconceived notion of the issue.
 
Everything even slightly critical of Trump is TDS to you man, so I'm not sure what more you want
Unless you want to respond, I'll step aside after this post. I think Trump was a good president. I've also criticized things Trump has said and done. I think Biden sucks at presidenting, but I want him to do well and I will gladly say so when he does. And I'd still buy you a beer anytime.
 
You forgot to include the second half of the opening paragraph. I am sure it wasn't malicious; just a innocent oversight. After he says, "I have long worried (here, and, more recently, here) about the adverse consequences of the Biden Justice Department using criminal process against former President Trump."

He follows with "I have also long worried (spurred by Garrett Graff) about the mischief, and potential criminal liability, that Trump might stir up after his presidency with access to classified information."

So he also said, and I am paraphrasing- "I think weaponizing the DOJ is a bad thing. It's already happened twice, I wrote two articles already. But, we all know- this Trump guy is trouble, so it's sort of warranted? He's never been convicted of a crime, sure- but I mean, come on. This guy is guilty of something, we just don't know what"
I didn't forget to quote a section; the topic of discussion was the author making anti-Trump comments, so I was highlighting where he repeatedly said he was worried about DOJ overreach. Don't want you to think I was trying to downplay that aspect of the article, so I get where you're coming from with that.

I guess I'm just missing the point in the article you're seeing the author say it would be warranted to charge Trump for some bullshit.

He provides a number of examples were things would easily be overreach that would "legally" get Trump in trouble, but would be stupid to try and do.

We have different readings because I accept both those views as shitty and borderline idiotic; one of those views align with your preconceived notion of the issue.

I agree with you that DOJ overreach and prosecuting Trump just for the hell of it are both stupid.

Only one of those things is actually in the article though, and it's not the one you think I'm supportive off.

@Cookie_

Despite your claims, I don't use the term often. At first, I actually thought it was stupid. But if I had to define it, I'd personally define its as a syndrome of someone who always takes the opposite side of Trump and/or looks for a way to explain away the lefts attempt to derail his presidency and then keep him from running in the future.

Appreciate it. I'll say I see you use it here more than anyone else (which is why I responded glibly), but I'll dial that back if it's that's the case.
 
Told You So Mic Drop GIF by FullMag
 
Just call me a leftist cuck and we'll have reached the rabbit's level of discourse. (ETA: I'm joking. I don't mind the response)

It's a fun meme.
Well I would never call you that here or elsewhere, in your presence or otherwise.

You’re a good dude, I tend to think you have bad ideas, that’s all. But take that with a grain of salt.
 
You’re a good dude, I tend to think you have bad ideas, that’s all. But take that with a grain of salt.

There's gotta be at least one person who has got some opposite viewpoints, because it keeps things interesting.

You're sarcastic and blunt, but you aren't an asshole; I know the jokes and discussion isn't personal.

@Cookie_ Fwiw, I agree with this 100%. I think you mostly present good talking points in a conversational tone, whether I agree with them or not.

Appreciate it. These conversations are usually pretty decent once there have been a few posts back and forth.



I wanna say that the sentiments expressed above extends to pretty much everybody on this board.

We might disagree on politics to varying degrees, but there isn't anybody I communicate with on here that I wouldn't be willing to get a beer with if you pass through my neck of the woods.
 
Back
Top