Are Repubs okay with this?

....and what else was included in the brainstorming comment?

Here's a hint....brainstorming a less-than-lethal use of a gun is not out of bounds. There is some logic to the notion.

It's not like he said let's drown a bunch of puppies, which would be entirely off base and irrelevant, and would make no sense whatsoever. Unlike drowning puppies, less-than-lethal force in a riot makes sense to throw out in a brainstorming session.

Context matters.

 

Only if you're ok with shooting protesters which you seem to be.

 

But... But... its in Esper book .... A Sacred Oath... so it has to be true... you can't put nuttin' on the internet or book that ain't truth... I wonder if Esper would claim the same under oath?

 

In certain situations absolutely.

One that comes to mind is perhaps a person with a lit molotav cocktail that is up against a group of police. I can probably envision a few thousand other scenarios. Can you envision a situation where using a gun would be justified?

 

But that wouldn't be a protester at that point. That would be someone wielding a deadly weapon. Again, Trump's comment was in regards to PROTESTERS. Words matter.

 

The context of a conversation about making preparations for protesters coming to DC during which worst case scenarios were not being discussed.
Parsing this thing to death isn't going to make your defense of Trump more defensible.

 

Which brings us to the TRUE crux of this matter.

The TDS crowd is taking this limited information that gives no actual details, and then envisions the most mundane situation, pretends like that is what he was referring to, and then proceed to argue against the false notion they just fabricated.

You act as if it was in the context of a group of 5 teachers marching in a circle with protest signs, when undoubtedly it was in regards to a scenario where people's lives are in legitimate danger with a dangerous mob. Protestors come in a lot of flavors, and just because you falsely pretend that he was referring to the most mundane does not make it so.

While none of us have much actual detail, logic would dictate that surely it was directed at situations where protestors are actually breaking the law, but logic does not typically come into play with the TDS crowd. They play by their own rules and live in their ridiculous echo chamber that imagines whatever horrific scenario that supports their pre-conceived notions.

Reality be damned.

 

He didn't qualify his statement to people escalating to dangerousness. He only made a general statement about protesters. Yes...reality be damned.

 

So you didnt to respond to my answer to your question because you now realize you had backed yourself into a corner?

 

We dont know what was actually said or in what context it was said. That is all nonsensical conjecture by the TDS crowd. Reality be damned.

Welcome to the conversation. Better late than never I suppose.

 

I didn't vote for him in 2016. And I've defended Donald Trump for a couple of reasons. Neither of those reasons being that I agreed with him or supported him.

 

So far, and only by page 2 of this thread, we have folks saying he was just brainstorming and another who asked if Trump 'ordered' it or just 'asked about the possibility'. Sadly, Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone and not lose support - proven in this thread. So while I'm happy to know that there are some on the right who would not be okay with this, there are others who will try to excuse it rather than really think about what was said.

 

Then why hasn't anyone else who was in the room that day, including Trump himself, come out and state there was more context to the statement?

 

Who ordered the shoot to kill on Jan. 6... It wasn't Trump brainstorming the idea.

 

DeSantis was pushing "shoot to kill" law, but fortunately cooler heads prevailed, especially when his definition of a riot was more than 3 people together close to a protest.

 

Ok, then in your case, I'm wrong. Apologies.

 

So you just figured you would fill in your own context.

I understand fully. Why let reality and logic ruin a good TDS rant?

 

Was my question too much for you to handle?

 

When do you ever deliver a "worthy counter argument". All I see is you pontificating to other posters on how their posts don't measure up to your lofty standards.

 

That Trump resisted testing is historical and publicly recorded fact.

The rest is self-evident logic. If you don't contain an incipient spread at the beginning, the degree to which you don't the greater the upward trajectory will result.

Elementary, mr. Watson.

And, notably, that's just part of the story

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/trump-covid-pandemic-dark-winter/

The catastrophe began with Trump’s initial refusal to take seriously the threat of a once-in-a-century pandemic. But, as officials detailed, it has been compounded over time by a host of damaging presidential traits — his skepticism of science, impatience with health restrictions, prioritization of personal politics over public safety, undisciplined communications, chaotic management style, indulgence of conspiracies, proclivity toward magical thinking, allowance of turf wars and flagrant disregard for the well-being of those around him.

“There isn’t a single light-switch moment where the government has screwed up and we’re going down the wrong path,” said Kyle McGowan, who resigned in August as chief of staff at the CDC under Redfield, the center’s director. “It was a series of multiple decisions that showed a lack of desire to listen to the actual scientists and also a lack of leadership in general, and that put us on this progression of where we’re at today.”


And, if you are going to argue 'he fast-tracked the vaccine', note that the MRNA vaccine had been in development for over a decade, and the fast tracking at the last leg of the development (the aspect of the vaccine which tailors it to Covid-19) would have been initiated by any president who would have been in office, so to argue that that act fast-tracking has bragging rights, it doesn't.

 

Please provide us to a link to the actual draft.

 

Your question was silly because it assumes that the responsibility is on Trump to dispute your nonsensical interpretation of the limited information provided.

To answer your silly question that you apparently think is so confounding... He didn't answer it because one it probably has not been asked, and more importantly, nor is it his responsibility to refute EVERY piece of nonsense that every TDS sufferer could possibly put forth.

You live in this world of make-believe and are expecting everyone to respond to your delusions. That is not rational.

 

Um....no...it would be upon Trump to call out Esper if there was actually more to the comment.

You seem to not be familiar with Trump's history of having something to say about claims made against him. That you think he needs to be asked a question in order to give his opinion is comical. It's like you're not even trying.
You've wasted enough of my time. Cheers.

 

The elections are coming... the more garbage threads on here they can get...
1. Keeps you busy and away from watching the phuster cluck the Biden administration has been.
2. The more threads they can pile on PF about Trump just pushes the stack of topics further and further done into page 2 and 3 where it is less likely for people to see.

 

So you're basically admitting those on the Right are easily distracted. I don't believe that to be the case but apparently you do.