trump

[T.Lex]

Untrue. The media event was over. Trump was leaving.

No - the main event was over, but that whole thing was a media event. If they can catch the candidate coming in, it is like that. When they leave, they are fair game. I've seen it - at the state level, and a couple times at the national level. (Ironically, once, when Bill Clinton was in town.) If you watch the videos, there are dozens - maybe hundreds of media jostling for position. They don't all try to get right up with the candidate, for whatever reason, but you can even see Trump shaking hands with people as he leaves.

What she did was not out of the ordinary, and quite common.

 

[jamil]

You don't seem to understand the definition of "blind devotion", if you have read the bulk of my posts regarding Trump, and still assert that such a term applies to me.

I have read the bulk of your posts. But it's hard for me to reconcile this line of reasoning you've been pursuing any other way.

It wasn't a big deal until Trump and Lewandowski made it a bigger deal than it should have been. Pushy reporters have been dealt with by politicians forever without having to manhandle them.

Think back to when it first started. Think back to the videos and the excuses Trump and his supporters made using the first videos that came out. When you see people progressively changing their story as new evidence discredits their old story, it's normal for reasoning people to think they're lying. It's not reasonable to swallow the new stories each time without wondering, hey, before he said one thing. Now there's a new video that shows that was false.

So now he's saying something else. And what he's saying now doesn't even make sense! I mean, c'mon. Do you really believe Fields was trying to attack him with a pen? Really? You were convinced by the last video that Lewandowski never touched Fields. That's what the Trump campaign said. Now we all know that's absolutely false. So now the story changes again ever chasing some kind of plausible denial. Well, I hate to break it to you. Trump has spent his share of plausible on nonsense.

 

[jamil]

Untrue. The media event was over. Trump was leaving.

Because no reporter ever has ever tried to get comments when the candidate is leaving.

 

[T.Lex]

TGP On Scene Report: Trump Spokeswoman Denies Reporter Grabbed on Arm By Manager Lewandowski - The Gateway Pundit

Trump spoke to other reporters after the presser. That's the way it works. The reporters hope to get the candidate's attention to ask followups or get some sort of exclusive comment/video. It is pretty informal. Most of the time, it doesn't work, but you've gotta be there to even have the chance.

 

[chipbennett]

I have read the bulk of your posts. But it's hard for me to reconcile this line of reasoning you've been pursuing any other way.

It wasn't a big deal until Trump and Lewandowski made it a bigger deal than it should have been. Pushy reporters have been dealt with by politicians forever without having to manhandle them.

No. Fields tried to make it a bigger deal, from the very beginning. She originally claimed that she was nearly pushed/pulled to the ground - then changed her story, after it became known that video was available.

Think back to when it first started. Think back to the videos and the excuses Trump and his supporters made using the first videos that came out. When you see people progressively changing their story as new evidence discredits their old story, it's normal for reasoning people to think they're lying. It's not reasonable to swallow the new stories each time without wondering, hey, before he said one thing. Now there's a new video that shows that was false.

You mean, like the way Fields changed her story? And by the way: it was the Trump campaign that made the security video available.

So now he's saying something else. And what he's saying now doesn't even make sense! I mean, c'mon. Do you really believe Fields was trying to attack him with a pen? Really? You were convinced by the last video that Lewandowski never touched Fields. That's what the Trump campaign said. Now we all know that's absolutely false. So now the story changes again ever chasing some kind of plausible denial. Well, I hate to break it to you. Trump has spent his share of plausible on nonsense.

Did you really take that as a serious claim? Does everyone need a sarc tag, or purple?

I was never convinced by any video that Lewandowski never touched fields. Where are you getting that?

 

[T.Lex]

No. Fields tried to make it a bigger deal, from the very beginning. She originally claimed that she was nearly pushed/pulled to the ground - then changed her story, after it became known that video was available.

This is what she was recorded to say immediately after:

…Fields: “Mr. Trump, you went after the late Scalia for affirmative action, do you — are you still against affirmative action?”
Voice (allegedly Corey Lewandowski): “Excuse me, thank you.”
A few moments later (noise of the room can be heard)…
Terris: “You OK?”
Fields: “Holy sh*t.”
Terris: “Yea he just threw you down.”
Fields: “I can’t believe he just did that that was so hard. Was that Corey?”
Terris: “Yeah, like, what threat were you?”
Fields: “That was insane. You should have felt how hard he grabbed me. That’s insane. I’ve never had anyone do that to me from a campaign.”
Terris: “Can I put that in my story?”
Fields: “Yeah, go for it — that was really awful. That’s so unprofessional.”
Terris: “He really just almost threw you down on the ground.”
Fields: “He literally went like this and was grabbing me down. I don’t even what to do [about] what he just did to me. Oh my God, that really spooked me that someone would do that.”
Terris: “What threat were you?”
Fields: “Nothing. I was asking about affirmative action.”
Terris: “And he probably knows you, right?”
Fields: “Yeah, I don’t understand. That looks horrible. You’re going after a Breitbart reporter, the people who are nicest to you?”
Terris: “I know, I’m going to put it in my story.”

Seems pretty consistent with what happened, to me. I think her assertion that it was unprofessional is absolutely accurate.

 

[chipbennett]

This is what she was recorded to say immediately after:


Seems pretty consistent with what happened, to me. I think her assertion that it was unprofessional is absolutely accurate.

Except that she was very clearly not "almost thrown to the ground". Minor detail.

 

[T.Lex]

Except that she was very clearly not "almost thrown to the ground". Minor detail.

Speaking of minor details.... you do realize that "Terris" is a different person, right? Did she say elsewhere that she was "almost thrown to the ground" by the defendant?

I mean, if we're going to get technical about quotes and all.

 

[chipbennett]

Speaking of minor details.... you do realize that "Terris" is a different person, right? Did she say elsewhere that she was "almost thrown to the ground" by the defendant?

I mean, if we're going to get technical about quotes and all.

First hit on Google ("Michelle Fields thrown to the ground"):

A Female Reporter Says She Was Roughed Up And Bruised By A Trump Aide - BuzzFeed News

Quoting Fields:

“Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down,” she wrote. “I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken.”

Second hit on Google:

Michelle Fields: In Her Own Words - Breitbart

Article written by Fields:

Trump acknowledged the question, but before he could answer I was jolted backwards. Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken.

 

[jamil]

No. Fields tried to make it a bigger deal, from the very beginning. She originally claimed that she was nearly pushed/pulled to the ground - then changed her story, after it became known that video was available.



You mean, like the way Fields changed her story? And by the way: it was the Trump campaign that made the security video available.



Did you really take that as a serious claim? Does everyone need a sarc tag, or purple?

I was never convinced by any video that Lewandowski never touched fields. Where are you getting that?

Maybe this thread. Maybe one of the many others. Several Trump supporters jumped all over that claiming the video shows that Fields was never even touched. I thought you were one of them, apparently not. Trump was saying those early videos show that Lewandowski never touched Fields. Lewandowski knows what he did.

Look. It's small stuff. Trump needs to just admit to what happened and move on instead of him lying about it, which made it the media ****storm it became. If Trump wants my vote he's going to have to clean up his act. I expect appropriate behavior for a candidate for commander in chief. So far no one in the GOP cares to be that. I get that people are angry but acting crass isn't a solution to the problems that made people mad.

Trump seems to have this policy of never admitting he's wrong, ever, no matter how little. I view that as a negative. It's dishonest.

 

[T.Lex]

First hit on Google ("Michelle Fields thrown to the ground"):

A Female Reporter Says She Was Roughed Up And Bruised By A Trump Aide - BuzzFeed News

Quoting Fields:



Second hit on Google:

Michelle Fields: In Her Own Words - Breitbart

Article written by Fields:

Still looking for where she said "almost thrown to the ground" - which is what you quoted. She did not say what you said she said.

"Almost fell to the ground" is different from being "almost thrown to the ground." The former can be true without the latter taking place. Heck, if my bad knee chooses for me, I can almost fall to the ground getting out of my chair, doesn't mean I was thrown down.

In watching the video, I can believe that she felt like she almost fell to the ground. I've taken some self defense, and when tugged like that, you can feel like you're going to fall down, and naturally resist. (I think judo is based on that kind of push/pull reaction.)

Her story does not appear to have changed. She was shaken. (And maybe a bit stirred.)

 

[chipbennett]

Still looking for where she said "almost thrown to the ground" - which is what you quoted. She did not say what you said she said.

"Almost fell to the ground" is different from being "almost thrown to the ground." The former can be true without the latter taking place. Heck, if my bad knee chooses for me, I can almost fall to the ground getting out of my chair, doesn't mean I was thrown down.

In watching the video, I can believe that she felt like she almost fell to the ground. I've taken some self defense, and when tugged like that, you can feel like you're going to fall down, and naturally resist. (I think judo is based on that kind of push/pull reaction.)

Her story does not appear to have changed. She was shaken. (And maybe a bit stirred.)

That's a distinction without a difference. And I didn't quote her, until I actually quoted her. The video and images do not support her original claims.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[T.Lex]

That's a distinction without a difference.

INGO will remember you said that. And, as I explained, there is a great deal of difference between "falling" and "being thrown."

And I didn't quote her, until I actually quoted her.

Then who were you quoting with your "minor detail" quip?

Except that she was very clearly not "almost thrown to the ground". Minor detail.

Those look like quotes.

The video and images do not support her original claims.

Well, the police and prosecutors seem to think so.

But, this is INGO. So, her claims are:
- he grabbed her - clearly true
- he yanked her away from the candidate - clearly true
- she was shaken - probably true
- she felt like she was going to fall - probably true

What claims are not supported?

 

[chipbennett]

INGO will remember you said that. And, as I explained, there is a great deal of difference between "falling" and "being thrown."


Then who were you quoting with your "minor detail" quip?


Those look like quotes.

Quotes are in quote markdown, and cited.

Well, the police and prosecutors seem to think so.

But, this is INGO. So, her claims are:
- he grabbed her - clearly true
- he yanked her away from the candidate - clearly true
- she was shaken - probably true
- she felt like she was going to fall - probably true

What claims are not supported?

The charging document merely claims that she was intentionally touched, against her will.

 

[Thor]

What claims are not supported?

Any of those that might be inconvenient...so all of them or none of them depending on who you ask.

I'll go with the prosecutors.

 

[T.Lex]

Quotes are in quote markdown, and cited.

Then who were you quoting with the little "" marks? Traditionally, that means "quote."

Elsewhere, you went to great lengths to take another member (or a couple) to task for attributing a quote to Trump that was not a quote, no?

The charging document merely claims that she was intentionally touched, against her will.

I'm asking you - what did she claim that is not supported in the video/pics? You said her claims were not supported, I'm trying to get clarity on what claims you were referencing.

 

[chipbennett]

Then who were you quoting with the little "" marks? Traditionally, that means "quote."

Elsewhere, you went to great lengths to take another member (or a couple) to task for attributing a quote to Trump that was not a quote, no?

Those were paraphrases. And they were written that way because they were intended to be informal. Is there an INGO editorial standard of which I'm not aware?

I'm asking you - what did she claim that is not supported in the video/pics? You said her claims were not supported, I'm trying to get clarity on what claims you were referencing.

Other than that he grabbed her arm and moved her to the side as he passed by, the video/pics support none of her claims. She was not nearly taken to the ground. She didn't almost fall to the ground. Someone walked by her.

 

[T.Lex]

Those were paraphrases. And they were written that way because they were intended to be informal. Is there an INGO editorial standard of which I'm not aware?

I don't know. Usually, you are very specific in what you write. I'm somewhat heartened (and I'm sure others are, too) that you are relaxing your standards by which you judge others.

She was not nearly taken to the ground.

Where has she claimed that?

She didn't almost fall to the ground.

She consistently states that she maintained her balance, but almost fell. That's a feeling. You may or may not have the same feeling of falling in the same situation. That does not disprove her claim that she felt like she might fall.

Someone walked by her.

Technically, I don't think she's claimed that. But, clearly, many people walked by her, including the candidate, but only the defendant grabbed her and yanked her away.

 

[ArcadiaGP]