trump

[AtTheMurph]

I would like to see more of that video. Especially the seconds before the published one starts to see how this woman got to where she was and began asking Trump questions.

If my hunch is correct she laid in wait and cut off Trumps people as there were walking along with him. I think she barged in and that's the reason the campaign manager moved her away. We'll see when more comes out (if it ever does).

 

[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?

But, straw men are much easier to demolish, so Trump is mis-quoted as having said "unfair", rather than what he actually said, which was "wrong."

Petards are best left out of reach.

 

[GREEN607]

The irony here is that Fields was doing to Trump exactly what she's accused Lewandowski of doing to her: intentional and unwanted "touching".

The press conference was over. Trump and his entourage were leaving. Fields muscled her way between some of Trump's people and Trump, and tried to grab him.

* You HAD to post this before I put you on 'ignore'....

And you fell for this? Talk about the blind leading the blind!

​How the hell is she going "to grab him" when she's holding a pen in that hand??????? BTW, leave just a little kool-aid for the other Trumpers.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The charging document basically said: he touched her, therefore he touched her. IMHO, that's pretty weak, with respect to a criminal act.

No the charging document stated he grabbed her. And why is it pretty weak? Would you consider a charging doc that stated x possessed marijuana and that investigation showed probable cause to charge with possession weak?

Her movement needed to be halted, because she had no business trying to approach/make contact with Trump. She tried to muscle her way between Trump's detail and Trump, and was rightfully and lawfully prevented from doing so.

Why did she have no business trying to approach him? She is a reporter trying to ask a question. And where did you see that he tried to muscle her way in between trump and his detail? Battery is lawful?

It doesn't look like there's anything for which the Trump campaign should apologize.

I'd say lying for starters most likely, and Cory definitely for the battery.

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.

Yep.

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.

She never claimed that, she stated she almost fell.

That's a distinction without a difference. The video and images do not support her original claims.

Just because you state it, doesn't make it true. How does it not support her claim? It appears to me she was yanked off balance, but was able to remain upright. Just because she was able to remain upright does not mean she almost fell.

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.

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

As stated above the charging documents state that she was grabbed, not merely touched.

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?

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.

Moved her to the side, she was yanked backwards the best I can tell. Which supports her claim. How do you know she almost didn't fall? She has also that I can find stated that she was nearly taken to the ground.

 

[chipbennett]

Petards are best left out of reach.

"Pulled to the ground" and "fell to the ground", in the context of something happening as a result of being touched/grabbed, are a distinction without a difference.

"Unfair" versus "wrong" or "false", in the context of a libel claim, are two entirely different things.

My petard remains clean.

 

[chipbennett]

No the charging document stated he grabbed her. And why is it pretty weak? Would you consider a charging doc that stated x possessed marijuana and that investigation showed probable cause to charge with possession weak?

All possession of marijuana is unlawful. Not all touching is unlawful.

Why did she have no business trying to approach him? She is a reporter trying to ask a question. And where did you see that he tried to muscle her way in between trump and his detail? Battery is lawful?

Not all touching constitutes battery. I don't know what the defense will be, but unwanted touching is unlawful. Specifically, such touching, to defend against an unlawful use of force (or unlawful touching) is lawful as self-defense. (Again: please don't claim that I'm saying this will be the defense. It is just an example.)

I'd say lying for starters most likely, and Cory definitely for the battery.

Shouldn't apologizing for battery wait until he's actually convicted of battery? Innocent until proven guilty, right?

She never claimed that, she stated she almost fell.

Same difference.

Just because you state it, doesn't make it true. How does it not support her claim? It appears to me she was yanked off balance, but was able to remain upright. Just because she was able to remain upright does not mean she almost fell.

And just because you say that the two are materially different doesn't make it true.

As stated above the charging documents state that she was grabbed, not merely touched.

Again: same difference.

Moved her to the side, she was yanked backwards the best I can tell. Which supports her claim. How do you know she almost didn't fall? She has also that I can find stated that she was nearly taken to the ground.

What sort of yoga-esque physics are involved in that interaction? If he pushed her to the side, how was she yanked backwards?

 

[T.Lex]

"Pulled to the ground" and "fell to the ground", in the context of something happening as a result of being touched/grabbed, are a distinction without a difference.

Neither of which she said.

And now you have me more confused - you're using the "" as real quotes or no?

"Unfair" versus "wrong" or "false", in the context of a libel claim, are two entirely different things.

Which wasn't really the point (of the petard or otherwise). You're constructing your own straw man of what her claims are, making deconstruction simple enough. Using the same technique of "informal" quotes that you earlier decried.

My petard remains clean.

If there's a thread crossover that involves penal petards, it'll be just another Wednesday on INGO.

 

[chipbennett]

Neither of which she said.

And now you have me more confused - you're using the "" as real quotes or no?

It is clear that you aren't interested in a sincere discussion on the matter, and would rather play semantic games.

Here is Fields' actual quote, as cited above:

“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.”

Here's what I said, above:

"Pulled to the ground" and "fell to the ground", in the context of something happening as a result of being touched/grabbed, are a distinction without a difference.

She claimed (in her cited quote) both that someone yanked her down, and that she almost fell to the ground.

I stand by my statements. Feel free to keep playing semantic games.

Which wasn't really the point (of the petard or otherwise). You're constructing your own straw man of what her claims are, making deconstruction simple enough. Using the same technique of "informal" quotes that you earlier decried.

No, it very much IS the point, because there is no material difference between my informal paraphrase of her quote, and her actual quote, as-cited. Whereas there is a material difference - and therefore, suitable material for constructing a straw man - between "unfair" and "wrong"/"false".

 

[miguel]

Boo hoo, someone grabbed my arm...least of my damn worries about the ole US of A right now. Just more Alinsky-ite, grab ass, distracting from the real problems, leftist, statist, utopian bull ****.

Issue: Millions coming across our borders without health checks, criminal background checks or paperwork.
Retort: "BUT SOMEONE GRABBED MISS THING'S ARM AND IT HURT BAD!!! <sniff>"

Issue: Scores (hundreds?) of people block roads in AZ and infiltrate an arena (IL) where a political speech is scheduled to take place and it ends up being canceled.
Retort: "BUT SOMEONE ELBOWED A GUY IN THE FACE AT THAT CANDIDATE'S LAST RALLY!!! <sniff>"

Issue: Unfunded liabilities in the trillions for the Federal government.
Retort: "BUT SOMEONE WON'T LET ME **** IN THE BATHROOM I WANT TO USE!!! <sniff>"

This video sums it up for me, "Get into the God damn ring and start swinging..." Save the Republic!

[video=youtube;PzPVQuHVSC0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzPVQuHVSC0[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

It is clear that you aren't interested in a sincere discussion on the matter, and would rather play semantic games.

No, I'm mostly interested in consistency.

You change what she said to something she didn't say to support your description of her claims, so as to say the claims are not supported. That's a straw man.

Here's what I said, above:

You also quoted her (in "") as saying "thrown to the ground." You challenge a perceived inconsistency in her statements, but cannot remain consistent yourself.

She claimed (in her cited quote) both that someone yanked her down, and that she almost fell to the ground.

I stand by my statements. Feel free to keep playing semantic games.

Clearly, you are not above the same games....

No, it very much IS the point, because there is no material difference between my informal paraphrase of her quote, and her actual quote, as-cited. Whereas there is a material difference - and therefore, suitable material for constructing a straw man - between "unfair" and "wrong"/"false".

Ahhhh ... wait.... I just realized what is really happening. You get to be the final arbiter of "informal paraphrase" or "quote" or "material difference" (and philosophically, we all do that), without regard for consistency or discussion.

Allrighty then.

 

[T.Lex]

In other Trump vetting, check out this transcript of the CNN town hall last night. As many 'round here know, foreign policy is an interest of mine. So, Trump's foreign policy thoughts are of interest to me. Now, this is REALLY long, but I am trying to avoid any appearance of favoritism in presenting what was said. For the TL;DR crowd, I will bold certain portions that are the highlights.

From here:
Full Rush Transcript Donald Trump CNN Milwaukee Presidential Town Hall ? CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

COOPER: It has been a U.S. policy for decades to prevent Japan from getting a nuclear weapon.
TRUMP: That might be policy, but maybe…
COOPER: South Korea as well.
TRUMP: Can I be honest are you? Maybe it's going to have to be time to change, because so many people, you have Pakistan has it, you have China has it. You have so many other countries are now having it…
COOPER: So some proliferation is OK?
TRUMP: No, no, not proliferation. I hate nuclear more than any. My uncle was a professor was at MIT, used to (AUDIO GAP) nuclear, he used to tell me about the problem.
COOPER: But that's contradictory about Japan and South Korea.
TRUMP: (AUDIO GAP) Iran is going to have it very - within…
COOPER: But that's proliferation.
TRUMP: Excuse me, one of the dumbest I've ever seen signed ever, ever, ever by anybody, Iran is going to have it within 10 years. Iran is going to have it. I thought it was a very good interview in The New York Times.
COOPER: So you have no problem with Japan and South Korea having…
TRUMP: I thought…
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: … nuclear weapons.

Ok, so he'd like to revisit proliferation, I think. Others have suggested that. That's a policy. Not sure I agree with it, but at least its a policy that he's talking about.

TRUMP: At some point we have to say, you know what, we're better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea, we're better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself, we have…
COOPER: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?
TRUMP: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.
COOPER: You would be fine with them having nuclear weapons?
TRUMP: No, not nuclear weapons, but they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.
Here's the thing, with Japan, they have to pay us or we have to let them protect themselves.

Wait, what? In the course of 2 questions, he said diametrically opposite things. SA nukes? Absolutely. SA nukes? No, not nukes.

I'm not even sure which is the mistake.

COOPER: So if you said, Japan, yes, it's fine, you get nuclear weapons, South Korea, you as well, and Saudi Arabia says we want them, too?
TRUMP: Can I be honest with you? It's going to happen, anyway. It's going to happen anyway. It's only a question of time. They're going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely.
But you have so many countries already, China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia, you have so many countries right now that have them.
Now, wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons? And they do have them. They absolutely have them. They can't - they have no carrier system yet but they will very soon.
Wouldn't you rather have Japan, perhaps, they're over there, they're very close, they're very fearful of North Korea, and we're supposed to protect.

Ok, back on track. Some proliferation might be ok. Again, maybe good or bad, depending on what else nets out. I'm interested in what goals he would have in trading nukes for... other stuff.

COOPER: So you're saying you don't want more nuclear weapons in the world but you're OK with Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons?
TRUMP: I don't want more nuclear weapons. I think that - you know, when I hear Obama get up and say the biggest threat to the world today is global warming, I say, is this guy kidding?

Wait, what? Global warming? Obama? Now no proliferation?

The only global warming - the only global warming I'm worried about is nuclear global warming because that's the single biggest threat. So it's not that I'm a fan - we can't afford it anymore. We're sitting on a tremendous bubble. We're going to be - again, $21 trillion. We don't have money.
COOPER: So you have no security concerns…
TRUMP: We're using all of the money…
COOPER: … about Japan or South Korea getting nuclear weapons?
TRUMP: Anderson, when you see all of the money that our country is spending on military, we're not spending it for ourselves; we're protecting all of these nations all over the world. We can't afford to do it anymore.
COOPER: But isn't there benefit for the United States in having a secure Europe. Isn't there benefit for the United States in having a secure Asia.
TRUMP: There's a benefit, but not big enough to bankrupt and destroy the United States, because that's what's happening. We can't afford it. It's very simple.

Ok, back to neo-isolationism? Any of it? It sounds like he's saying complete withdrawal from everywhere.

Now, I would rather see Japan having some form of defense, and maybe even offense, against North Korea.

Whoa hoss. The Japanese themselves are very sensitive to that. It really sounds like he has no clue what JDF stands for, or that they have been developing arguably offensive capabilities in the last 10 years.

Because we're not pulling the trigger. The bottom line on North Korea is china, if they wanted to, they're a tremendous supplier of North Korea. They have tremendous power over North Korea. If they wanted to, if they weren't toying with us, Anderson, China would be the one that would get in and could make a deal in one day, okay...

He really didn't make any sense. And he really didn't project a comprehensive policy. This is more Obama amateur hour. With even more topic-changing.

 

[chipbennett]

No, I'm mostly interested in consistency.

You change what she said to something she didn't say to support your description of her claims, so as to say the claims are not supported. That's a straw man.

You also quoted her (in "") as saying "thrown to the ground." You challenge a perceived inconsistency in her statements, but cannot remain consistent yourself.

Clearly, you are not above the same games....

Ahhhh ... wait.... I just realized what is really happening. You get to be the final arbiter of "informal paraphrase" or "quote" or "material difference" (and philosophically, we all do that), without regard for consistency or discussion.

Allrighty then.

Explain to me, then, the material difference between "yanked down" and "thrown to the ground"? I'll wait.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

All possession of marijuana is unlawful. Not all touching is unlawful.

Not all touching constitutes battery. I don't know what the defense will be, but unwanted touching is unlawful. Specifically, such touching, to defend against an unlawful use of force (or unlawful touching) is lawful as self-defense. (Again: please don't claim that I'm saying this will be the defense. It is just an example.)

Shouldn't apologizing for battery wait until he's actually convicted of battery? Innocent until proven guilty, right?

And just because you say that the two are materially different doesn't make it true.

Again: same difference.

What sort of yoga-esque physics are involved in that interaction? If he pushed her to the side, how was she yanked backwards?

Yep, and during their investigation they found probable cause that Lewandowski's use of force to be unlawful. Which is what is stated in the charging doc. That is all that is needed for the charging doc, they do not need to put all the info into it.

So all apologies should require a conviction first?

Here are a couple examples of touching, a tap on the shoulder to get someones attention, forcefully grabbing someone's arm and yanking, punching someone in the nose, and a roundhouse kick to the head. All are touching, are you stating that those are materially identical? That there is no difference between them?

Sorry there should have been a question mark in there. I'll rephrase below.

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.

Grabbed her arm and moved her to the side? It shows in the video that he grabbed her by the arm and yanked her backwards.

Boo hoo, someone grabbed my arm...least of my damn worries about the ole US of A right now. Just more Alinsky-ite, grab ass, distracting from the real problems, leftist, statist, utopian bull ****.

Issue: Millions coming across our borders without health checks, criminal background checks or paperwork.
Retort: "BUT SOMEONE GRABBED MISS THING'S ARM AND IT HURT BAD!!! <sniff>"

Issue: Scores (hundreds?) of people block roads in AZ and infiltrate an arena (IL) where a political speech is scheduled to take place and it ends up being canceled.
Retort: "BUT SOMEONE ELBOWED A GUY IN THE FACE AT THAT CANDIDATE'S LAST RALLY!!! <sniff>"

So criminal battery should be okay because there are problems with this country?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So criminal battery should be okay because there are problems with this country?

No, only when Trump is involved.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Explain to me, then, the material difference between "yanked down" and "thrown to the ground"? I'll wait.

Sure. She was yanked in a downward and backwards direction. Does not mean she went to the ground. Thrown to the ground. She was thrown to the ground and went to the ground.

I've yanked my children down, such as to get them into their seats. I have not thrown them to the ground.

Oh here, I yanked down on the rope to ring the bell, I threw the rope to the ground.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Grabbed her arm and moved her to the side? It shows in the video that he grabbed her by the arm and yanked her backwards.

Having a free press is a great thing, but reporters in general tend to abuse that right. They will get into the personal space of those they ambush. They will place themselves in such a way as to impede the movement of those they are trying to corner. Sure she got moved. The point is, she probably needed to get moved. They are only showing a few seconds of the video, but Trump could probably make the argument that she was crowding him, and he felt threatened.

It's all nothing more than a bunch of crybabies doing anything they can to stop a candidate they don't want. Nothing more.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No, only when Trump is involved.

That's about what I got out of it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Having a free press is a great thing, but reporters in general tend to abuse that right. They will get into the personal space of those they ambush. They will place themselves in such a way as to impede the movement of those they are trying to corner. Sure she got moved. The point is, she probably needed to get moved. They are only showing a few seconds of the video, but Trump could probably make the argument that she was crowding him, and he felt threatened.

It's all nothing more than a bunch of crybabies doing anything they can to stop a candidate they don't want. Nothing more.

He was shaking hands and answering questions on his way out. She approached and asked him a question and it appears she was battered for doing so. Ambushed? No. Did she get into his personal space? No more than many others around who did not get battered.

Why did she need to get moved? Because Trump's campaign manager didn't like her question?

Trump is already trying that line. I'm calling BS. Considering if he felt threatened he probably would have remembered it, rather than deny the entire thing didn't happen.

 

[T.Lex]

Explain to me, then, the material difference between "yanked down" and "thrown to the ground"? I'll wait.

Sorry for the wait - had a medical appointment. But, that did give me some time to contemplate how to approach the answer to this, which seems so intuitive to me. Since you're an engineer (and I think I've had some luck in the past explaining things in those terms), I thought of talking about leverage and force. The arm is a lever that can be yanked, but it would have to shift the center of gravity far enough away from perpendicular above the feet to topple someone. Alas, that's about as far as I got.

So, I'm reduced to sports and martial arts. Playing soccer, there are numerous times in a game that I would get yanked by the arm by an opposing player, but rarely ever fall down. And maybe that's why the difference seems obvious to me.

Watching a football player run with the ball, they are often "yanked down" without being tackled, or thrown down.

Even shaking hands is an example. Have you ever had a strong handshake - maybe with a friend or relative you haven't seen in awhile - who then uses that "hold" to draw you in for a (bro) hug? You don't fall down, but are a bit off balance - especially if you're not used to it.

And really, I go back to martial arts, where there are a variety of moves that use extremities, like the arm, to leverage throws or holds. Some of those result in being thrown to the ground, but not all - particularly if they are defended well.

Anyway, this grab was not nearly as aggressive as a sport or martial art, but was more forceful than polite company. I think it obvious that there is a significant difference (at least in this context) between being "yanked down" and being "thrown to the ground." The former does not always result in the latter.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I don't want to alarm anyone here... but Janesville police are looking for this Trumpkin that sexually assaulted and attacked a girl at a protest.

Cops: Teen Sexually Assaulted, Pepper Sprayed, Called ****** Lover' at Trump Rally - The Daily Beast