Why don’t they just declare him King now and get it over with? Fucking traitors.
SlyFrog
5756
This is so fucking stupid, and is exactly why people roll their eyes and tune out zealots.
Yes, that must be exactly what he is saying. There’s no way he’s saying that all of the evidence is on his side. He must have literally been saying and implying that he is withholding evidence that would convict him. That’s the only possible way to read that.
For fucks sake, just admit that you hate the guy and it doesn’t matter what he actually says, you’ll just contort it into what you want it to be. Such a stupid tweet.
We already know he broke the law, dude.
No, there isn’t.
“Honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.”
He ain’t talking about evidence. He’s talking about things. He’s talking about possession.
This sort of credulous stupidity is exactly why he gets away with it.
KevinC
5761
Dear Don Whisperer,
Can you now please explain what he meant when he asked China to also start an investigation into the Bidens on national TV, or when he asked Russia to hack Hillary’s emails? I just want to make sure I’m not contorting what he’s saying, and you seem to have a unique ability to parse what he really means.
Regards,
Salty in Salt Lake
KevinC
5762
Seriously, though: you’re talking about the guy who has been saying the quiet part out loud for three years now. Why are you of the belief he doesn’t mean what he says? The guy who said this:
He knows it. He’s not shy about saying it out loud, because he knows he’s not going to lose any of his base over it. And he’s right. I’m really confused why you think this is some sort of twisting of words instead of Trump meaning exactly what he says.
So you think the alternative, that the “material” is exculpatory (that means shows his innocence), equally likely?
My other immediate reaction to your post would likely get me at least a temporary ban from QT3 so I’ll stop here.
antlers
5765
T:his is the Trump quote in question:
If you interpret “material” in this quote as “evidence we are withholding,” yes, it is a shocking and incriminating statement.
If you interpret “material” as “legally valid arguments” it’s really not surprising at all, so it’s hardly a credulous or stupid interpretation.
If you interpret “material” the way Trump probably actually means it, which is “clever lines to say on camera” (remember, he still thinks he’s on the Apprentice), it’s also not incriminating, and shocking only to the extent that you are still shocked at the banal nullity of Trump’s thought processes.
Trump’s not a mastermind reveling in his evil; he’s hardly capable of understanding the implications of his actions. That’s why it is so easy for a vast swath of the American people to identify with him.
Best to avoid motivated reasoning.
I’d venture that Trump just heard the word “material” and thought it was a neat word to use in this context.
Edit: I’m guessing at his next rally, he’ll say something like “Just read the material, folks! It’s in the material.” And the crowd’ll go wild for it.
SlyFrog
5767
The hell you say? In this forum? lulz
They never have motivated reasoning - they’re objective and right. Always.
If you don’t hate and froth at everything anyone that’s not like you says and interpret it in the worst (and most implausible) light possible, you’re just credulously stupid.
I think the interpretation that Trump is saying “we are holding onto damning evidence so they can’t use it” is a shaky one at best. Material is an odd word to use, but it’s far more likely that he means it in the sense of how a comic might have material. That they have all the good lines and the “real” evidence on their side, and the Democrats have nothing worth paying attention to. It’s a dumb thing to say at a moment when there’s huge debate about evidence being covered up, and perhaps this was his subconscious leaking out his personal knowledge of evidence the Dems don’t have, but I think it’s way overblown to claim this is him admitting they are concealing damning evidence. And the problem with making overblown statements like that is that they distract from the actual issue (the coverup) with stupid parsing of orange clownspeak.
That said, “shadows” and “hints” were enough to sink Hillary, so if all anyone who might possibly vote against him ever hears about this is that it seems like could be admitting that they are concealing evidence… maybe 2 or 3 people change their vote or stay home.
This is a seriously confusing tangent for me. People are arguing a usage for the word material like it’s obvious that I’ve never seen used once in that way.
CraigM
5771
Trump does not get the benefit of the doubt. If he makes a statement with an inflammatory or criminal interpretation, or merely dumb but not criminal, he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
So if someone interprets his words in the least charitable light I am not going to criticize them for that simply because, more often than not, the least charitable interpretation has been the correct one. In fact I am more likely to view it through that lens as well. I won’t treat it as absolute proof of anything*, but I will view this as, for example, more evidence that his team is hiding (more) damning evidence of presidential crimes.
*except the fact he is a dumb racist. His words are absolute proof of that
Thrag
5772
Trump and his administration could admit to crimes in detail live on TV and there would still be people saying “of course he didn’t admit to crimes live on TV, clearly he meant…”
(oh wait, that’s already happened)
Thank you. That’s all I could think during that odd tangent. He has already literally confessed to what he is being accused of on TV.
Yeah, I hate Trump, but “material” in his parlance is the generic handwavey “good stuff” while the opposition has “garbage witch hunt arguments.” He means it like a thug would say “you ain’t got nuthin!”
