Are Repubs okay with this?

Do you have a quote from Trump or someone on this thread saying it is "ok" to shoot peaceful protesters?

 

Using an even more extreme example of egregiously unacceptable behavior to justify discussion of shooting protesters in the legs displays the weakness in your position. Trump's suggestion was off the charts unconscionable.

 

Shooting peaceful protesters is "far outside the realm of acceptable suggestion in any context".
Has anyone actually suggested doing that?
Do you have a quote to that effect?

 

Trying to decipher through this convoluted logic and taking into account the context in which you have made this reply...

Are you now saying that there is never an appropriate time for the police to shoot a suspect/assailant?

 

Presidential ignorance unbecoming of the office does not equal 'challenging conventional orthodoxy'.

I support brainstorming.

I do not support ignorance of a level which is egregiously substandard for any president. Criticism of Trump's ignorance does not equal criticizing brainstorming. Your accusation of 'destroying brainstorming' is hyberbole.

One does not excuse the other.

You accuse me of hyperbole, but you use hyperbolic phrases.
Interesting.

The length of time for any egregiously ignorant suggestion would probably last no longer than 10 seconds, and by that measure, is irrelevant.

Every author of books has the intent of selling books.

Books of historical value are expected to be as accurate, done with integrity, as possible.

Esper was the former Secy of the Army, Secy of Defense, a West Point graduate, and there is no reason to suspect
he was writing a book and lying, exaggerating to sell more books.

Your insinuation, therefore, is unjust, unfair, unwarranted, insulting, and hyperbole.

I find no hyperbole in my comments, though I do find it in spades, in yours.

Posturing is a pseudo debate device.

 

That is the real question.

 

The hyperbolic never do

 

Because you voted for him and continue to defend him on a almost daily basis, and he interjects himself daily politics and acts like he will run for president in 2024, and expresses support or opposition to candidates in the lesser races.

 

It's called brainstorming.

Am I OK with a President facilitating a brainstorming session with experts in order to solicit their feedback and ultimately make decisions based on that feedback? Absolutely.

Hyperbole much?

There is not one thing wrong with brainstorming in an attempt to challenge conventional orthodoxy.

 

2000 mules.

 

Who said there was something wrong with the act of brainstorming?

 

I agree. Im just saying its not much different than when people complain 'why didn't the cops just shoot him in the legs'? Its precisely the same sort of ignorance. Trump isnt a gun guy, so of course he says stupid things about shooting people, just like everyone else who doesnt know **** about guns does.

 

Thats some horrid qualifiers and reflection on leftwing voters when considering the current wrinkled lump of retardation running the show

 

I can understand the notion of a hidden position when being confronted with guns. Those people had been at that door for several minutes having regular almost polite conversation with the police on the other side of that door where Ashley Babbit was. There was no sign or hint of a gun or any type of weapon whatsoever. If the guy had simply came out of hiding and pointed his gun at her and said stop, she would have undoubtedly stopped immediately. To fire that shot was unconscionable and wholly unnecessary.

 

You are stretching credulity to its limit. It is never appropriate to suggest what Trump suggested. Full stop.

 

Go back and read the conversation.

 

So, we're supposed to just take Esper's word for it? Considering most of this gossip has turned out to be bullshit, if not all of it, I think I'll just blow it off as more bullshit gossip.

 

If anyone would know! I'd take the word of a master without question!!!!

 

Literally no one has stated there is anything wrong with the act of brainstorming.

 

Stretching credulity?

I said, in a situation where they might otherwise shoot to kill, and your reply was "Using an even more extreme example of egregiously unacceptable behavior"

To ask if you are saying that it is never appropriate to shoot a suspect/assailant is entirely logical. If that isnt what you were saying, then please expound upon your position. If you did not mean never appropriate to shoot when you said " egregiously unacceptable behavior" then what did you mean?

Do you even know what you mean and instead just like to throw sh*t at a wall to see what sticks?

 

...Brainstorming was part of the conversation. What else went along with that brainstorming? It was all a package deal. Focus. You can do it.

 

You could always try to justify your position by hypothesizing the protesters had dirty nuclear bombs too. But the discussion was about protesters. Not protesters who were storming the Bastille.

 

Too ask a question is not to suggest anything.

 

Lets remember the question that you posed to which I was responding....

"How is shooting protesters not far outside the realm of acceptable suggestion in any context"

What does ANY context mean to you?

You asked me if I could see any context where shooting protestors might be acceptable. Yes I can. I can envision lots of scenarios. I was only answering YOUR question. A dirty bomb as you now assert, while far fetched, would certainly fit the bill. A molotav cocktail however is probably far more realistic and common.

 

Sigh...I can only assume you're being obtuse on purpose. Literally no one said has stated there is anything wrong with the act of brainstorming. If someone did you would be able to show the post. But you are unable to show the post because it does not exist. People ONLY have issue with the moronic idea that Trump came up with. Let me say it another way...brainstorming good, idea of shooting protesters bad.