Comment by graycat | Hacker News Reader

Comment by graycat | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It's clear, from video, that the President's response to this was weasely equivocation.

No, his response was terrific, good leadership, presidential, calm the violence.

Your conclusion "weasely equivocation" was JUST from newsie GOSSIP, JUST as I wrote. It was just GOSSIP. You've been had.

Why? The newsies wanted Trump to accept their dictation of what should be in his speech. Then (1) Trump looks like an obedient puppy of the newsies, can't even write his own speech, and loses respect. The 90% Democrat newsies want that. (2) Trump attacks specific groups and people and, thus, starts fights and even incites violence against those groups. He divides the country more, raises tensions, and very likely gets more people killed. THEN the newsies get to blame Trump for that.

The newsies have you by the nose. You've been manipulated.

In his first speech, Trump did exactly the right things.

Then the newsies came with their game card that he didn't denounce specific groups, people, didn't denounce them fast enough, didn't denounce them strongly enough. To calm the violence, he should not be attacking specific groups and, thus, further dividing the country and giving some people more reason to be violent.

Trump was correct: The newsies will never be satisfied. Why? If people are satisfied, then the newsies lose headlines, eyeballs, and revenue. And the 90% Democrat newsies lose an opportunity to attack their enemy Trump.

Bluntly the newsies want violence, dead people, and then get headlines, blame Trump, etc.

You have been had by the newsies. It's dangerous.

You need to be a responsible citizen and quit letting the blood thirsty newsies lead you around by the nose and help them incite violence and get people killed.

I should have been more clear: when I wrote "it's clear", I meant "it's clear to me". My point is that it has nothing to do with the news, it has to do with my personal interpretation of a primary source. I don't think the President's initial response was weasely equivocation because that's what the news said, but rather because I watched the video of it with my own eyes and ears and drew that conclusion. The "gossip" of the news has way less influence now, because primary sources from which to draw one's own conclusions are so abundant now.

It's fine if your interpretation of his statement disagrees with mine, my point here isn't to debate that. What I'm saying is that your identification of the news as the source of our disagreement is mistaken. You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain this, you and I just disagree in our interpretation of a primary source.

Right, Trump's first statement was terrific but not "strong" on denouncing specific groups or people, nor should it have been.

You are asking too much, way too much, of a responsible POTUS. You were asking at least for a much stronger statement before anyone had clear information, including you.

That you thought you had clear information, and you didn't since not even the POTUS yet did, is from newsie gossip and manipulation.

That you were asking too much is from more newsie gossip and manipulation -- they did the same back in the campaign with the David Duke nonsense.

You were still actually being led around by your nose by dirty newsie manipulation.

Just saw this - at the point I wrote by first comment, I had already seen video of the white supremacists protestors chanting "jews will not replace us" and of people wearing Nazi symbolism fighting in the streets. Like I keep saying, these are all primary sources that are (and were) readily available.

Your "newsie gossip" theory is just incorrect.

>Bluntly the newsies want violence, dead people

The Nazis do. This is why they stabbed people in Seattle, this is why they called it a war, this is why one of them ran down civil demonstrators.

I don't know anything about US Nazis. But, maybe they exist -- I would not deny that they do. And, if they exist, then, sure stabbing people might be part of what they do.

Stabbing people is illegal, and we are awash in law enforcement to deal with that. But the law they broke was stabbing people. Being a Nazi may not actually be illegal. So, we don't lock them up for being a Nazi. We don't say, "Nazis stab people so that being a Nazi is reason enough to lock them up."

But, whether Nazis want to incite violence or not, IMHO too many newies essentially do, that is, are so outrageously irresponsible that they do incite violence.

Look at Trump's press conference today, at Trump Tower where he had just had a meeting on US infrastructure. Then he had a press conference. It's at YouTube, and I downloaded the MP4 and watched it all.

The newsies were totally out of control, kept shouting questions about essentially only the riots and interrupted Trump during his answers. Their goal? Somehow get Trump to say something really stupid, say, be really critical of some particular groups or persons, and, thus, get a battle going, start a fight, make some people A who didn't like what some people B said be more willing to attack people B, etc.

Then the newsies get to cover what Trump said, cover the maybe violent results in the streets, and then blame Trump. And a lot of Democrats, as already, will take this political opportunity and make the most of it. So, in effect, the nasty newsies want to stir people up, raise the temperature of the issues, and, hence, essentially incite violence. Trump tried to lower the temperature.

Look, 85+% of the whole riot situation was deliberately just to get it in front of the newsies so that they could raise the temperature and get more violence.

Net, the newsies want violence.

>Net, the newsies want violence.

No that would be the Nazis shouting slogans about purging Jews.

Have you watched video of the rally? It doesn't seem like you have. It is easy to find.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com