Let it be known that Speyside stated that if Trump were not President of the United States, then Ceasar the stripping terrorist might not have sent pipe bombs in the mail to anyone.
In an equally plausible reality, had I not named my dog Sadie, then Ceasar the stripping terrorist might not have made the pipe bombs to begin with.

tailgater wrote:

Does Sadie have a list of enemy's too? Is she as visible to the country too? Does she repeatedly out her list of enemies? Is she president of the United States? Does she call the press enemy's of the state? Does she say there are good people on both sides? Why aren't you a billionaire? Is Sadie camera shy? The list of questions is endless. Fortunately your bark is worse than your bite.

I heard Sadie plays catch. Should she try out for the Red Sox? Prolly the Orioles make more sense, they were dogs this year. I by she could make league minimum.

Let it be known, Tailgater thinks the president is the equivalent of a dog.

Speyside wrote:

how can you ever lose when you get to misrepresent the opposing view first?

frankj1 wrote:

Let it be known that Speyside stated that if Trump were not President of the United States, then Ceasar the stripping terrorist might not have sent pipe bombs in the mail to anyone.

tailgater wrote:

Tail, I'm saying if Trump wasn't president the guy might not have sent the bombs. .

Speyside wrote:

Using that logic, then virtually every act of terror can be blamed on every sitting President.


Of course, it MIGHT have been the lyrics from one of the heavy metal songs Ceasar stripped to.

We'll start calling you Tipper809

tailgater wrote:

LMAO! People agreed you compared a medium rare Rib eye to avocados. But please enjoy your inaccurate analogy. Is there swamp land in Florida you would like to sell?

Speyside wrote:

This isn't hard to understand.
So maybe you'll get it eventually.

If short-bus mcpresident didn't say and tweet the things he says and tweets, then we would be sure he has no responsibility. He knows this. He chooses to still say and tweet the things he says and tweets.

He literally is continuing to do this despite there being a non-zero chance that he influenced some attacks and even if he didn't, may influence future attacks.

What would you say about a man who, knowing he has this influence, chooses to do what he does?

victor809 wrote:

LMAO! People agreed you compared a medium rare Rib eye to avocados. But please enjoy your inaccurate analogy. Is there swamp land in Florida you would like to sell?

Speyside wrote:

You know Tipper used the same argument.

Don't let your ideology cloud your thought process on this one.

I've REPEATEDLY said that I wish President Trump wouldn't say half the crap he does.

But I'm saying right now that those words didn't inspire a lunatic to send bombs in the mail.

You've linked the two things together.

Nothing is in a vacuum. But the infinitesimal influence that his words might have had on one individual isn't worth a debate. And your claims imply it's much more influential. More impactful. Hell, Trump may as well have pulled the trigger.
Maybe he was in Times Square...

tailgater wrote:

Let it be known that this President and every president before him aren't fit to be compared to my Sadie.

tailgater wrote:

Although I voted for someone other than Trump, I'd never in a thousand years have voted for Hillary ... fact is, I'd have voted for Sadie over Hillary ... I have every confidence Sadie would have made a superior president ...

SteveS wrote:

I voted for neither as well... I met Sadie, and I believe she had her tongue and paws all over me without my consent.

frankj1 wrote:

You don't have an understanding of margins do you.
I don't care whether you say you wish he wouldn't say what he does. What you wish is irrelevant. What he does or does not do is what is relevant.

You just said it "infinitesimal influence". There's your people on the margins. Some only need just a little more influence.

Is that the most recent bomber? Is it the proud boys? Was it Charlotte? Was it any others I'm forgetting? Who knows.

But any person with a shred of dignity and enough self awareness to understand their own ability to influence would stop doing what he is continuing to do, because you never know which one will be on the margin.

We all have influence. Obviously less than the Twitter president. But each and every one of us is aware of the influence we have on individuals we interact with. This is why we don't suggest to the dude who seems a little unstable next to us at the bar that those other guys are definitely laughing at him... (Or if we are somewhat psychopathic, we do)....

This is why as responsible people we don't suggest to suicidal people that death would be easier.

The simple fact that he has continued to tweet the crap he has tweeted after these incidents means he doesn't care if he influenced these people. In fact, it suggests that this is the result he wanted.

Any rational person would act differently.

victor809 wrote:

164 is pretty much tail gibberish. You are wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start.

Speyside wrote:

I voted for neither as well...

but I think I met Sadie, and I believe she had her tongue and paws all over me without my consent.
Do I have the right "animal" Joe?

frankj1 wrote: