RugbyRebels

So a crisis actor is someone who appears after a crisis purporting to have been involved in an incident giving rise to said crisis and is giving comment on what has happened and what should happen, when in reality they're merely a political stooge?

Digby wrote:So a crisis actor is someone who appears after a crisis purporting to have been involved in an incident giving rise to said crisis and is giving comment on what has happened and what should happen, when in reality they're merely a political stooge?

Couldn't have put it better myself.

I may even have to edit my longer explanation above.

WaspInWales wrote:

Digby wrote:So a crisis actor is someone who appears after a crisis purporting to have been involved in an incident giving rise to said crisis and is giving comment on what has happened and what should happen, when in reality they're merely a political stooge?

Couldn't have put it better myself.

I may even have to edit my longer explanation above.

I saw one of the students, who I now realise may be a crisis actor, ask Flotus to have a word with her son-in-law about his tweeting and how he'd encouraged hate messages to be sent her way and to her family too. We're fortunate to note at this time in addition to Flotus that Potus is very keen on the truth, what could go wrong

The amount of people who seem to be involved in these conspiracies is astonishing. Kids, parents, teachers, TV networks, press, media, politicians, the shooters (or patsies as they are sometimes known).

Jeez, you'd think there would be some real evidence to support the conspiracies instead of having to doctor images and orchestrating hate campaigns.

WaspInWales wrote:The amount of people who seem to be involved in these conspiracies is astonishing. Kids, parents, teachers, TV networks, press, media, politicians, the shooters (or patsies as they are sometimes known).

Jeez, you'd think there would be some real evidence to support the conspiracies instead of having to doctor images and orchestrating hate campaigns.

It would make a refreshing change.

Also I’m not completely understanding this issue of the red flags/photos of the shooter with guns/FBI failure (which obviously you’d hope would be unusual enough to eat some attention) and how that is supposed to be entirely unrelated to the relentless promotion and glorification of guns.

Apparently the draft dodger would have run in even without a gun aye mate.

OptimisticJock wrote:Apparently the draft dodger would have run in even without a gun aye mate.

Let's hope he gets a chance to.

Stones of granite wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Apparently the draft dodger would have run in even without a gun aye mate.

Let's hope he gets a chance to.

The rest of the world stating doubting his veracity when he got as far as saying he would run

What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1E92M1

Reuters wrote:
The Trump administration briefed congressional staff this week on how the White House was considering non-proliferation standards in a potential pact to sell nuclear reactor technology to Saudi Arabia, but did not indicate whether allowing uranium enrichment would be part of any deal, congressional aides said.


Non-proliferation advocates worry that allowing Saudi Arabia to enrich fuel in a nuclear power deal could also enable it to one day covertly produce fissile material and set off an arms race with arch-rival Iran that could spread more broadly throughout the Middle East.

...

Set off an arms race with Iran?!?!?! If that is a worry, then Iran have made one hell of a false start.

I wonder if this is Jared "Peace in the Middle East" Kushner's initiative? The septics have sold a lot of arms to the Saudis over the past year, so fuck, why not tool them up with nukes? I'm sure the citizens of Yemen will be on board the house of Saud peace train. Send Ivanka in with her weird chin and phone sex voice to seal the deal.

Arming teachers is the way forward, just not this guy, he'll be caught in the mental health rejig.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43217142

Click on the link to see all the other clips if you want a masterclass in inane ramblings.



It’s crazy watching these segments and remembering he’s actually even more out of his depth than the media caricature you often see. Do we think he really has any clue what opinion or idea he is trying to express in any of these videos?

Sweet mother of god. Completely divorced from the practicalities of the exercise. A total waste of space. What a fucking gonad.

morepork wrote:Sweet mother of god. Completely divorced from the practicalities of the exercise. A total waste of space. What a fucking gonad.

Nothing a strong, decisive, strong discussion can’t fix though.

Mikey Brown wrote:Click on the link to see all the other clips if you want a masterclass in inane ramblings.



It’s crazy watching these segments and remembering he’s actually even more out of his depth than the media caricature you often see. Do we think he really has any clue what opinion or idea he is trying to express in any of these videos?

Wow, just wow.

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:Sweet mother of god. Completely divorced from the practicalities of the exercise. A total waste of space. What a fucking gonad.

Nothing a strong, decisive, strong discussion can’t fix though.

As long as it's comprehensive. A lot of people don't like that word, but I do and if you like it too, I'll love you.

Mikey Brown wrote:Click on the link to see all the other clips if you want a masterclass in inane ramblings.



It’s crazy watching these segments and remembering he’s actually even more out of his depth than the media caricature you often see. Do we think he really has any clue what opinion or idea he is trying to express in any of these videos?

I don't want to subject myself to all of that.
Is this the meeting where he said something like "Forget about due process; take their guns and worry about legality later"?

Near enough. Something like “take away their guns if they have the right. Actually, even if they don’t have the right” I think.

Really sets a fantastic precedent doesn’t it?

I do like the way that a serious debate on gun control becomes all about him. 'Some of those people don't like me much'. Dry your eyes you thick orange cnut.

I bet the AG and his staff are really looking forward to discussing the appropriation of personal property without warrant or court decision?

Was he also talking about how terrible it is that the mentally ill have access to guns... as a direct result of the Obama law that he revoked a few months ago. Bet it was Obama's fault for being weak though.

In fairness Obama was weak on guns. Whereas if Trump follows through, which is a big if, it'll be a first step, and the NRA so far have no idea how to respond to Trump potentially having blatantly lied to them - maybe this is 4D chess in practice?

Digby wrote:In fairness Obama was weak on guns. Whereas if Trump follows through, which is a big if, it'll be a first step, and the NRA so far have no idea how to respond to Trump potentially having blatantly lied to them - maybe this is 4D chess in practice?

It's all bluster from Trump at the moment. He's just giving out sound bites. I'm sure that when the open session finished, the NRA were on the blower to him sharpish to remind him about his core support group and the 2nd amendment.

This is just a guess, but the only change I can see happening is stricter gun checks, especially for people with mental health issues and the bump stock ban.

So, in effect revoking his previous revoke of Obama's gun check law and the bump stocks.

All in all, just a token change in the grand scheme of things.

Then it'll just be a case of waiting for the next mass shooting.