Trump/Biden Transition

[belton rover]

It’s good to know that the unnecessary and unhelpful stoking up of civil war hysteria on here was just that. Early days still, but promising.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/23/us/joe-biden-trump

[IDM]

What “civil war hysteria”.??

[belton rover]

What “civil war hysteria”.??

Dotted around in here, mainly.

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=278248.0

[ravenrover]

Word of the Day is 'snollygoster' (19th century, US): one who abandons all integrity in favour of power.

[wilts rover]

Trump/Biden Transition - sounds like a mid 70's prog rock group!

[IDM]

What “civil war hysteria”.??

Dotted around in here, mainly.

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=278248.0

Those actual words cropped up a couple of times but in no way was there any “unhelpful stoking up of civil war hysteria”..

That is total crap - misinformation - fake news for want of a better expression.!!

[MachoMadness]

What “civil war hysteria”.??

Dotted around in here, mainly.

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=278248.0

Those actual words cropped up a couple of times but in no way was there any “unhelpful stoking up of civil war hysteria”..

That is total crap - misinformation - fake news for want of a better expression.!!

Do yourself a favour and ignore. It is - like almost every one of Belton's posts, for weeks if not months now - not actually trying to start any discussion, it's to bait and bully one particular poster on here. If you're trying for a good faith discussion, you'll have to look elsewhere or you'll just get wound up.

[belton rover]

IDM
I suggest you read it back. I just did and realised that it wasn’t just a stoking up of civil war hysteria, there were grave warnings of nuclear annihilation too.
And you accuse me of misinformation and fake news!

[belton rover]

Macho
What a ridiculous comment.

[SydneyRover]

''Trump asked advisors for options to attack Iran's main nuclear site just days after sacking his Defence Secretary''

Stoking not required

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-considered-attacking-iran-main-nuclear-site-2020-11?r=US&IR=T

[IDM]

IDM
I suggest you read it back. I just did and realised that it wasn’t just a stoking up of civil war hysteria, there were grave warnings of nuclear annihilation too.
And you accuse me of misinformation and fake news!

I did, every post..

You are referring to a couple of posts made by BST about worst case post-Trump scenarios. 

If you think that qualifies as “hysteria” then I suggest you read some of our more negative poster comments when we are losing at half time..

Anyone reading this can make up their own mind..

[IDM]

What “civil war hysteria”.??

Dotted around in here, mainly.

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=278248.0

Those actual words cropped up a couple of times but in no way was there any “unhelpful stoking up of civil war hysteria”..

That is total crap - misinformation - fake news for want of a better expression.!!

Do yourself a favour and ignore. It is - like almost every one of Belton's posts, for weeks if not months now - not actually trying to start any discussion, it's to bait and bully one particular poster on here. If you're trying for a good faith discussion, you'll have to look elsewhere or you'll just get wound up.

It’s OK - I know I don’t need to highlight the BS as it’s there for all to see..

[belton rover]

IDM
I suggest you read it back. I just did and realised that it wasn’t just a stoking up of civil war hysteria, there were grave warnings of nuclear annihilation too.
And you accuse me of misinformation and fake news!

I did, every post..

You are referring to a couple of posts made by BST about worst case post-Trump scenarios. 

If you think that qualifies as “hysteria” then I suggest you read some of our more negative poster comments when we are losing at half time..

Anyone reading this can make up their own mind..

There’s no mention of worst case scenarios.
Telling us we should be genuinely worried about the lengths Trump would go to, to stay in power, including kicking the ‘nuclear football’ around and potentially starting ‘civil wars’ is NOT just a couple of throw away, worst case scenarios. It IS stoking up hysteria. It is unhelpful and unnecessary, and I think when such ridiculous, scaremongering statements are shown to be just that, then the people responsible should be held to account.

The fact that you are attempting to trivialise this as ‘a couple of posts’ and ‘fake news’ is actually very telling.

As you quite correctly say - people can make up their own minds.

[IDM]

People can make their own minds up about your determination to oppose BST at every opportunity..

One person’s worst case warnings, whether justified or not - debate what BST posted by all means - is not a case of stirring up hysteria.

Simples..

[belton rover]

People can make their own minds up about your determination to oppose BST at every opportunity..

One person’s worst case warnings, whether justified or not - debate what BST posted by all means - is not a case of stirring up hysteria.

Simples..

With respect, IDM, you’re wrong.

In that thread I posted my acknowledgment that BST had got Trump’s refusal to accept defeat spot on. He was correct, and I applauded him for it. Just as I would oppose anything (from anyone, BTW) I passionately disagreed with.

Whilst the phrases ‘nuclear football’ and ‘civil war’ were only mentioned once or twice, the tone of the vast, vast majority of the posts from BST were equally dangerous and misleading, resulting in a case of stoking up hysteria.

Erm, simples.

[IDM]

If he’s stoked up hysteria, where’s the results of that.?  Where is the hysteria you’ve accused him of stoking.?  That’s kind of the point - he’s highlighted extreme possibilities yes, but I can’t see any hysterical reaction can you.?

[belton rover]

If he’s stoked up hysteria, where’s the results of that.?  Where is the hysteria you’ve accused him of stoking.?  That’s kind of the point - he’s highlighted extreme possibilities yes, but I can’t see any hysterical reaction can you.?

I never said there was a hysterical reaction. You shouldn’t put words into my mouth. Perhaps I should have wrote ‘blatant attempt to stoke up hysteria’ to make my point clearer.
But that doesn’t change the facts.

[BillyStubbsTears]

OK, so I've chosen to disengage from any direct discussion with Belton since this Summer. Last time we exchanged views, belton repeatedly mis-quoted or misrepresented what I said and refused to accept that he had done that, even when presented with the verbatim text. He also, twice, took me to task for things that turned out to have been posted by others, and when that was pointed out to him, said that it didn't matter because it was what I thought anyway. I'll admit, I lost my rag at all that and went over the top in giving him an earfull, for which I later apologised. I took a decision to disengage after that, despite his repeated insistence on trying to provoke me. I won't be changing my take on that.

For anyone else who is interested, the reason i commented on Trump and the nuclear football is that there is a precedent of a corrupt, criminal, depressed and borderline insane President raising concerns among senior officials on that theme.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-most-patriotic-act-of-treason-in-american-history

I'd be astonished if there aren't contingency plans at the highest levels of the DoD on what they would do if Trump put his Twitter phone down one night and ordered an attack on Iran.

Regarding the "this is how civil wars start" comments, those were in the context of the idea that Trump would try to get the election annulled by a Supreme Court that he has packed with his own personal choices. As of this week, it is still the stated policy of the Trump legal team to get their complaints about the election process before the Supreme Court. Giuliani has said precisely that this week. A scenario where Biden has clearly won the election, but the Election was annulled by a Trump-skewed Supreme Court is PRECISELY how civil wars start. I'm not saying that is going to happen. I'm saying it is the Trump team's stated policy aim.

[BillyStubbsTears]

For the record by the way, the headline in the NY Times article in the OP was somewhat misleading. It gives the impression that Trump himself was part of the process of deciding to "authorise" the transition.

He wasn't.

The decision was taken by the head of the GSA and Trump was informed, rather than consulted. Trump, subsequently tweeted about them doing whatever was needed, then went back onto insisting he had won, that they were continuing legal action, and that they would win the action. So none of that changes the fact that a desperate, criminal, corrupt, depressed, borderline insane man has his finger on the button, or that his policy is one which, if successful, would unquestionably cause the biggest social fracture since the Civil War.

[belton rover]

OK, so I've chosen to disengage from any direct discussion with Belton since this Summer. Last time we exchanged views, belton repeatedly mis-quoted or misrepresented what I said and refused to accept that he had done that, even when presented with the verbatim text. He also, twice, took me to task for things that turned out to have been posted by others, and when that was pointed out to him, said that it didn't matter because it was what I thought anyway. I'll admit, I lost my rag at all that and went over the top in giving him an earfull, for which I later apologised. I took a decision to disengage after that, despite his repeated insistence on trying to provoke me. I won't be changing my take on that.

For anyone else who is interested, the reason i commented on Trump and the nuclear football is that there is a precedent of a corrupt, criminal, depressed and borderline insane President raising concerns among senior officials on that theme.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-most-patriotic-act-of-treason-in-american-history

I'd be astonished if there aren't contingency plans at the highest levels of the DoD on what they would do if Trump put his Twitter phone down one night and ordered an attack on Iran.

Regarding the "this is how civil wars start" comments, those were in the context of the idea that Trump would try to get the election annulled by a Supreme Court that he has packed with his own personal choices. As of this week, it is still the stated policy of the Trump legal team to get their complaints about the election process before the Supreme Court. Giuliani has said precisely that this week. A scenario where Biden has clearly won the election, but the Election was annulled by a Trump-skewed Supreme Court is PRECISELY how civil wars start. I'm not saying that is going to happen. I'm saying it is the Trump team's stated policy aim.

Billy
Every now and again, you decide to ‘remind us’ why you decided to disengage with me. But let’s be clear: the first time I realised I had mistakenly ‘took you to task’, I ‘apologised unreservedly’, to which you replied ‘No need for an apology, it’s easily done. I’ve done it myself many times’. The second time I acknowledged my error, but stopped short at an apology. At your suggestion, and because I was ‘losing my rag’ with you, as you were with me. Also, I could be wrong, but I don’t believe you did apologise to me - you’d disengaged me by then and was, I think, apologising to others. I don’t want an apology BTW - there’s no need.
I don’t believe I have ever directly mis quoted you, and I don’t see how I could ever misrepresent you on any other occasion.
I believe you disengaged with me because whenever I thought you were wrong, I said so. And I defended my own beliefs passionately. As I have said before, it’s a shame you took this option, but engaging with me or not, you are a big cog in this forum, and I will continue to ‘engage’ with your posts as I see fit.

And, for the record, at the same time as your announcement to disengage, I said I’d had it with the forum, and I stopped posting for a while. I did continue to read, though. This made me realise that the naive error I’d made was that I took the ‘ganging up’ of ridicule I received personally. It wasn’t until I sat back and read and reflected, that I realised it still continued and it wasn’t personal, it was just part of life, of the ‘entertainment’ on this forum. Which is why I started posting again.

With regard to your ‘civil war’ and ‘nuclear football’ explanations, as I mentioned before, they were just a small part of ‘the horror, the horror’ you relentlessly posted throughout that thread.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.

Your "unreserved  apology" went like this.

"Billy. I see my error - too many quotes and requotes. I apologise unreservedly for confusing you with DW. In my defence, you agreed with him so my question still stands, for DW and yourself.

However, it was rather immature of you play silly games when I directly misquoted you. You must have realised I was making a genuine error, but, hey-ho, I knew what I was dealing with. You’re good without ammunition, so to hand you the gun and the bullet..."

So, an apology for getting me mixed up with someone else, followed by "But I'm right and you DO believe something ridiculous anyway" followed by "And the fact that you didn't immediately put me right this just shows what you are like."

Of all of it, it's the last bit that disgusts me. Actually, it doesn't disgust me. It frightens me about your mental state if I'm going to be honest. You have this utter certainty that I'm a t**t who takes pleasure in bullying and belittling people. Nothing could be further from the truth, but as a result of that, you decide that everything I say and do in here is designed to upset people. I asked in another exchange why you wouldn't accept that I was discussing things in good faith. You said because you didn't believe I was. So it is utterly pointless discussing anything with you.

And THAT, not an honest difference of opinion, is why I would prefer never to have the unpleasant experience of crossing paths with you ever again.

[belton rover]

There you go with the dramatic hyperbole again. So very, very different from your original response, but that’s probably because you need to step up another notch to beat me down.

The bit that ‘disgusts, no, frightens you the most is that I commented on the immature game you played when you KNEW I was making the same error, until, to your absolute delight, pointed it out. Great forum material, but immature nonetheless. And THAT disgusts and frightens you.

I don’t actually think you are a ‘t**t who takes pleasure in bullying and belittling people’. But I do think that, intentionally or not, you have created a persona that does just that on here.
You are dismissive, patronising and belittling to ANYONE who regularly and persistently (though genuinely) think differently to you.If that genuinely isn’t the person you are, or wish to be perceived, then show it in your writing.
If I didn’t believe that you were discussing something in particular in good faith (it had gone beyond discussion then) I’m not going to tell you otherwise to spare your feelings. Your disengaging reaction is silly.

The truth is Billy, you have had a problem with me ever since I challenged you and your ignorant assumption that I must be a Tory lover because I didn’t wish Thatcher a violent and painful death. That and the fact that I had no interest in taking our discussion ‘outside’ (metaphorically speaking, of course).

No, I don’t think you are an utter t**t, but you behave like one too often on here. And like all t**ts, when you don’t get your own way, the only thing left to do is disengage and blame the other’s state of mind - because that way, you can’t be expected to engage with someone not of sound mind.
So you can’t lose.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bizarre.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The issue of the mistaken identity utterly baffled me at first. I didn't have a clue what you were talking about. And then you copied some text from the offending post.

At that point I realised what had happened and (I really should need to say this, but this is 100% the truth) I chose to give you hints that you had made a mistake, PRECISELY because I didn't want to do any finger pointing.

Maybe that was a mistake, but if so it was an honest one.

Your response was to continue ranting on the subject, and accusing me of backtracking and trying to squirm out of what I'd said.

I even sent you the original post and you continued your rant.

You can take that or leave it. But it is 100% the truth. If you REALLY think I played that to make a prick of you, then you need to have a long hard think about your approach to this place. Because it is a f**king ridiculous attitude.

And as I've said before, THAT is why I don't ever want to have to speak with you again.


Well, enjoy your ongoing sniping.

[belton rover]

Bizarre.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The issue of the mistaken identity utterly baffled me at first. I didn't have a clue what you were talking about. And then you copied some text from the offending post.

At that point I realised what had happened and (I really should need to say this, but this is 100% the truth) I chose to give you hints that you had made a mistake, PRECISELY because I didn't want to do any finger pointing.

Maybe that was a mistake, but if so it was an honest one.

Your response was to continue ranting on the subject, and accusing me of backtracking and trying to squirm out of what I'd said.

I even sent you the original post and you continued your rant.

You can take that or leave it. But it is 100% the truth. If you REALLY think I played that to make a prick of you, then you need to have a long hard think about your approach to this place. Because it is a f**king ridiculous attitude.

And as I've said before, THAT is why I don't ever want to have to speak with you again.


Well, enjoy your ongoing sniping.

And that is exactly my point. We disagree on a point, a comment, a belief etc etc. I believe i am right, you believe you are. Therefore my thoughts, comments, beliefs MUST be bizarre.

The top and bottom of it is, Billy, that despite all the clever rhetoric, you appear to believe that anyone who doesn’t agree with you, or come round to your way of thinking after having a lesson from you must be in some way mentally unstable.
And let’s be clear - I’m not the only one on here whose mental state you question when you have ‘had enough’. I admit that I shouldn’t let your demeaning comments get to me, and I take my hat off to those who can bat it aside without too much difficulty.

I get that you like to hold court in here, and you are really good at it. But try not to be so disrespectful.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.

No. It's not about "beliefs". It's about facts. I KNOW for a fact what my approach has been with you. It is not to belittle or insult you. I KNOW that.

You don't believe that. Despite me telling you numerous times.

Similarly, when I, frequently, pointed out clear and unequivocal misinterpretations of what I had said, you refused to accept that. You were certain that you knew (just KNEW) what I was really meaning.

It's impossible to engage with that sort of attitude. And perhaps you ought to reflect yourself on just how disrespectful it is. And why you have continued to press for a fight when I have been steadfastly ignoring you. As I will now go back to doing.

[belton rover]

I’m certainly not pressing for a fight. But I’m not going to lower myself to ‘he’s ignoring me, so I’ll ignore him’ If I decide to comment on a post of yours in a thread involving many others, then I will. You only see it as sniping because you have chosen to try to ignore me. But’s it not your forum, despite what you might like to think.
We clearly have a problem with each other, but until you lose the ‘it’s his problem, not mine’ (with me or anyone else) nothing will be resolved. I think we’ve been as bad as each other as it happens - I’ve already said I shouldn’t let you get to me. It’s up to you whether you continue to disengage with me or not, but please cut the psychological, mentally unstable b*llocks. They are unfounded, offensive comments.

The very fact that you think I shouldn’t comment on your posts because you don’t want to engage with me on this forum shows exactly your arrogance.

I’d like to engage with you and you me. But if you don’t want to that to happen, then perhaps you should consider f**king off to another forum.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.

Here's the issue. You DON'T engage with me. You engage with a phantom that you have convinced yourself is me.

THAT is why I chose to ignore you. Because, in your very own words, you have chosen to believe that I'm not being honest in my approach. That I am luxuriating in bullying and belittling people. You have chosen to insist that your interpretation of what I have said is correct, even when it is demonstrably and unarguably not.

I have done the same in the past, and have apologised every time when that has been pointed out to me. Your approach is to insist that your (wrong) interpretation is right.

I know you like picking at old grievances, so I'll point out that I  tried to reach out to you on that very theme a few months ago.
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=277450.msg980549#msg980549

Your response to that was to double down in your insistence that you knew the thinking behind the points I make, and you have continued to argue in that vein. I'll admit, that approach did irk me.

That's your prerogative of course. Me, I'm happy to discuss any topic with anyone, but I'm not prepared to waste any more time responding to being trolled by someone with that approach. It's pointless and debilitating.

 In a nutshell, things would be far healthier and more respectful if we honestly disagreed about issues, rather than look for motives behind what other people say. I certainly don't always live up to that, but I do try to. And I do try to apologise when I fall short of it. I shouldn't have said anything about anyone's mental state and I unreservedly withdraw that. It came from being thoroughly pissed off with your insistence that I had been trying to belittle you in a previous exchange which is categorically incorrect. But that's no excuse. It's a line I should not have crossed and I am genuinely sorry for having done so.

[belton rover]

Apology accepted.

As for the link to your ‘reaching out to me post’.
You really can’t see the condescending language in there can you? I honestly believe now that you genuinely can’t, otherwise you wouldn’t have put the link up, surely? Perhaps my mistake was assuming you are deliberately condescending and patronising. Perhaps you don’t see it at all.

Food for thought.

[belton rover]

And on the ‘phantom’:

If I am engaging with a phantom of you, then it is one that YOU have created. The only thing we have on here is the written word. That is the only gauge to try to paint a picture of the people we engage with. Word choices are very important in all situations, and they are absolutely vital when they are the only form of communication. If someone chooses words, for example, that can easily, and often deliberately, be interpreted in different ways (different from being misinterpreted) then that is on the writer, not the reader.
 A back up plan, if you will.

A bit of advice - do with it what you like: If you don’t like the persona, or phantom, or monster that you have created, then destroy it and try again.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.

1) I am not responsible for the conclusions you draw.

2) I've no idea why you think that post was condescending. Given the way that discussion was spiralling down, it seemed clear to me that some things needed spelling out. The fact that you continued and continue to insist that you know what my motivations are only reinforces that.

3) I gave you half a dozen, crystal clear examples back in August of you unarguably misrepresenting the words I had said. When I took you through those, explaining where you had misconstrued what I had said, your response, every time, was that you were right anyway.

That is the attitude of yours that has got my goat. You start from the position that you will interpret what I say to fit the image of me that you (YOU, not me) have created. And then you refuse to accept that your interpretation can ever be wrong.

Do you realise how that comes across?