RealLindaL wrote: del.capslock wrote:Perhaps you would be so kind as to translate the seaoatspeak for me.
At the risk of seeming a fool for taking you at your word that you'd truly like to know what meaning I see in Sea's statement:
I believe he's simply saying that perceived investigatory threats to Trump's own family unit -- specifically Jared (and thus Ivanka) -- would far more likely result in Trump's recent "off the rails" actions (e.g., firing Comey and insulting him before the Russians) than would similar threats to Flynn -- a guy he apparently likes (or used to) but who, after all, isn't a Trump.
In other words, if Trump is acting irrationally, it's perhaps because the FBI et al are now looking closely at his own family -- something he simply can't deal with.
Sea, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Now go ahead and insult me, too, del. I'm used to it here.
Ok then, let's lay this out, shall we:
You believe that 2seaoat's moronic post meant that Trump's irrational actions are because the FBI may now be looking at a member of his family and that he wouldn't "go off the rails" if it was Flynn being attacked.
Correct? Have I got that right?
Now, lets look at my post:
It comprised one prefatory sentence explaining that Kushner was now a "person of interest" and, the meat of the post, three sentences describing the tangled relationship of Kushner's lawyer to Mueller with a final two sentence personal comment.
THE MEAT OF THE POST WAS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GORELICK AND MUELLER.
Now, let's look at the posts in order:
1) My original, perfectly sensible post with a brief introduction and final comment.
2) A post from the angry, closeted adolescent Waiting that linked to a totally irrelevant article.
3) Your comment that my post was "disturbing" and that you agreed with my introductory bit about Kushner.
4) Seaoat's brainless gibberish.
5) Your sycophantic, fawning reaction to Seaoat's nonsense.
6) My perfectly calm and reasoned reaction to your post above, in which I explain why Mr. Seaoat's post was, perhaps, a little confusing.
7) Your deranged, savage and personal attack on me for having the temerity to gently criticize the esteemed Mr. Seaoat's grammar.
8 ) Vikingwoman's lunatic nonsense. (I had to put a space in there because otherwise a smiley face thing shows up and I do not want to be mistaken for an adolescent schoolgirl posting social tripe)
9) My well-reasoned and serene defense of my original post which you had so viciously, with inhuman malice aforethought, attacked.
10) Your reaction to Vikingwoman.
And finally, 11) Your take on Seaoats's post.
Here's my reply to all that:
IF YOUR TAKE ON SEAOAT'S POST IS CORRECT, HE MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE GODDAMN POST WHICH WAS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN KUSHNER'S LAWYER AND MUELLER. YOU FIENDISHLY ATTACKED ME AND DEFENDED HIS COMPLETE MISAPPREHENSION OF CLEARLY WRITTEN ENGLISH WHICH I BELIEVE IS HIS MOTHER TONGUE AND IN WHICH HE REPEATEDLY FAILS TO PROPERLY EXPRESS HIMSELF.
There, I feel so much better now. I can go back to yelling at my TV because that cocksucker Rick Santorum is talking on it as if he is an actual intelligent human with something to add to any discourse.
Have a nice day.