(edit) Since people apparently have lost the ability to recognise the presence of subtext, let me spell it out. I’m certain that Trump is saying all of that out of concern not for his offsprings but for his own benefit, by trying to change the narrative from the facts of the case to the apparent harrassment of his children. I doubt he is capable of love, fatherly or otherwise.
(/edit)
You can’t fault a man for protecting his children.
But I seriously doubt that sentient pile of spray-on tan has the emotional capacity to recognise its human-shaped wank-stains as its children beyond whatever publicity pity-points it can get out of them.
While the general “can’t fault a man for protecting his children” is a milquetoast statement we can all agree with, it’s obfuscating what really happened.
He wasn’t chasing away a coyote with a pointed stick: the dude posted a bizarre attack (name-calling, non sequiturs, claims of fraud) on attorneys and the judge for what appears to be a legitimate inquiry.
No, I just didn’t think the second part negated the first part. I read it as the defense being to some degree legitimate, but that he was doing so out of self-interest. I was trying to underscore how absurd his so-called defense was.
In other words, my apologies! I didn’t intend for my attempt at an explanation as criticism of you, or start some pointless quibbling internet argument (because I imagine we’re all tired of those). Take care out there.
I’ve noticed that the “anything other than complete opposition and full condemnation of everything they say and are associated with = support” mindset is present here, too.
(edit) Since people apparently have lost the ability to recognise the presence of subtext, let me spell it out. I’m certain that Trump is saying all of that out of concern not for his offsprings but for his own benefit, by trying to change the narrative from the facts of the case to the apparent harrassment of his children. I doubt he is capable of love, fatherly or otherwise.
(/edit)
You can’t fault a man for protecting his children.
But I seriously doubt that sentient pile of spray-on tan has the emotional capacity to recognise its human-shaped wank-stains as its children beyond whatever publicity pity-points it can get out of them.
You can fault a man for being a corrupt sex offender though.
Not sure why you are getting down voted
While the general “can’t fault a man for protecting his children” is a milquetoast statement we can all agree with, it’s obfuscating what really happened.
He wasn’t chasing away a coyote with a pointed stick: the dude posted a bizarre attack (name-calling, non sequiturs, claims of fraud) on attorneys and the judge for what appears to be a legitimate inquiry.
Did you happen to completely miss the second part of the comment?
No, I just didn’t think the second part negated the first part. I read it as the defense being to some degree legitimate, but that he was doing so out of self-interest. I was trying to underscore how absurd his so-called defense was.
In other words, my apologies! I didn’t intend for my attempt at an explanation as criticism of you, or start some pointless quibbling internet argument (because I imagine we’re all tired of those). Take care out there.
I’ve noticed that the “anything other than complete opposition and full condemnation of everything they say and are associated with = support” mindset is present here, too.