• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

President Trump: Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
You know how you've conveniently white-washed Trump's campaign as not sexist (blood coming out of her wherever, look at that {Carly Fiona's} face), not racist (inner cities are hell-holes, stop and frisk), etc? Perhaps, just maybe, you might also be underestimating/ignoring/excusing the actual bigoted actions of those that people called bigots?
Click to expand...

Thanks for saving me the time. :thumbsup:
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Well, there's the rub. You prefer to argue against your perception of the thing, despite knowing that your perception is incorrect. That's dishonest. And it was only by forcing you to admit that your perception is incorrect that the dishonesty is laid bare. And it took a couple of posts - you kept trying to proffer your straw man instead.
Click to expand...
Lol, no, it's not dishonest. There is no dishonesty here, and you've certain not laid it bare.

I understand what Clinton's intent was. But her intent does not excuse the way she went about it. The effect of her statement isn't dependent on my personal inference of her intent.

Beelzebuddy said:
The next step, if you'll care to follow me down this rabbit hole of self-exploration...
Click to expand...
Thank you for the offer, but I'm quite certain that your "exploration" of MY self is flawed.
 
TOday is Holocaust Rememberance Day, so Dear Leader issues a proclamation that does not even mention the Jews.
This is what is staggering, the sheer incompentence of him and his staff.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Didn't you just complain about someone telling you what you think when they couldn't possibly know? Now you say this nonsense to me?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'm not telling you what you think. I'm telling you what the effect of your actions are.

Skeptic Ginger said:
For the record, I'm not trying to sway anyone. I'm curious about the workings of the human mind. But you go right on with your alt-reality. You seem at home there.
Click to expand...
You do not appear to be curious. You appear to be sneering down your nose and casting blame in every direction. There does not appear to be any genuine attempt at understanding from you.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'm gong to go ahead and say that both sides are guilty of re-interpreting statements in the worst possible way.
Click to expand...

Hmm, Trump has also claimed that he didn't mock the disabled reporter, despite the video evidence. I'm not particularly impressed with an after the fact 'oh, I didn't mean that, I meant, um, yeah, this other, totally innocuous thing! Yeah, that's it!'

The attempt to claim he was referring to blood coming out of her nose rather than the obvious implication may fool those who are predisposed to give Trump a pass, but nobody talks about blood coming out of people's noses in anger or causing anger.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Lol, no, it's not dishonest. There is no dishonesty here, and you've certain not laid it bare.
Click to expand...
It's absolutely dishonest. You use phrasing like "does not excuse the way she went about it" when "the way she went about it" means "included a sentence that could be taken out of context," and you keep describing yourself as having to "infer" Clinton's intent when it's stated outright:
Clinton said:
Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
Click to expand...

You actually have to go out of your way to take offense at the speech, but that doesn't seem to stop you.
 
Ethan Thane Athen said:
Totally bemused by the claim that Clinton saying half of those voting for Trump were deplorable is what lost her the election. Mind you, I was totally bemused by the fuss made of it at the time - indeed I don't think she should have backtracked on it, she should have stuck by it. Yes, in a general sense you could argue that insulting floating voters is a bad call, but she didn't do that - she absolutely did not do that. She pointed out the company those, presumably more reasonable voters would be keeping and supporting, if they voted for Trump. Basically 'Do you really want to run with that gang?'.

She did not call anyone considering voting Trump a deplorable, she pointed out to them how deplorable some of his supporters were (half is a term often thrown around loosely but even taken literally means she was saying half are not deplorable). Why is that so hard to understand?

If you don't think you are deplorable, you should be asking yourself why you'd support a man who says and stands for such deplorable things.

The rest of the civilised world is horrified at what you've done. Sadly, for the type of Americans who voted for Trump, you probably think that's some bizarre badge of honour.:rolleyes:

For those making pathetic excuses that this was Clinton's fault for not being better*, give it a rest. At least logger and Bigdog are owning their actions.

*Yup, tainted a bit by Hubby's infidelities, lacking a bit in charisma (but interestingly hugely respected outside America) but still so far superior a candidate to Trump that this should have made no noticeable difference with any sane and educated electorate.:p

Ah, nice Friday rant. That was cathartic. Now to watch The Last Leg for some professional ranting from Adam Hills.
Click to expand...
It was a close election, so it could be that the "deplorables" comment was enough to put him over the edge. I'm sure by that evening she already knew she made a mistake, no one can accuse her of being dumb.
 
Marcus said:
It was a close election, so it could be that the "deplorables" comment was enough to put him over the edge. I'm sure by that evening she already knew she made a mistake, no one can accuse her of being dumb.
Click to expand...

Problem with the deplorables remark was it was too broad;she should have limited it to the bigots and indicate that not all Republicans were "deplorables".
 
dudalb said:
Problem with the deplorables remark was it was too broad;she should have limited it to the bigots and indicate that not all Republicans were "deplorables".
Click to expand...
She did! It was the very next sentence:
Clinton said:
The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.
Click to expand...
But it wasn't in that sentence, so it didn't count.
 
dudalb said:
TOday is Holocaust Rememberance Day, so Dear Leader issues a proclamation that does not even mention the Jews.
This is what is staggering, the sheer incompentence of him and his staff.
Click to expand...


This is the part which confuses me. It was my understanding that Trump was all about "Yay Israel!" and had criticised both Obama and Clinton as not being allies of Israel. So if I've got that right, then that makes today's omission even more incredible. He didn't fail to do the diplomatic thing and tip is hat to an adversary that he's still expected to pay respect to, he actually forgot to mention by name a group of people he does in fact want to be seen as supporting!
 
Joe Random said:
This is the part which confuses me. It was my understanding that Trump was all about "Yay Israel!" and had criticised both Obama and Clinton as not being allies of Israel. So if I've got that right, then that makes today's omission even more incredible. He didn't fail to do the diplomatic thing and tip is hat to an adversary that he's still expected to pay respect to, he actually forgot to mention by name a group of people he does in fact want to be seen as supporting!
Click to expand...

I think it is called Sheer Stupidity.
 
dudalb said:
THe last think I want to do is say anthing favorable to Trump, but I work for a Federal Land Agency,and word has already been passed that firefighters will be exempt from the freeze. Even Trump is not that stupid.
Click to expand...

More likely someone in his administration isn't that stupid, look for the person sighing shaking their head a lot.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'm not telling you what you think. I'm telling you what the effect of your actions are.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

The effect I am not interested in at the moment of an action I have not taken. Riiight, you aren't projecting anything.

Emily's Cat said:
You do not appear to be curious. You appear to be sneering down your nose and casting blame in every direction. There does not appear to be any genuine attempt at understanding from you.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Let's review what you recently complained I did:

Skeptic Ginger said:
I asked you to state your position, you have yet to do so. If you didn't vote for Clinton, what's your version of your excuse? Are you sorry about your vote? Why are you still blaming other people instead of stating your own position?
Click to expand...
Notice those are all questions. Not one insists I know your opinion, nor is there anything lambasting you in that quote. But that didn't stop you from saying:
Emily's Cat said:
Baloney. You haven't bothered to ask me my position. You've instead insisted that you know my opinion and proceeded to lambaste me for what you imagine them to be.
Click to expand...

Compare that to
Emily's Cat said:
You do not appear to be curious. You appear to be sneering down your nose and casting blame in every direction. There does not appear to be any genuine attempt at understanding from you.
Click to expand...

It's as if you totally lack insight into what you are saying.
 
Joe Random said:
This is the part which confuses me. It was my understanding that Trump was all about "Yay Israel!" and had criticised both Obama and Clinton as not being allies of Israel. So if I've got that right, then that makes today's omission even more incredible. He didn't fail to do the diplomatic thing and tip is hat to an adversary that he's still expected to pay respect to, he actually forgot to mention by name a group of people he does in fact want to be seen as supporting!
Click to expand...

The support comes more for pleasing evangelical Christian Zionists than caring about the fate of the Jews.
 
In an odd coincide combining Trump's two major failures of the day, this twitter account has been tweeting out the names of the refugees on the MS St. Louis manifest turned away by the US in 1939. Time is a flat circle it seems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom