Cont: President Trump: Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
No I didn't.


Let's see... you dodged the question that I asked. Completely dodged it, as in didn't even bother to pretend you were addressing the content in any way. Instead you want to focus on the fact that I didn't specifically address the other two questions asked that had lower than 50% outcomes? Gee... if you took all of that in aggregate, wouldn't that mean that a much lower percentage than 50% hold some negative assumption about black people?

And let me go ahead and call you the pot here. You want to jump on me for cherry picking, while you continue to insist that the fact that 1/3 of Clinton supporters held the exact same view somehow is of no import and can just be ignored :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Can you explain why you wanted Clinton to insult her own voters, given how you claim that this term was such and insult and using towards Trump supporters cost her the election.

So how about we try this again: Do you feel that holding any negative stereotype about black people makes a person a racist?



Because half of Trump's supporters probably aren't RACISTS. That's a hyperbolized insult tossed at people who hold a negative stereotype about black people - one that is pretty common unless you've actually dug in to how our justice system works. And also the exact same view that ONE THIRD of Clinton's supporters ALSO HOLD.
Click to expand...

Your definition of 'racist' must be pretty unusual.

That's why it's an assumption. It isn't untrue. Just because you agree with that assumption doesn't make that assumption fact.
Click to expand...

You know what the assumption is, here? You found one poll that touched on one of several of the things Clinton talked about, but no indication that this is the poll which informed her of the racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc attitudes of Trump voters.
But, you have assumed this is the one (and sole) poll Clinton used. So, until you provide a reason to believe your assumption, I'm not going to accept it. M'kay?
 
Garrison said:
Problem is that those people have bought into what amounts to a conspiracy theory that those jobs were 'stolen' and can thus be returned. The Democratic Party are being blamed by some people for failing to find a way to explain reality to the economic equivalent of 9/11 truthers.
Click to expand...

And the further problem is the same one you have with any other CT, where the lack of evidence is, to the believer, just evidence of how good the conspiracy is- when the jobs don't come back, it'll be proof that the folks who "stole" them are simply omni-competent thieves. It won't be Trump's fault that he couldn't keep his promise to restore the jobs, it'll always and forever only be someone else to blame. Trump can't lose in this circular scenario.
 
Finally someone has the guts to stand up against museums, homelessness, environmental standards and Meals on Wheels.
 
Arcade22 said:
It's funny that Trump feels so utterly pathetic and emasculated that he won't hardly even look at Merkel let alone shake her hand. Seriously awkward.
Click to expand...
I don't think he feels pathetic and emasculated. I think by that point he literally wanted/needed a nap and had become cranky like a little baby. As has been repeatedly proven with his after-hours tweets, he doesn't sleep well. He got psyched up for the joint press conference and then started falling apart.

This is why he wants to keep campaigning. He can get his **** together to appear energetic for a speech but, in addition to his incompetence and ignorance, he might be physically incapable of putting in a real day of work.
 
Now we know why it was such a secret.

Donald Trump promised during the campaign to implement a "secret plan" to defeat ISIS, including a pledge to "bomb the hell out of" the terror group in Iraq and Syria.

Now, the Pentagon has given him a secret plan, but it turns out to be a little more than an "intensification" of the same slow and steady approach that Trump derided under the Obama administration, two senior officials who have reviewed the document told NBC News.

The plan calls for continued bombing; beefing up support and assistance to local forces to retake its Iraqi stronghold Mosul and ultimately the ISIS capital of Raqqa in Syria; drying up ISIS's sources of income; and stabilizing the areas retaken from ISIS, the officials say.
Click to expand...
 
Stacko said:
Now we know why it was such a secret.
Click to expand...

I'm generally all for transparency and we all know that the Trump administration leaks like crazy, but should senior officials really be leaking details of a "secret" military plan? I remember Trump making a big deal about the vital importance of military secrecy during the campaign. Maybe this was a planned leak and I'm just getting myself worried over nothing, but I do want the government to be able to keep some things secret.
 
New Yorker magazine has an article this week about how the Trump administration is apparently favoring young correspondents from far-right websites, giving them White House press credentials. Sean Spicer often calls on them at press briefings to the exclusion of mainstream outlets like Reuters or ABC News.

One of the new correspondents is a 19-year-old blogger named Kyle Mazza. He calls his news blog U.N.F. News, or Universal News Forever (News). UNF has no bandwidth on TV or radio, it's a website blog. (Mazza also posts on Twitter.) And no employees just Mazza. Somehow Mazza got White House press credentials from the Trump staff. When the president called a press conference in February Mazza was there. He even got to ask a question:
  • Mazza - “[The First Lady] does a lot of great work for the country. Can you tell us a little bit about what First Lady Melania Trump does for the country?”
  • Trump - “Now that’s what I call a nice question. Who are you with?”
  • Mazza - “U.N.F. News.”
  • Trump - “Good, I’m going to start watching."
Link
Click to expand...


Uhh, Mr. president? It's a b-l-o-g. :(
 
Jim_MDP said:
I despise Teh Donald on various levels, and detest when coverage takes up who knows how much of a days' (need to fill 24 hr cable channel) coverage but, just as "when the President walks into a room, every able body stands"... when POTUS speaks, it should be reported/covered.

The downside is... when such a high percentage of the message is either crap, or trolling.

But they can't risk missing the inevitable bi-weekly blooper. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Bloopers go viral so no need to cover them live.
 
Darat said:
Probably disagreed with him about something, such as Austria doesn't have those big rabbits with the pouches.....
Click to expand...

Rats, not rabbits. If you've ever see them on the horizon at dusk you'll see they are big jumping rats.

:D
 
Last edited:
Stacko said:
Now we know why it was such a secret.
Click to expand...

32686638223_dbaa9a24af_z.jpg


Of course, he just says stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom