The Trump Presidency 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lurch said:
As I pointed out in the "London" thread, it's entirely possible for anyone but a linguist to construct his sentence as he did while honestly intending to communicate that he was ignorant of her "nasty" nature. I'm willing to give the turd the benefit of the doubt on this one...
Click to expand...

I’m honestly having trouble understanding the point you’re trying to make.

If I do understand it one way, then if I said, “What can I say? I didn’t know that Lurch was nasty”, can that be interpreted as anything other than a claim that Lurch is nasty? Albeit it’s something I may have just discovered? I’m all for the Principle of Charity, but not seeing how to apply it here.
 
Tero said:
In this case they do. The trump obstruction is preventing any other approach. He is also disregarding all subpoenas. Also, the Senate will not act if it is not impeachment. A revealing vote will show what our politicians are like, once all the facts are out.
Click to expand...

He can also disregard subpoenas during impeachment.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I’m honestly having trouble understanding the point you’re trying to make.

If I do understand it one way, then if I said, “What can I say? I didn’t know that Lurch was nasty”, can that be interpreted as anything other than a claim that Lurch is nasty? Albeit it’s something I may have just discovered? I’m all for the Principle of Charity, but not seeing how to apply it here.
Click to expand...

Yes it can. It can refer to her comments rather than her personality. "I didn't know she was nasty about me". But Trump is still an arse.
 
BobTheCoward said:
And if you made those arguments I wouldn't have responded.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

.....
I’ll accept, uncritically, that Christian conservatives might assert that he is moving the country in the right direction. Or that he is moving the country closer to God. But to say that he is everything a Christian conservative wants in a president? That leaves me scratching my head. Wouldn’t a Christian conservative want a president who inspires others to live a Godly life? Who leads by example by attending church services? Who can cite specific scriptures as a factor in his or her decisions? Who can quote even a single bible verse without reading a TelePrompter (see last week for an example)?

I understand that POTUS need not walk on water, but is it too much to expect Christian conservatives to have an item on their everything-we-want-in-a-president list that says “not act like a ill-mannered child who calls people names when they commit real or imagined slights against the president”?
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Yes it can. It can refer to her comments rather than her personality. "I didn't know she was nasty about me". But Trump is still an arse.
Click to expand...

Fast Eddie B said:
OK. Still seems like a stretch, and I doubt the British will use tortured linguistics to be charitable.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a stretch at all. When read in context, including the remarks that came next, it is very much possible, and more likely probable, that he was referring to her remarks and not her. I despise Trump, but let's not do exactly what Trump accuses the media of doing.
 
Stacyhs said:
No, it's not a stretch at all. When read in context, including the remarks that came next, it is very much possible, and more likely probable, that he was referring to her remarks and not her. I despise Trump, but let's not do exactly what Trump accuses the media of doing.
Click to expand...

Reading those remarks, what can I say? I didn’t know that you were an idiot.

(Note to admins: I don't think Stacyhs is an idiot. Though some might take my remarks that way.)
 
Stacyhs said:
No, it's not a stretch at all. When read in context, including the remarks that came next, it is very much possible, and more likely probable, that he was referring to her remarks and not her.
Click to expand...

The problem is that this interpretation really isn't any "better" for Trump than that one. However he was using it, it reinforces the already demonstrated fact that "nasty" is a word Trump likes to reserve for talking about women who say things he doesn't like.
 
Stacyhs said:
No, it's not a stretch at all. When read in context, including the remarks that came next, it is very much possible, and more likely probable, that he was referring to her remarks and not her. I despise Trump, but let's not do exactly what Trump accuses the media of doing.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.
But President Trump didn’t say THAT he was misquoted or that he was taken out of context or that the press misunderstood him. He claimed that they completely made up the story. That’s BS. And that’s BS that he can be called on.
 
GlennB said:
Yes it can. It can refer to her comments rather than her personality. "I didn't know she was nasty about me". But Trump is still an arse.
Click to expand...

So why didn't he say that or at least explain his context and meaning instead of just denying he said it?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So why didn't he say that or at least explain his context and meaning instead of just denying he said it?
Click to expand...

Very possibly because he was advised to do it this way. He can't deny he used the word, as it's recorded. He can say he didn't say "that thing" (she's nasty at a personal level) which he later explains refers to a meaning of 'nasty' in a different context.

Obviously Trump couldn't work out this approach to the situation, but an adviser could. Or, just maybe, Trump typed any ol' carp on twitter and they'll sort it out later ;)
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So why didn't he say that or at least explain his context and meaning instead of just denying he said it?
Click to expand...

Because he's an idiot and that's how he reacts to things. We know he doesn't think before he engages his fat little fingers on Twitter. But that still doesn't mean he was referring to MARKLE as "nasty" in the same way he called HRC "a nasty woman".

Told of Meghan’s barbs by The Sun, Mr Trump insisted it was the first time he’d heard them.

He said: “I didn’t know that. What can I say? I didn’t know that she was nasty.”
Click to expand...

Donald Trump has revealed his shock at Meghan Markle’s “nasty” comments about him
Click to expand...

Rather than hit back at Meghan in his customary fashion, the President seemed willing to mend fences — while saying she can flourish in her new role.

He predicted she will make “a very good” American princess.

On her joining the Royal Family, he added: “It is nice, and I am sure she will do excellently.

“She will be very good. I hope she does (succeed).”
Click to expand...
(All fromThe Sun)

Not even that rag tabloid is claiming Trump called Meghan herself "nasty". I despise Trump, but I also refuse to attack him for something it's clear to me he did not do just because of my personal disgust for him. That would make me no better than him.
 
TheSupermeerkat said:
Donald Trump denies calling Meghan 'nasty' despite audio recording

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-calling-meghan-nasty-despite-audio-recording

Not surprised, really. That dickhead can't help himself.
Click to expand...

I was going to post that as highlighting the his scale-invariantly vile personality.

Possibly in the mental illness thread. There was no reason for him to comment on her (even if she is black and posher than him, as opposed to Obama who is black and classier than him) but he couldn't help himself, and then lied about what he said even with audio evidence. That is neither normal nor healthy.
 
All of this is wrong. What he really said was "I didn't know that she was Nestea!". He meant to follow up saying "I thought she would be more of an Earl Grey (hot) gal."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom