(05-30-2017, 11:52 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I'd say words do matter, however, what matters more is how you perceive what's being said and that is where the problem lies. Whatever Trump says is going to be filtered by our perceptions and we will either perceive it to be good, bad, or take a neutral stance on it.
You mentioned that we can't actually see Trump's thoughts and motives, but the problem that a lot of Trump haters have is that they act like they do know exactly what Trumps thoughts and motives are. You see it with everything he says and everything he does. "Trump said/did such and such because (insert narrative here)".
So yes I think words matter, but how we perceive them matters more.
Nobody can see his thoughts or motives so doesn't it make sense to use his words as a clue instead of just throwing up our hands and saying "Well we don't know.". That's the same rules that apply to you and me. People perceive us based upon how we present ourselves in public. Our crowd, our words, our appearance, our actions all of it makes up the perception people have of us because it's the only clues they have as to who somebody really is.
If Trump doesn't want to be perceived the way he does and is really a good guy why would he mock people and come across like a bully throughout the election process? He was a media darling before his campaign when he was working for NBC and hosting The Apprentence and still gave reasons to perceive him as the man he is perceived to be today. So it's not just the media being mean to him.
I haven't seen anybody claim they know exactly what Trump's motives are. If anything it's all over the place and that's something that freaks people out. Nobody knows what he's thinking because he can flip flop all of the time and post tweets that are just rambling non-sense. He has spoken the most out of any political figure I've seen in an unfiltered format between Twitter and his rallies and it's ugly. Kicking people out of his rallies and yelling "Take their coat!" in winter is a lack of human decency and saying he will pay for the legal fees of anybody who roughs up a protestor shows a lack of human decency. How should a person perceive that other than what it is?
The problem with Trump supporters is they constantly look for a reason to like Trump instead of looking at him for who he is. As long as he has another excuse or story they will eat it up hook line and sinker. So is he genuine and his words represent who he is and if so why did people elect him? Or is he just another politician hiding his motives and if so doesn't that contradict why people were drawn to him in the first place?
(05-30-2017, 03:20 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: I said I regretted bringing up Hillary as part of my example because I forgot some would get hung up on the example I posted instead of the actual point of the thread. Which is Trump is a hypocrite and there are more examples other than the one I posted.
Your reply had only to do with the small segment of my thread that had to do with Hillary.
3/5 of your quotes had to do with classified material. Nobody got hung up on Hillary, just that it wasn't the same thing. It's hard to concentrate on the point you are making if 60% of your examples are incorrect.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(05-30-2017, 03:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 3/5 of your quotes had to do with classified material. Nobody got hung up on Hillary, just that it wasn't the same thing. It's hard to concentrate on the point you are making if 60% of your examples are incorrect.
How is it hard to concentrate on the point im making when all you need to do is replace those examples with other hypocritical things he said? It's not hard to find other material pointing out he's a hypocrite. Do you believe he isn't a hypocrite? Do you think it's acceptable that he demeans people? If so why and what do you tell yourself to justify that?
We can dance around the point of the thread or just get to it.
(05-30-2017, 07:35 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: How is it hard to concentrate on the point im making when all you need to do is replace those examples with other hypocritical things he said? It's not hard to find other material pointing out he's a hypocrite.
We can dance around the point of the thread or just get to it.
Why don't you just go ahead and do that for everyone then.
(05-31-2017, 02:42 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Not enough time in the day. You like it though. Have fun explaining that to your grandchildren.
This has become a common tactic from Trump supporters. Keep asking for examples. Then claiming they were "taking out of context" or that they weren't what he meant.
When you can provide dozens of examples it gets to the point where everything is slogged down because there are so many they don't have to focus or even explain one.
I'd say it's a good defensive move by the right but it's more a sign of agitation that they know they can't defend what he says so they try to make it that since he says a LOT of dumb/hypocritical things it's just everyone ELSE picking on him because they say there are so many of them.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Do words that just get made up and left on your official Twitter account for 6 hours matter?
See? This was a silly thing. But that's what happens when you are the POTUS and you decide that you should post LOTS of things on Twitter to get your "real message straight tot he people."
Quote:And on the 132nd day, just after midnight, President Trump had at last delivered the nation to something approaching unity — in bewilderment, if nothing else.
The state of our union was … covfefe.
The trouble began, as it so often does, on Twitter, in the early minutes of Wednesday morning. Mr. Trump had something to say. Kind of.
“Despite the constant negative press covfefe,” the tweet began, at 12:06 a.m., from @realDonaldTrump, the irrepressible internal monologue of his presidency.
And that was that.
A minute passed. Then another. Then five.
Surely he would delete the message.
Ten. Twenty. It was nearly 12:30 a.m.
Forty minutes. An hour. The questions mounted. Had the president’s lawyers, so eager to curb his stream-of-consciousness missives, tackled the commander in chief under the cover of night?
Perhaps, some worried aloud, Mr. Trump had experienced a medical episode a quarter of the way through his 140 characters.
No one at the White House could immediately be reached for comment.
By 1 a.m., the debate had effectively consumed Twitter — or at least a certain segment of insomniac Beltway types, often journalists and political operatives — ascending the list of trending topics.
“Of course #covfefe is real word,” wrote @Diane_7A, recalling an invented tragedy once invoked by the Trump White House. “It was coined during the Bowling Green Massacre.”
“What if this is it,” asked Emily Nussbaum, the New Yorker television critic, after just five minutes. “That is his final tweet & the rest of history stops.”
Some appeared to temper their whimsy as a more sobering news story dominated the medium: a huge explosion shaking Kabul, leaving dozens dead or wounded.
But the instinct to linger was powerful, for those who had glimpsed the initial post, even if they did not seem entirely sure why they were still awake.
“Covfefe,” said Tasneem Raja, a journalist, perhaps chafing at the growing communal giddiness. “There, I participated.” Eventually, the jokes lurched into delirium. Twitter users held forth on the former F.B.I. director James Covfefe. They pledged to order a grande covfefe during their next Starbucks runs. They announced they had at last discovered what Bill Murray whispered to Scarlett Johansson at the end of “Lost in Translation.”
And as the hour wore on, stragglers turned their lonely eyes to the only account that could save them.
“Help, @MerriamWebster,” pleaded Jessica Taylor, a reporter at N.P.R., one of several to make the request.
The dictionary obliged.
“Wakes up. Checks Twitter. Uh...” it began. “Regrets checking Twitter. Goes back to bed.”
The tweet was finally deleted about six hours after it was initially posted.
Put me in mind of this:
So this wasn't policy. It wasn't anything hypocritical. It was just a 70 year old man falling asleep int he middle of a tweet (probably). And it will distract from all the other things because it's easy to poke fun of.
Bad for both sides.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
The majority of the right in congress believe that Trump is a moron and a embarrassment to the Presidency and the Republican party. They are not stupid but because of the political football of "our" side versus "their side", they don't speak out about all the dumb shit he says and does. Most will just deflect and not say anything negative about Trump. (John McCain being one of the few exceptions but Trump insulted the hell out of him so maybe this is why he speaks up). Is all those right wing congressmen silent for a reason? Yes. They are worried about reelection and getting blackballed. They hate Trump and could give a shit less about the American citizens. If reversed the Left wing would probably act the same way but not as bad as the right. The left is willing to spread the wealth around a little while the right wants it all to themselves.
One thing good about Trump becoming POTUS is how all these politicians are being exposed as the frauds they really are. Thank You for your time!
Well, at least we know someone has taken his phone away. This tweet demonstrates self deprecating humour we KNOW Trump does not possess. https://t.co/A24JYBr9MM
(05-31-2017, 07:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: This has become a common tactic from Trump supporters. Keep asking for examples. Then claiming they were "taking out of context" or that they weren't what he meant.
When you can provide dozens of examples it gets to the point where everything is slogged down because there are so many they don't have to focus or even explain one.
I'd say it's a good defensive move by the right but it's more a sign of agitation that they know they can't defend what he says so they try to make it that since he says a LOT of dumb/hypocritical things it's just everyone ELSE picking on him because they say there are so many of them.
Nobody asked for examples. He gave them, and they were poor examples in my opinion. when I point it out I'm told to ignore the examples given that prove his point. But somehow that's a tactic of the right?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Funny how Trump haters conveniently omit the second part of his so called "Muslim ban".
Why can't you display some integrity and admit that Trump proposed a ban on foreigners from Muslim nations until a better system of vetting could be put in place? In other words a moratorium...probably to big a word for Trumps vocabulary.
Incidentally his revised executive order...a travel ban on 7 nations that Obama also had on his list of "nations of concern" was rejected by a scumbag liberal activist judge who based his reasoning solely on what Trump said during his campaign, not the law. That was classic judge playing liberal activist. Trump had the Constitutional right to do what he did.
Demeaning ethnic minorities. You mean when he said "Mexico doesn't send its best, it sends killers and rapists"? Devastating. Some Mexicans got their feelings hurt.
Trump received 30% of the Hispanic vote. Very good for a Republican.
Seems many Mexicans understood what Trump was trying to convey. Too bad you didn't.
(05-31-2017, 11:12 AM)Vlad Wrote: Funny how Trump haters conveniently omit the second part of his so called "Muslim ban".
Why can't you display some integrity and admit that Trump proposed a ban on foreigners from Muslim nations until a better system of vetting could be put in place? In other words a moratorium...probably to big a word for Trumps vocabulary.
Incidentally his revised executive order...a travel ban on 7 nations that Obama also had on his list of "nations of concern" was rejected by a scumbag liberal activist judge who based his reasoning solely on what Trump said during his campaign, not the law. That was classic judge playing liberal activist. Trump had the Constitutional right to do what he did.
Demeaning ethnic minorities. You mean when he said "Mexico doesn't send its best, it sends killers and rapists"? Devastating. Some Mexicans got their feelings hurt. Trump received 30% of the Hispanic vote. Very good for a Republican.
Seems many Mexicans understood what Trump was trying to convey. Too bad you didn't.
(05-31-2017, 11:12 AM)Vlad Wrote: Funny how Trump haters conveniently omit the second part of his so called "Muslim ban".
Why can't you display some integrity and admit that Trump proposed a ban on foreigners from Muslim nations until a better system of vetting could be put in place? In other words a moratorium...probably to big a word for Trumps vocabulary.
Incidentally his revised executive order...a travel ban on 7 nations that Obama also had on his list of "nations of concern" was rejected by a scumbag liberal activist judge who based his reasoning solely on what Trump said during his campaign, not the law. That was classic judge playing liberal activist. Trump had the Constitutional right to do what he did.
Demeaning ethnic minorities. You mean when he said "Mexico doesn't send its best, it sends killers and rapists"? Devastating. Some Mexicans got their feelings hurt.
Trump received 30% of the Hispanic vote. Very good for a Republican.
Seems many Mexicans understood what Trump was trying to convey. Too bad you didn't.
Glad to see you are calling it what it was--a MUSLIM BAN. That is what makes the ban unconstitutional as well as short-sighted and logically inconsistent.
Why would anyone be showing "integrity" by supporting an unconstitutional ban because it was not permanent?
And Trump does not have a Constitutional right to violate the Constitution. That is one difference between an authoritarian dictator and a president in government structured by checks and balances. Rush and Hannity exclude Trump's stated intention from his reason for the ban. No reason why a judge should.
The point of the remainder of your post is unclear. I guess you are arguing that some hispanics, who are not all Mexican, voted for Trump so he couldn't really have been demeaning them when associating Mexicans with killers and rapists. They understood "what he was trying to convey." This gets back to the theme of the thread--do words matter? They certainly matter less if you can always assume Trump meant something other than what he said, something his followers "understand" if no one else does. What they understand is either never clearly articulable or in direct contradiction with what Trump actually said.
Words do matter to some degree or we would not be seeing so many people, including White House staff, constantly walking back and explaining what Trump "really meant." Week to week for months now. Words don't matter so much to Trump supporters, since if they did they would tie Trump and supporters to logical consistency, thought out positions, knowledge, competence. All of that, and the standards they imply, have fallen to the wayside since Trump's election.
(05-31-2017, 11:12 AM)Vlad Wrote: Funny how Trump haters conveniently omit the second part of his so called "Muslim ban".
Why can't you display some integrity and admit that Trump proposed a ban on foreigners from Muslim nations until a better system of vetting could be put in place? In other words a moratorium...probably to big a word for Trumps vocabulary.
Incidentally his revised executive order...a travel ban on 7 nations that Obama also had on his list of "nations of concern" was rejected by a scumbag liberal activist judge who based his reasoning solely on what Trump said during his campaign, not the law. That was classic judge playing liberal activist. Trump had the Constitutional right to do what he did.
Demeaning ethnic minorities. You mean when he said "Mexico doesn't send its best, it sends killers and rapists"? Devastating. Some Mexicans got their feelings hurt.
Trump received 30% of the Hispanic vote. Very good for a Republican.
Seems many Mexicans understood what Trump was trying to convey. Too bad you didn't.
The wall. Illegal crossings have dropped 40% and arrests up 39%. Fantastic news. Maybe we don't need no stinking wall after all. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/26/white-house-30000-criminal-aliens-apprehended-by-ice-in-100-days/
That's good because it probably won't be a wall anymore.
Quote:When is a wall not a wall? When it’s a fence.
That was the question on many minds on Wednesday when Sean Spicer, the accident-prone White House press secretary, gave a presentation on border security with the aid of TV screens.
“This is what exists right now throughout our country,” he declared, gesturing towards four images of ageing, flimsy defences. “You see a place where cars can literally create little things and drive over. You’ve got places that can get burrowed under. That one they’ve created. That one doesn’t seem to be effective at keeping people in it.”
Inside the White House press room: a rollercoaster of euphoria and nausea
These sorry images represented the country’s current border security, he said, adding that every time someone broke through, it cost just under $1,000 to fix. “Now to the next slide,” he said, teasing a reporter: “You had no idea you were getting this, did you?”
The spending bill agreed by Congress until the end of September would allocate an additional $497.4m for procurement, construction and improvements, of which $341.2m is to replace about 40 miles of “border fencing” along the southwest border.
Spicer said: “We have a porous border right now with broken fences, things that can be cut through, places that can just literally be driven over. And to replace this with a 20ft high bollard wall will protect our country, something that the DHS [Department of Homeland Security] has designated the most effective way to do this. So that’s what we got out of this bill.”
But, a journalist wondered, did the new set of photos on display show walls or fences? The construction of a wall on the Mexican border was a constant theme of Trump’s divisive election campaign. But the images in the White House briefing room displayed a steel barrier with vertical bars through which daylight was visible.
Turning defensive, Spicer pointed and said: “That is called a bollard wall. That is called a levee wall. There are various types of wall that can be built, under the legislation that was just passed.”
There was some more agitated back and forth with the press. Under the spending bill, Spicer promised, a chain link fence visible in the photos would be replaced with a bollard wall. Another journalist interjected: “It’s not the wall the president promised.”
Spicer insisted: “What I’m telling anybody is that the president said he was going to build the wall and he’s doing it, and he’s using the best technology.”
Trump’s eventual vision of the wall remains uncertain. The White House budget director, Mick Mulvaney, added to the confusion on Tuesday by pointing to images of the bollard wall and claiming: “This is the wall, by the way, that DHS said they wanted. I saw in the Oval Office with the president. We’ve talked about bricks and mortar. We’ve talked about concrete walls. This is what DHS wants. Why? Because it actually works better.”
Last week, addressing the National Rifle Association in Atlanta, the president acknowledged that the wall would not run continuously along the entire border, for example where there are rivers. He will be able to try again for funding for a different type of border wall in September, but there is a risk that opposition from Democrats could lead to a government shutdown.
The debate over definitions prompted mockery on Twitter. Samantha Bee’s Full Frontal TV show tweeted: “‘For my science project, I’ll explain the difference between a fence and a wall. What? Yes, I understood the assignment.’ #wallsplaining”.
Under this umbrella I was thinking about Spicer say the President has a small circle who knows what "covfefe" meant....with a straight face.
Two thoughts:
1) Trump will never admit to a mistake. Ever.
2) Trump always says he uses Twitter because he can get his unfiltered message out to the masses. And when Spicer parses his words like that I can imagine it *IS* Spicer's spin on what the POTUS told him. I can hear Trump saying "...tell them *WE* know what it means...MY people know..." and Spicer cleans it up. Probably a lot of times that spicer seems like a bumbler he is trying to clean up the monosyllabic message from his boss.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 18740496_1647137305299765_35016874740437...e=59A8932E]](https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18740496_1647137305299765_3501687474043772156_n.jpg?oh=e136e34f1101fcce76bf98b2904dd583&oe=59A8932E)
![[Image: DBINr4QUwAAIHI-.jpg:small]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBINr4QUwAAIHI-.jpg:small)
![[Image: jzUXPLtF_normal.jpeg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/418571845789827072/jzUXPLtF_normal.jpeg)
![[Image: b94a8ff709b61967734dbd6188d723df_normal.jpeg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/3375319469/b94a8ff709b61967734dbd6188d723df_normal.jpeg)
emily nussbaum ![[Image: ceCKnW9D_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/587043889795747840/ceCKnW9D_normal.jpg)
Tasneem Raja ![[Image: DBILwbfXoAADMb5.jpg:large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBILwbfXoAADMb5.jpg:large)
![[Image: l2aoRVO4_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/789133456387084288/l2aoRVO4_normal.jpg)
Jessica Taylor 
![[Image: 053117tweet.jpg]](https://s2.postimg.org/xpxajaae1/053117tweet.jpg)
