~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Unlike some of us — :mad: :eek: :mad: — I don’t want to start lots of different threads, so let me piggy-back a related debate here.
George Will, noted conservative thinker says today’s Republican Party has “the same mentality” as the American Communist Party of the late 30’s and early 40’s. Obviously he’s not speaking of economic philosophy — the Communists wanted to give wealth to the workers, while the GOP wants to give more wealth to super-rich criminals — he’s referring to their methods of waging politics. George Will, described as “the conservative rock,” is no left-wing shill. His numerous awards include the Champion of Liberty Award from the Goldwater Institute. (Continue the video to see more examples of GOP and Trump hypocrisy.)
Dopers: Today’s GOP has same mentality of the 1940 Communist Party USA? You decide.
Trump brought up the word “nasty”. Trump says he thinks that Meghan Markle is “nasty” because she said critical things about him. If I were to say to someone “I didn’t know that you were so greedy”, it would be clear that I was implying that I thought they were greedy. The only reasonable defence would be to say that it was meant jokingly, not that it wasn’t said, because there is an audio recording of it.
I hate these dumb controversies so much. They’re stupid and Trump always wins them.
But… here’s what happened. The interviewer mentioned Markle made unkind comments about Trump, and he replied “well, I didn’t know she was nasty”. We know he habitually uses ‘nasty’ as a synonym for ‘unkind’. Not that she was unclean or diseased or whatever.
Now he’s denying it, because he denies everything. People are trying to pin him against the wall, and they look dumb because he always lies his way out of it, his base lets him, and it’s such a mild insult anyway to suggest someone is unkind.
The question and Trump’s delicate feelings being hurt, and his subsequent insult begin here at 1:29. Not sure why anyone would doubt it.
(It’s a great interview with the Sun, by the way. Are they a tabloid? The interview features such so-called presidential junk speak as: “I can say we have among the cleanest climate in the world right now.”)
Any question about Trump that begins with “Is he. Or did he?” Can be answered with five words. “Because he is a moron”. Covers every thing he does. Oh, you can go on to explain the usual criminal actions involved, but in the end, it comes down to the fact that he’s a moron.
Of course that’s calling her nasty. It’s not “technically” not calling her nasty just because he said “I didn’t know” before it. That’s not how language works.
HMS Irruncible is probably right about what he meant by the word nasty though - that fits better with the way he usually uses the word. So his use of the word isn’t that terrible, really, especially considering the rest of the interview. But lying about saying it is pathetic.
The Sun is a tabloid, right-wing and scurrilous. Its reading age is pitched at the age of 8, and it’s the most popular newspaper in the UK. They kind of sit on the fence about Trump most of the time.
Trump’s IQ was probably three-digits during much of his life and was probably not that of a moron (51 - 71 IQ) — (at least until his most recent half-senescent phase).
I think many or perhaps most morons would make a far better President than DJT — adults would take charge.
DJT is a criminal, a sinful asshole, an egregious sexual harasser, totally selfish, easily duped, almost illiterate, and confused but with treasonous instincts.
No. I think I’m going to have to say that his low IQ is among the least of Trump’s faults.
Is there really disagreement about this? If so, I think we need to move back to GD.
I don’t even see how it’s not “technically” calling her nasty. The implied word in what he said is “previously,” which Trump didn’t say because it’s more than two syllables, but here it is with that:
“I didn’t previously know she was nasty.”
That’s clear from the context that he was informed of something that he didn’t previously know, and he’s commenting that he now knows she’s nasty. I can’t agree that he didn’t technically call her nasty - he did call her that.
It has been my observation that he only seems to use the word in reference to statements by females. That being the case, there is something more in his intention. If in his mind “Nasty” = “Unkind to me” (or something similar), then one would expect to hear him use the word in describing any attack on him from anyone. Instead, I hear an implicit misogyny, that his expectation is that females should always exhibit a level of demure decorum, that only men are allowed to get in the gutter and duke it out (his preferred approach).