Has Trump personally acknowledged that the Women's March even happened?

[Leo_Krupe]

@Starving_Artist

He cares what people think because of its impact on what he wants to do, but not in the context of hurt feelings or personal offense or a desire for approval.

I’ve read enough of your posts to realize you’re sincere in your beliefs. I’ll be polite and respectful to say I disagree, and leave it at that. Anything else I have to say won’t be posted.

[Starving_Artist]

@iiandyiiii

For a less snarky response, Starving Artist, I’m continually mystified by your criticism of the present. In the 50s, I’d be arrested because I was married to the wrong race. That seems, literally, infinitely worse than anything negative you described in that post. And that was just a small part of the bad parts about America before the 60s. There are problems today, but the ones you describe are just so pathetic (seriously? public crassness?) compared to the problems (dude, I’D HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR FUCKING BEING WITH THE GODDAMN LOVE OF MY LIFE!) from back then.

Well now you bring up a big bone of contention with me. Can you explain to me just exactly how it is that racist attitudes of the past couldn’t possibly have been corrected without simultaneously turning the country into a sewer? After all, the one really has absolutely nothing to do with the other, and tremendous strides had already been made in both women’s and racial rights decades before the lunacy of the counterculture revolution. And somehow women got the right to vote and minorities got major legislation passed all without public mention of a single fuck or pussy. How was that possible, one may ask, if such change can’t be achieved otherwise?

[Kimstu]

@Starving_Artist

Yes, I said his petty squabbling was designed to play to his supporters and keep the opposition from gaining the upper hand. Where in there did I say he couldn’t have said something even more effective?

Oh I see, you didn’t mean that you thought Trump should stop doing the petty squabbling, you just thought he should have squabbled a bit differently. Okay.

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Trump said what he said in private and it was never intended for the public.
[/QUOTE]

:dubious: Are you under the impression that Trump doesn’t have an extremely long track record of making vulgar remarks for public broadcast? Trump?

Have you never heard of Trump’s appearances on the Howard Stern radio show, where, among other things, he:

• endorsed Stern’s explicitly calling his daughter Ivanka “a piece of ass”,

• said that age 35 was “check-out time” for leaving a woman to be with a younger woman,

• said he’d have no problem banging 24-year-olds,

• talked about his personal sexual history including how he lost his virginity, having sex with menstruating women, his own marital infidelities, and how much sex he was still having with Melania,

• opined on whether (then-wife of Tiger Woods) Elin Nordegren’s ass was too big,

• and described the opportunities being a beauty pageant promoter provided to “inspect” beautiful women undressed?

“Well, I’ll tell you the funniest is that before a show, I’ll go backstage and everyone’s getting dressed, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it,” Trump said. “You know, I’m inspecting because I want to make sure that everything is good.”

“You know, the dresses. ‘Is everyone okay?’ You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that. […]”

I repeat: if you’re a Trump supporter and don’t like crassness, vulgarity and pussy talk, you definitely made a poor choice of candidate.

[Starving_Artist]

@Kimstu

I repeat: if you’re a Trump supporter and don’t like crassness, vulgarity and pussy talk, you definitely made a poor choice of candidate.

As you may recall, I didn’t vote for him. However it wasn’t because of his use of language, which if so would have been supremely stupid given the the weight of the issues at stake. It’s worth noting however that had the country not become the cesspool it has, such a scuzzy and lowlife asshole like Howard Stern would never have been on the air to begin with, nor would he have had an audience.

[Kimstu]

@Starving_Artist

As you may recall, I didn’t vote for him. However it wasn’t because of his use of language, which if so would have been supremely stupid given the the weight of the issues at stake.

In which case, given the weight of the issues at stake for the protestors and all the rest of us in Trump’s America, doesn’t it also seem supremely stupid to focus on pouting and grumbling over the use of vulgar language in the protests?

Remember, non-conservatives in general were never particularly upset just because Trump once uttered the word “pussy” in private. What we found repulsive was his bragging about being able to use his celebrity status and influence to force his sexual attentions on women without even waiting to get their consent.

Conservatives were the ones who were so appalled by the use of the word “pussy” but weren’t particularly bothered about the pro-sexual-assault attitude.

And btw, nobody was forcing Trump to appear on the Howard Stern show, irrespective of what cultural phenomena originally enabled the show to exist in the first place. So the responsibility for Trump’s crass and vulgar behavior in those appearances is all on him.

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

Well now you bring up a big bone of contention with me. Can you explain to me just exactly how it is that racist attitudes of the past couldn’t possibly have been corrected without simultaneously turning the country into a sewer? After all, the one really has absolutely nothing to do with the other, and tremendous strides had already been made in both women’s and racial rights decades before the lunacy of the counterculture revolution. And somehow women got the right to vote and minorities got major legislation passed all without public mention of a single fuck or pussy. How was that possible, one may ask, if such change can’t be achieved otherwise?

That era was much dirtier, much grosser, much less polite, much less clean, much ruder, etc. The incredibly minor stuff you complain of is nothing in terms of grossness and rudeness as compared to putting people in jail for who they marry, or segregating schools, or tolerating Jim Crow and sundown towns, or the language routinely used about women, black people, Asian people, gay people, and more. If society is a “sewer” now, than it was an absolute cesspool in that era, nigh-infinitely dirtier and cruder. Truly a disgusting era in our country’s history as compared to now.

All the other stuff really – and I mean this without snark – just sounds like the typical complaints of the elderly regarding the music and other mystifying elements of younger generations’ culture that they don’t understand.

[Kimstu]

@iiandyiiii

The incredibly minor stuff you complain of is nothing in terms of grossness and rudeness as compared to putting people in jail, or the language routinely used about women, black people, Asian people, gay people, and more.

Yup. Even though I personally don’t much like obscene or profane language and don’t typically use it, I definitely prefer a state of society where it’s okay to publicly use words like “fuck” and “pussy” than one where it’s okay to publicly use words like “nigger” and “faggot”.

And if Starving Artist wants to gripe that liberal social trends should have cleaned up the bigotry without normalizing the swear words, I’d point out that the liberal social trends wouldn’t even have happened if conservative society had undertaken to clean up its own bigotry in the first place.

[coremelt]

@AK84

And if the country gets fucked, too bad.:rolleyes:
Trump had a higher % of the vote (46%) than Bill Clinton did in 1992 (43%). He won by the rules of the game as laid down.

The fact that the minority party can in some cases obstruct government is a feature, not a bug. It means that the GOP will have to in some cases compromise with Democrats to get things done. If they refuse to do that then that’s the GOP’s problem. Democratic Governments (Parliamentary and Presidential ones) are set up so that compromise is an essential part of the process, not rule by decree.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

The amount of “whataboutery” in this thread is quite incredible. Note to Democrats especially; you are as culpable of whiny hypocrisy in opposition as your opponents were in opposition.

The level of mandate a President has is quite subjective. Trump has as big a mandate as he wishes to interpret it as. Since it’s Trump he shall probably view his mandate as beautiful and huge. Such an interpretation may lead to an electoral backlash in 2 or 4 years but until then Trump can attempt to do with his mandate what he wishes.

[elucidator]

Well, yeah and duh. Even if he has no mandate worth a pitcher of warm Russian pee, he can do with it as he wishes. Good catch, there, in the category of firmly asserting the bleeding obvious.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@coremelt

It’s a perfectly valid thing to quote because it indicates factually that more people oppose Trump’s agenda than support it and they’re justified in using whatever legal and non-violent means they can to do so. Obstruct, delay, protest, filibuster, whatever it takes.

You can do those things even without winning the popular vote. Especially when just over half the electorate bothers to vote.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@elucidator

You are right about the design part, our Founding Fuckups were not, for the most part, trying to establish a democratic and egalitarian state. They were men of wealth and privilege with a firm determination to stay that way. But the Revolution opened a door that was never entirely closed, the possibility is there, and our job is realize the Dream. Its taking a lot longer than it should, but only God Almighty can stop it, and I don’t think She’s interested.

In what way does the Electoral College preserve the wealth and privilege of wealthy and privileged?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Merneith

Nonsense. That the Electoral College is the deciding factor in determining the winner of the presidential race does not mean that it’s the only factor.

Wait. What!?!?!

The Electoral college is in fact the only factor in determining who won the presidential race.

This is especially true in the US because the presidential race is not the only race that matters for setting and implementing an agenda. Those upcoming elections (and there will always be another election) will be settled by the popular vote. The many, many, politicians who will need to implement Donald’s agenda need to be very aware that the Popular Vote is not happy.

Its depends on the state you are in. If you are in California or New York, you should really reconsider any thoughts of ardent support of Trump’s agenda. If you are from the majority of the states in the union… there is more wiggle room.

When the politicians who are responsible for implementing Trump’s agenda go back to their voters, they would be smart not to say, “I know that you didn’t vote for Donald but he won so your voices don’t matter. Now vote for me!”

Once again, it depends on where you are from.

[LouisB]

@Starving_Artist

He cares what people think because of its impact on what he wants to do, but not in the context of hurt feelings or personal offense or a desire for approval.

You drink the high-grade unleaded brand of Kool-Aid; that much is obvious.

[ThelmaLou]

Hmmm… seems he did notice.

President Trump had just returned to the White House on Saturday from his final inauguration event, a tranquil interfaith prayer service, when the flashes of anger began to build.

Trump turned on the television to see a jarring juxtaposition — massive demonstrations around the globe protesting his day-old presidency and footage of the sparser crowd at his inauguration, with large patches of white empty space on the Mall.

As his press secretary, Sean Spicer, was still unpacking boxes in his spacious new West Wing office, Trump grew increasingly and visibly enraged.

Pundits were dissing his turnout. The National Park Service had retweeted a photo unfavorably comparing the size of his inauguration crowd with the one that attended Barack Obama’s swearing-in ceremony in 2009. A journalist had misreported that Trump had removed the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office. And celebrities at the protests were denouncing the new commander in chief — Madonna even referenced “blowing up the White House.”

Trump’s advisers suggested that he could push back in a simple tweet. Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a Trump confidant and the chairman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, offered to deliver a statement addressing the crowd size.

But Trump was adamant, aides said. Over the objections of his aides and advisers — who urged him to focus on policy and the broader goals of his presidency — the new president issued a decree: He wanted a fiery public response, and he wanted it to come from his press secretary…

Cite

Dang. That first day in office wasn’t nearly as much fun as he thought it would be.

[Steve_MB]

@Kimstu

Gee, and in order to achieve that it’s necessary for him to spend a significant chunk of a speech to CIA officials dishonestly whining about the media (correctly) describing turnout for his inauguration?

I hear that his performance in front of the CIA Memorial Wall was just the first stop of the Butthurt Express, which will be continuing on to Arlington National Cemetery and the USS Arizona site.

[Steve_MB]

@Starving_Artist

He cares what people think because of its impact on what he wants to do, but not in the context of hurt feelings or personal offense or a desire for approval.

Short-Fingered Vulgarian.
Short-Fingered Vulgarian.
Short-Fingered Vulgarian.

I dare anyone who denies that he’s thin-skinned to say it to his face.