It means hearing people point out that Trump is a scumbag makes right-wingers sad.
Who’s permission does she need to give her personal opinion? Do you ask stupid questions like this of those who support Trump?
Personally, I’ve found that most actors who are interviewed on current events and politics seem to be very well-informed and articulate. For them to use a moment of time to make a public statement on matters they feel are of grave importance doesn’t seem like a lot for them to ask. She didn’t make a ten minute speech, she said a few sentences that hurt wittle Donnie’s feelings. Sad.
Score 1 for bobot. I could go through the thread and find many more, and through the other threads and find even more, but blowouts are so gauche.
Ravenman isn’t mocking your use of the English language because you butchered it, or used the incorrect words. He’s mocking the fact that the idea you conveyed made you appear to be a fucking moron, which - in an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt - he concluded you didn’t understand the words you were using.
Or you can go with your special snowflake interpretation, I guess.
No, actually it means that when you allege to be butt hurt because someone with a disability was insulted while at the same time having a long history of ignoring the feelings of a 13-year-old victim of vaginal and anal rape (twice in one night, btw) by a 43-year-old man in order to praise and support said rapist, it makes your concern appear contrived and phony or exaggerated. In other words, what you’re complaining about couldn’t really be all that bad, given the the things much worse by several orders of magnitude that you hand wave away while continuing to express love and support for the rapist and bemoan the fact that he’d been temporarily jailed during efforts to return him to the U.S. for sentencing.
It goes to your credibility and to just how bad and damaging is the behavior you’re condemning really is given that you’ve so easily shown callus disregard for the feelings of the young rape victim. My takeaway is that the disabled reporter likely was much less wounded by what Trump did than was the wounding suffered by the girl Polanski raped, so Streep’s whinging over her wounded heart because of Trump’s behavior is a load of, uh, trumped up bullshit that no one should take seriously.
Or in other words…
Hey, look over there!
Would you sudden interest in Polanski have anything to do with your reluctance to answer questions that actually pertain to the event being discussed…like this one:
Stop talking to me, you torture-supporting piece of shit.
I’m not okay with it, no. But in the overall scheme of things vis-a-vis running the country and dealing with Congress and foreign affairs and political and Supreme Court appointments and formulating legislation I think it’s relatively insignificant and that Streep’s comments were little more than politically-motivated manufactured outrage intended to justify her overall rallying call to oppose Trump at every turn.
As was her implication that Trump and his supporters are seeking to kick out all the country’s outsiders and [del]foreigners[/del] (excuse my faux-pas) legal and illegal immigrants (and, I suppose, all their offspring too no matter how many generations old their ‘foreignness’ is).
Her speech was manipulative nonsense that anyone with a shred of critical thinking ability would see through immediately, as I suspect many on the left do but because they’re in line with her politically will pretend they don’t.
Um, no.
Problem: People capable of critical thinking all think Trump is a worthless lying shitbag.
No, if they really had critical thinking ability and looked at the way Trump has led his life they’d know he’s not remotely racist or sexist or given to violence as a solution to getting his way (I’ll give you that he is a liar, but so’s Hillary and Bill and Barack (You can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan) Obama. So that’s pretty much a wash.
Instead they focus on the 1% or less of his companies that have gone bankrupt after years of profitable operation and undone by an overall downturn in New Jersey’s casino business and then claim he makes all his money by ripping off investors by taking his companies bankrupt.
The focus on his locker room talk and boorish behavior and call him misogynistic while ignoring the many women he has promoted to powerful executive positions within his companies and entrusted with the construction of many of his projects, including Trump Tower, the building he and his family live and work in.
They claim he inherited all his wealth from his daddy while at the same time wholly unable to explain how Trump inherited two multi-billion dollar fortunes from a father who died in 1999 and whose net worth even at the end of his life was only three hundred million.
And they focus on and immediately exaggerate virtually everything he says in an effort to make it seem more and worse than it is.
And they demonstrate that they wholly lack the ability to look at the facts and arrive at an opinion of Trump as he really is rather than the one bloviating on the campaign trail.
Speaking of lack of critical thinking ability, is it your contention that, say, Obama lies just as much as Trump?
Demonstrate the critical thinking that led you to that conclusion, please? Step-by-step.
Start with the facts. Show me the reasoning that you use to interpret the facts, and then show how the facts plus the reasoning lead you to the conclusion. Demonstrate your critical thinking abilities for me, please.
Yes! Notremotely sexist!
Starving, let’s* attempt* to stay in reality. Seriously, you are starting to sound a little 1984 Big Brothery.
Maybe this should have been spread out through three or four posts-piling up so much manure in such a confined area tends to kill the plants, rather than fertilize them.
Who the fuck are you, Todd Akin? Yes. “Locker room talk”. Bragging about sexual assault in explicit terms is locker room talk. Can we abort you? I realize this would be a bit late in the term, but you clearly have the critical thinking skills of a blastocyst.
But you, you special fucking snowflake, can see into his heart. You can see past the veils he sets up, to see that he only pretends to be an idiotic bigot all the time. Nice. What a lovely line of argumentation. “Never mind what the president-elect of the United States of America actually says, we know his heart!” If someone had offered a bullshit line like that about Clinton in response to her wall street speeches, I somehow doubt you would have taken them seriously. But no, really, you’re just mirroring the party line. Really.
Your point here does miss also Trump’s repeated support of torture.
Trump spews mostly empty words, backed by what were likely blank pages:
Let me see if I’ve got this straight. You cook up a contention I haven’t made, behave as though this invention of yours is factually what I’ve said, and then insist that I take you on a step-by-step process explaining just how it that I arrived at this fictitious claim?
The reality is that I said yeah, Trump’s a liar and so are your guys. I’m content to let it stand at that.
I said he was boorish. Still, I probably should have used the word misogynistic instead. You guys interchange them so regularly that the distinction gets lost.
Explain this chain of comments please.
But also, please clarify:
Does Trump lie more than Obama? Yes or no?
Does Trump lie more than the average person? Yes or no?
Is Trump a liar? Yes or no?
Is there anyone you would consider a moral person who lies as much as Trump does, and if so please name that person.