Why should Meryl Streep even mention Roman Polanski at all in the context of criticizing the behavior and policies of Donald Trump?
The only reason Trump supporters are trying to change the subject to Polanski is because they are unable to refute Streep’s condemnation of Trump’s spiteful and vindictive behavior in mocking the physical disability of a reporter who criticized him, and his opportunistic encouragement of xenophobic and authoritarian sentiments that undermine our democracy.
No, thanks. I prefer to choose for myself which comments to address and how I go about it.
But to answer what you’re trying to get at in a more personally amenable way, I’d say that I care about Trump’s lies roughly about as much as you and others on the left care about the lies of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Considering that Trump lies at least three to four times as much as Obama or Clinton, and lies far more systematically about more serious things, that puts your tolerance for putting up with lies at maybe five or six times the level that’s normal for a liberal.
My condolences, but the silver lining is that you’re going to get good use out of every scrap of your excessive lie-tolerance under the Trump administration.
I suspect the reason you aren’t answering those fairly simple questions is that you know Trump is a lying worthless shitbag, you just don’t want to admit it.
I will say that your failure to call out a man for his fairly serious moral shortcomings just because he shares your political leanings says something rather unpleasant about your own moral compass. Probably you just weren’t raised right.
See, here you go again with your characteristic use of verbal legerdemain. Shodan didn’t ask if condemned him ‘in that context’. He asked if she ever condemned him at any time. You obviously know this, as there’s no other reason for such verbal gymnastics.
No, the reason they’re bringing up Streep’s hypocrisy is to illustrate that her heart likely wasn’t nearly as claw-sunken and broken as she let on, and that her empathy is largely politically driven. Therefore it becomes apparent that Trump’s behavior likely wasn’t nearly as harmful or hurtful as she would have us believe and that much of her angst and call to arms against Trump is little more than her personal preference that we do so. (After all, she wouldn’t have gotten very far saying something along the lines of “Give Trump shit and question everything he does because he’s a republican and I’m a liberal”.) So she cooks up this phony bleeding heart speech in an effort to accomplish what she couldn’t by coming right out and saying so. And of course once the motives for her claims become clear we have better grounds to assess whether or how much to dismiss them.
So…you’re condemning Streep for behavior that you yourself engage in. In fact you’ve done more of it in this thread alone than Streep did in her talk. If someone was keeping a log of “Starving Artist’s moral failings” it would probably be about time for them to buy a bigger notebook.
But congratulations on your new opinion that child rapists should be condemned, regardless of their political leanings. That’s an opinion that would have greatly benefited you 5 years ago.
Or Ted Bundy, or John Wilkes Booth?
Which would be even more irrelevant. My apologies for perhaps giving too much credit to Shodan’s ability and willingness to ask a relevant question.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
No, the reason they’re bringing up Streep’s hypocrisy is to illustrate that her heart likely wasn’t nearly as claw-sunken and broken as she let on
[/quote]
But as I pointed out before, that’s a red herring because nobody cares about the exact state of Streep’s personal feelings on this issue. The personal-emotion angle is just included for effect, and everybody knows that.
What we care about is that Streep was absolutely right in condemning Trump’s spiteful and vindictive behavior in mocking the physical disability of a reporter who criticized him, and his opportunistic encouragement of xenophobic and authoritarian sentiments that undermine our democracy.
And Trump supporters keep trying to change the subject to red herrings about Roman Polanski, or the precise condition of Streep’s heart at the time of her speech, solely because they are unable to refute what Streep actually said about Trump.
Someone called the police, and the rest was history.
Hahahaha. Streep learned to play someone other than herself. That’s great. :rolleyes: It shows she is very committed to the art of pretending to be someone she’s not. It also demonstrates that she can fake sincerity, a very important skill in Hollyweird.
I have no problem stating my opinion. I don’t claim to speak for “everyone”. And I don’t care who you trust. I don’t trust play-actors, actors, or actresses to provide anything other than entertainment. You know, acting. Reading the words others have written, standing where others tell them to, wearing costumes and makeup that others put on them.
for historical reference -
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge
I don’t put a lot of faith in the words of play actors. They have spent too much time learning to convince others that they are someone other than who they are. Personally, I don’t trust play actors to do anything other than to act in plays, movies, and commercials. YMMV.
Hahahaha. Besides misquoting me, you don’t seem to understand the difference between a job that requires participants to pretend to be someone else, act as someone else, and speak as someone else, and jobs where people are expected to be honest about who they are, and honest and truthful with their fellow employees.
I see no reason to buy a Lincoln, or a Chevy, because some play actor tells me to. I see no reason to buy a phone, or a TV, or dog food because some play actor tells me to. Maybe you enjoy being influenced by a play actors fake sincerity.
For an effect nobody was supposed to take seriously then? Then why the need for effect at all?
Of course it was intended to have an effect, and the effect was supposed to be that her whinging about claws sinking into her heart when she learned of Trump’s gestures and how her heart has been broken by the election of this cruel, heartless man would have the effect of driving home to people just how grievous Trump’s behavior and election are, with the ultimate purpose being to make her audience feel the same and call them to arms to thwart him in every way possible. It’s laughable to maintain that comments about her feelings and beliefs are a red herring. The true red herring is the lame one you keep trying to put over every time someone shines a light on Steep’s actions and words, which are often in conflict it seems.
She made a little finger-wagging speech in another award show appearance some years back. (I’ll see if I can find it later when I have time.) Like most of Hollywood she’s a shill for left wing politics and I have no doubt she’d have had plenty of inflammatory comments to make no matter who’d been elected as long as they were a Republican.
What’s the difference between a “shill” and “someone who believes in a particular political viewpoint” ? A paycheck for saying so out loud?
Heard someone else use that word, so he is simply repeating it, much in the same way a trained bird will repeat phrases without the slightest understanding of what they mean.
It’s sort of cute (for a bird).
I was just wondering because if there’s money involved for saying Republicans have gone insane, I may as well get a slice and stop doing so for free.
Sorry - the only gig you can get these daysis as a Trump supporter.
You are much better than Streep in that the shit you post about Trump is so obviously stupid that you clearly aren’t trying to win your audience over to your point of view.
Unlike you, who doesn’t let his politics determine his beliefs, which is why you so frequently condemn Trump for being such a lying piece of shit.
I’m an atheist who doesn’t believe in souls, but I’m not desperate enough to sell mine just yet.
:dubious: You don’t seem to understand how rhetorical effect works. Conveying personal emotion makes an audience relate better and listen more closely to a speech, but no audience of grown-ups is seriously concerned with the exact extent to which the speaker is actually literally feeling the personal emotion they’re conveying at the moment they’re conveying it.
I’ll keep repeating this point as long as you keep attempting to evade it: The real issue is that Streep was absolutely right in condemning Trump’s spiteful and vindictive behavior in mocking the physical disability of a reporter who criticized him, and his opportunistic encouragement of xenophobic and authoritarian sentiments that undermine our democracy.
And Trump supporters keep trying to change the subject to red herrings about Roman Polanski, or the precise condition of Streep’s heart at the time of her speech, solely because they are unable to refute what Streep actually said about Trump.
I wonder how many times you would have had to use the term ‘play actor’ in his presence before Ronald Reagan woulda beat your ass.
Or Fred Thompson, who was elected to the Senate by the people of Tennessee?
Or Fred Grandy, elected to 4 congressional terms by the voters in Iowa?
I sure Ahnold! would have broken you like a twig on his way to the Governor’s Mansion in California.
Maybe Mayor Clint Eastwood would have shot you with his .44?
Sonny Bono would probably just have sicked Cher on you.
I know Charlton Heston would have a few choice words for you, after defending Clint’s right to shoot your punk ass.
Republicans, all.
Or did you mean that your derogatory ‘play’ term was meant only for librul actors? And that you are just a idiot.