Hey meryl streep, you are a play-actor, nothing more

[BigT]

@Shodan

Since Meryl Streep is the subject of the thread, could you link to where she unambiguously condemned Roman Polanski (who, by the way, was convicted) or Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner? Or is she such a diehard partisan that she simply can’t bring herself to denounce somebody who’s liberal or liberal-friendly, even in the case of really despicable behavior? And thus worthy of condemnation.

Regards,
Shodan

For fuck’s sake. She’s denouncing the soon-to-be president. You can’t expect her to go through and denounce every other fucking horrible person in the world just to have the right to do so.

I’m sure we can find loads of horrible people you haven’t denounced. I guess that means you can’t denounce Trump, either.

Plus, do you not get what is going on? We’re needling a thin skinned baby. Denouncing a child molester won’t do anything to him. But we might be able to drive this fucking narcissist up the wall and make him do something stupid and get himself impeached. Before some foreign leader does it and fucks up the world.

For someone who hates Trump, you sure still seem to get your jollies out of defending him. And that is what you are doing. You’re arguing that Streep shouldn’t have attacked him, by trying a tu quoque gambit.

I know you’re used to being on the opposite side, but you’re not now. You’re anti-Trump. So why the fuck do you want to create artificial barriers to people denouncing him?

[wolfpup]

@Typo_Negative

Or did you mean that your derogatory ‘play’ term was meant only for librul actors? And that you are just a idiot.

That’s what he meant. And the doorknob’s idiocy was established here a long time ago. In the climate change threads, for example. Never has so much been bloviated by someone who understood so little.

[Ale]

@Chisquirrel

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.

You almost got the point, almost. :smack:

[Ale]

@Ravenman

It took you a long time to come up with this rejoinder. Sad!

Yes, it is sad that one has to attend to matters in the real world instead of being hooked 24/7 to online discussions, some days I don’t know how I manage.

[Ale]

@Chisquirrel

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.

On second thought, I guess I better explain the point because, for a board priding itself on its intellectual level, things fly over people’s heads at an alarming rate.

You characterize my over reaction to Ravenman’s comment as being a “special snowflake interpretation”, what I wrote was to illustrate the same type of overreaction people are having with what Trump said, namely, picking the worst possible interpretation of an action in order to paint the person behind that action in the worst possible way.

So that’s the point, this particular brouhaha is, IMO, the work of special snowflakes seeking outrage and of course finding it, which again you almost got but then let it whoosh by.

[Kimstu]

@Ale

So that’s the point, this particular brouhaha is, IMO, the work of special snowflakes seeking outrage and of course finding it

I don’t think it really requires a whole lot of special-snowflakery to be appalled by the Republican nominee for President mocking the physical disability of a reporter (Serge Kovaleski) in an attempt to discredit Kovaleski’s (correct) debunking of Trump’s (false) assertion that a 2001 article by Kovaleski supported Trump’s (false) claim to have seen thousands of people in New Jersey cheering the fall of the World Trade Center in the 9/11 attacks.

[…] the candidate was attempting to argue that an article Kovaleski wrote in 2001 backed his false claim to have watched live television images on Sept. 11, 2001, of “thousands and thousands” of Arabs in New Jersey “cheering” as “the World Trade Center came tumbling down.”

[…] Trump refused to retract that false claim, continuing to insist that he had seen such scenes that day even after it became apparent that there was simply no footage, for the good reason that televised mass celebrations had not taken place.

Trump, desperate for any scrap of evidence that might keep him from being branded an outright liar, then began to cling to a sentence in a story Kovaleski wrote one week after the attacks for the Washington Post. In that article, Kovaleski had referred to the fact that a few people were arrested for allegedly celebrating the attacks (although none were subsequently charged and there was no video). […]

Kovaleski, however, undermined Trump’s spin by telling the Post’s Fact-Checker, Glenn Kessler, that, although his memory of the story was not perfect, “I certainly do not remember anyone saying that thousands or even hundreds of people were celebrating.”

Trump, thus exposed, then invented his wild mischaracterization of the reporter’s comments as “groveling” in which Kovaleski had supposedly “changed” what he had written in 2001, as part of an intentional effort “to make me look bad.”

I mean, that’s four Trump Specials right there in the same convenient package:

1. Vulgar and offensive ridiculing of irrelevant aspects of somebody’s physical appearance (an actual physical disability, no less).

2. Deliberately misrepresenting Kovaleski’s contradiction of Trump’s false assertion (3) in an attempt to discredit it.

3. Falsely asserting that Kovaleski’s 2001 article supported Trump’s false claim (4) about having seen nonexistent images of things that didn’t happen.

4. The stupid and xenophobic lie at the root of the whole shameful episode: Falsely claiming to have seen footage of “thousands” of people in NJ “cheering” at the attacks, footage that never existed because the alleged mass cheering never happened.
   Seriously, Trump supporters, the more you try to deflect and dismiss this disgusting episode, the more you invite scrutiny of the idiotic, dishonest and spiteful things Trump actually did, and the worse Trump (and you) end up looking.

[Ukulele_Ike]

But…but…Meryl Streep clapped for POLANSKI!

[Ale]

@Kimstu

I don’t think it really requires a whole lot of special-snowflakery to be appalled by the Republican nominee for President mocking the physical disability of a reporter (Serge Kovaleski) in an attempt to discredit Kovaleski’s (correct) debunking of Trump’s (false) assertion that a 2001 article by Kovaleski supported Trump’s (false) claim to have seen thousands of people in New Jersey cheering the fall of the World Trade Center in the 9/11 attacks.
I mean, that’s four Trump Specials right there in the same convenient package:

1. Vulgar and offensive ridiculing of irrelevant aspects of somebody’s physical appearance (an actual physical disability, no less).

2. Deliberately misrepresenting Kovaleski’s contradiction of Trump’s false assertion (3) in an attempt to discredit it.

3. Falsely asserting that Kovaleski’s 2001 article supported Trump’s false claim (4) about having seen nonexistent images of things that didn’t happen.

4. The stupid and xenophobic lie at the root of the whole shameful episode: Falsely claiming to have seen footage of “thousands” of people in NJ “cheering” at the attacks, footage that never existed because the alleged mass cheering never happened.
   Seriously, Trump supporters, the more you try to deflect and dismiss this disgusting episode, the more you invite scrutiny of the idiotic, dishonest and spiteful things Trump actually did, and the worse Trump (and you) end up looking.

The thing I liked about this forum was that it was a place were discussions were rational and evidence based, now it seems to have morphed into something else.
The OP’s point was that Trump uses that same gesticulation to impersonate other people as being confused or flustered, to challenge the notion that Trump specifically acted that way to mock a mans disability.

The thing is, the first proposition is supported by a citation, namely video recording of Trump using the same gesticulations when impersonating what other people said, the second one rests on assuming what Trump’s motives where at the time and ignores the inconvenient fact that he has used the same body language before to mimic people with no physical disabilities.

Personally I’d base my opinions on verifiable evidence and leave the mind reading to others, I’m not taking part in this “Post-Truth” zeitgeist and it pains me to see the SDMB going down that path.

I was reading Obama’s farewell speech, I thought this part was applicable here:
“But without some common baseline of facts, without a willingness to admit new information and concede that your opponent might be making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, then we’re going to keep talking past each other.”

So here you, and others, are, refusing to accept the fact that Trump has used the same mannerism before when impersonating people without any physical disability and refusing to consider that it is a fair point to be made that he probably was just using the same gesturing as he had used before to portray his adversary as confused and flustered and not as mocking any disability.

But hey, what would I know?, I’m such a moron that I wasn’t aware that I’m a Trump supporter either so you must have a much better ability to judge the motivations of people than I do. :rolleyes:

[Ale]

By the way, going back to that Obama quote, the part about accepting new information.
When this issue came up my first impression was that Trump was, in fact, mocking the physical condition of that journalist, I changed my mind (the horror!), when new information became available.

Before forming any opinion on the latest Trump (or whoever) scandal I wait until more information becomes available, other people may be on the stage of simply dismissing any new allegations as more Fake NewsTM.

For the people that desperately try to discredit Trump out of existence, the more you ignore the moral of the story The Boy Who Cried Wolf the more you damage your own cause.

[Kimstu]

@Ale

The OP’s point was that Trump uses that same gesticulation to impersonate other people as being confused or flustered, to challenge the notion that Trump specifically acted that way to mock a mans disability.

The thing is, the first proposition is supported by a citation, namely video recording of Trump using the same gesticulations when impersonating what other people said […]

Have you perhaps mixed up the OP of this thread with a different one? Because the OP of this thread says, in its entirety,

@koufax

Trump may turn out to be the worst President of all time, but please remember Bill Clinton RAPED Juanita Broderick and Hillary tried to intimidate her into silence, Obama signed into law the Indefinite Detention Act and President Cheney sent us looking for weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist.

Oh, by the way, that horrible sexist Trump had a woman run his Presidential campaign and had a woman in charge of building Trump Tower

And if you listen to the tape of Trump and his famous “grab them by the pussy” quote he says “they let you” meaning it is consensual as in “groupies”.

Ms. Streep, please stick to your PLAY-acting and let the grownups try to do their job.

Nothing there at all about specifics of Trump’s “gesticulation”, just a spluttering tantrum of scattershot attempts at deflection and distraction.

And could you please indicate precisely where in the OP’s linked video you are claiming there is a “recording of Trump using the same gesticulations when impersonating what other people said”?

Because AFAICT, the only “gesticulation”-based argument that the 12-minute video in the OP’s link attempts to make is the extremely feeble point that since Kovaleski’s disability makes his arm immobile and Trump’s imitation of him involved some elbow-flapping, therefore Trump couldn’t have been trying to mimic Kovaleski physically. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Ale]
So here you, and others, are, refusing to accept the fact that Trump has used the same mannerism before when impersonating people without any physical disability
[/quote]

Once again, could you please cite the alleged evidence that Trump has “used the same mannerism before when impersonating people without any physical disability”? Because AFAICT there’s nothing like that in the OP’s linked video.

[Kimstu]

[QUOTE=Ale]
he probably was just using the same gesturing as he had used before to portray his adversary as confused and flustered and not as mocking any disability.
[/quote]

:dubious: Ale, I am happy to take every opportunity you want to give me to remind readers of what Trump actually said and did in this whole revolting episode.

Let’s start with Trump’s original stupid and xenophobic lie about the “cheering thousands”, that he subsequently, and even more stupidly, doubled down on in the face of flat contradiction by the facts:

VIDEO CLIP OF TRUMP: “Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “You know, the police say that didn’t happen and all those rumors have been on the Internet for some time. So did you misspeak yesterday?”

TRUMP: “It did happen. I saw it.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “You saw that…”

TRUMP: “It was on television. I saw it.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “…with your own eyes?”

TRUMP: “George, it did happen.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Police say it didn’t happen.”

TRUMP: “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down — as those buildings came down. And that tells you something. It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don’t like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “As I said, the police have said it didn’t happen.” […]

[…] a Washington Post article from Sept. 18, 2001 […] described FBI probes in northern New Jersey after the attacks, saying in the 15th paragraph that “law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks […]”

Of course, “a number of people” obviously does not equal “thousands” — and “allegedly” indicates there is no video footage or other proof that celebrations actually took place. Recall that Trump claimed he saw this on television — and that it was “well covered at the time.” […]

“I certainly do not remember anyone saying that thousands or even hundreds of people were celebrating,” said Serge Kovaleski, one of the reporters. “That was not the case, as best as I can remember.”​

That reasonable, firm and well-expressed objection by Kovaleski to Trump’s ridiculous false claim about “well covered” televised footage of “a heavy Arab population” in New Jersey “cheering as that building came down” is what Trump dishonestly attempted to portray as follows in the speech where he mocked Kovaleski:

@Donald Trump

[…] a nice reporter, now, the poor guy, you gotta see this guy: [makes “spazzy-looking” open-mouthed face, holds up right hand awkwardly bent at wrist] *"Uuhhh, I don’t know what I said… * flaps elbows, waggles arms Uuhhhh… I don’t rememberrr!" He’s go like, “I don’t rememberrr…I uh duh”

Remember, Ale, according to you, putting Trump’s actions in the very best possible light, he’s still dishonestly deriding, parodying and misrepresenting Kovaleski’s valid objection to Trump’s false assertion that Kovaleski’s article supported Trump’s repeated lie about having seen televised footage of thousands of Arabs in New Jersey cheering the fall of the Twin Towers, which never happened.

@Ale

But hey, what would I know?, I’m such a moron that I wasn’t aware that I’m a Trump supporter

Well, I don’t diagnose mental disability over the internet (or in person either for that matter, not having the necessary medical qualifications). But it does occur to me to wonder why, if you’re not in fact a moron, you are expending so much effort fruitlessly attempting to defend the lies and sleazy behavior of a thoroughly untrustworthy and belligerently unpleasant politician whom you say you don’t even support.

[Kimstu]

Follow-up: I found the approximately 20 seconds of the OP’s linked 12-minute video (around 5:45) where it’s claimed that Trump uses similar behavior to physically mock non-disabled people as well. That claim seems extremely weak to me, since Trump’s gesticulations and face/voice in the other clips did not seem at all the same as the “spazzy-looking” act he put on to mock “the poor guy, you gotta see this guy” Kovaleski.

[Ale]

@Kimstu

:dubious: Ale, I am happy to take every opportunity you want to give me to remind readers of what Trump actually said and did in this whole revolting episode.

Let’s start with Trump’s original stupid and xenophobic lie about the “cheering thousands”, that he subsequently, and even more stupidly, doubled down on in the face of flat contradiction by the facts:

That reasonable, firm and well-expressed objection by Kovaleski to Trump’s ridiculous false claim about “well covered” televised footage of “a heavy Arab population” in New Jersey “cheering as that building came down” is what Trump dishonestly attempted to portray as follows in the speech where he mocked Kovaleski:
Remember, Ale, according to you, putting Trump’s actions in the very best possible light, he’s still dishonestly deriding, parodying and misrepresenting Kovaleski’s valid objection to Trump’s false assertion that Kovaleski’s article supported Trump’s repeated lie about having seen televised footage of thousands of Arabs in New Jersey cheering the fall of the Twin Towers, which never happened.

Well, I don’t diagnose mental disability over the internet (or in person either for that matter, not having the necessary medical qualifications). But it does occur to me to wonder why, if you’re not in fact a moron, you are expending so much effort fruitlessly attempting to defend the lies and sleazy behavior of a thoroughly untrustworthy and belligerently unpleasant politician whom you say you don’t even support.

“whom you say you don’t even support.”
You are putting in doubt what I said?

Because then, right there is the issue I have with all this, putting personal opinions, emotions and beliefs ahead of objective truth, you know, that Post-Truth thing I was talking about.
I say I am not a Trump supporter, or defender, but you seem to still want to believe otherwise, that you can’t fathom why I wouldn’t be if I don’t buy into a particular narrative of events.

For the record I think the man is completely unqualified in any possible metric to be the president of the USA (or any position of power for that matter) and the reason I think he got there is, IMO, largely thanks to the type of beheaviour you are displaying here; only when a political environment is so detached from rational, measured discussion can something like this happen.

[Monty]

Question for the OP and any other “Trump supporters”: Why do you think it’s acceptable behavior for the president (or soon to be president) of a country to be mocking anyone?

[Kimstu]

@Ale

“whom you say you don’t even support.”
You are putting in doubt what I said?

No; I’m just pointing out to you that by your own admission, you don’t buy into the Trump-supporter delusion that he’s in any way an admirable or trustworthy person.

So why are you assuming that Trump’s description of his intentions and behavior in mocking Kovaleski is reliable? I just listed three other things that he clearly lied about, repeatedly, in this very same incident.

Why are you so unwilling to believe that when he brought up Kovaleski and said “the poor guy, you gotta see this guy” and did a “spazzy” face and voice and gestures, he was making fun of Kovaleski’s disability? Do you suppose that he’s too kind to do such a thing, or too honest to lie about it? Trump? Why on earth are you assuming he’s entitled to be believed on this?

[QUOTE=Ale]
I say I am not a Trump supporter, or defender, but you seem to still want to believe otherwise
[/quote]

Set your mind at rest, I don’t care whether you’re any kind of a Trump partisan or not. But I do maintain that if you’re not, then your adamant denial of the most natural, logical and characteristic interpretation of Trump’s behavior doesn’t seem to make any sense.

[QUOTE=Ale]
[…] and the reason I think he got there is, IMO, largely thanks to the type of beheaviour you are displaying here; only when a political environment is so detached from rational, measured discussion can something like this happen.
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: Piffle. I’m the one here making rational, measured references to verifiable facts and evidence about what Trump actually said and did in the course of this incident. As opposed to the OP and his fellow right-wing play-posters constantly trying to change the subject to irrelevant issues such as whether Streep clapped for Polanski and what her heart really felt like when she was giving her speech.

I warn you, Ale, blaming liberals for the degeneration of political discourse, while never a very convincing line of argument, is going to get exponentially more difficult in the Trump years. This is a guy who is not only dishonest, irrational and petulant but also apparently incapable of admitting he’s wrong. Criticizing that is not being a “special snowflake seeking outrage”.

Remember, this whole debacle was kicked off by the fact that Trump made up in a public speech some misremembered bullshit about something he imagined he saw on TV and refused to back down when the facts clearly disproved it.

Then he dishonestly attempted to pretend that a statement in Kovaleski’s article corroborated his misremembered bullshit. And when Kovaleski politely but clearly contradicted that pretense, Trump deliberately distorted his remark in a disparaging way in order to claim that Kovaleski was “changing his story” or didn’t know what he was talking about.

And yet what really bugs you about this whole mess is the concern that Trump might not be getting sufficient benefit of the doubt when he denies that he was also mocking Kovaleski’s physical disability? :dubious: Really?

[Ale]

@Kimstu

No; I’m just pointing out to you that by your own admission, you don’t buy into the Trump-supporter delusion that he’s in any way an admirable or trustworthy person.

So why are you assuming that Trump’s description of his intentions and behavior in mocking Kovaleski is reliable? I just listed three other things that he clearly lied about, repeatedly, in this very same incident.

Why are you so unwilling to believe that when he brought up Kovaleski and said “the poor guy, you gotta see this guy” and did a “spazzy” face and voice and gestures, he was making fun of Kovaleski’s disability? Do you suppose that he’s too kind to do such a thing, or too honest to lie about it? Trump? Why on earth are you assuming he’s entitled to be believed on this?
Set your mind at rest, I don’t care whether you’re any kind of a Trump partisan or not. But I do maintain that if you’re not, then your adamant denial of the most natural, logical and characteristic interpretation of Trump’s behavior doesn’t seem to make any sense.
:rolleyes: Piffle. I’m the one here making rational, measured references to verifiable facts and evidence about what Trump actually said and did in the course of this incident. As opposed to the OP and his fellow right-wing play-posters constantly trying to change the subject to irrelevant issues such as whether Streep clapped for Polanski and what her heart really felt like when she was giving her speech.

I warn you, Ale, blaming liberals for the degeneration of political discourse, while never a very convincing line of argument, is going to get exponentially more difficult in the Trump years. This is a guy who is not only dishonest, irrational and petulant but also apparently incapable of admitting he’s wrong. Criticizing that is not being a “special snowflake seeking outrage”.

Remember, this whole debacle was kicked off by the fact that Trump made up in a public speech some misremembered bullshit about something he imagined he saw on TV and refused to back down when the facts clearly disproved it.

Then he dishonestly attempted to pretend that a statement in Kovaleski’s article corroborated his misremembered bullshit. And when Kovaleski politely but clearly contradicted that pretense, Trump deliberately distorted his remark in a disparaging way in order to claim that Kovaleski was “changing his story” or didn’t know what he was talking about.

And yet what really bugs you about this whole mess is the concern that Trump might not be getting sufficient benefit of the doubt when he denies that he was also mocking Kovaleski’s physical disability? :dubious: Really?

Just going to answer the last part now.

Yes, you know why? Because that’s a particular point I choose to pick, back in the first post I made here I pointed out, by putting two video frames side by side, that people saying that the two gestures were completely different were wrong; I commented on that because to me it is a clear example of the “Post-Truth” environment of today.

If you have a problem with me sticking to that particular point and not following you into other matters then don’t complain about others trying to deflect an argument by bringing up something else (i.e. the
Polansky affair), it sounds quite hypocritical, just as casting stones about the degeneration of political discourse after your multiple ad hominems.

[Gyrate]

@Monty

Question for the OP and any other “Trump supporters”: Why do you think it’s acceptable behavior for the president (or soon to be president) of a country to be mocking anyone?

I’m about as far from a Trump supporter as you can get, but in the interest of fairness it’s worth remembering that The Donald himself was openly mocked by the current president. Admittedly Trump started it (and IMO deserved it), but there you go.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Ale

Just going to answer the last part now.

Yes, you know why? Because that’s a particular point I choose to pick, back in the first post I made here I pointed out, by putting two video frames side by side, that people saying that the two gestures were completely different were wrong; I commented on that because to me it is a clear example of the “Post-Truth” environment of today.

Maybe you should try putting video clips side by side, and avoid a potential dip into snapshot fallacy territory.

In any case, the interpretation you are offering requires a generosity to Trump that he arguably has not earned.

@Gyrate

I’m about as far from a Trump supporter as you can get, but in the interest of fairness it’s worth remembering that The Donald himself was openly mocked by the current president. Admittedly Trump started it (and IMO deserved it), but there you go.

Indeed. In the context of a Correspondent’s Dinner (for example), presidents are expected to use mockery. It’s kind of silly to pretend that a president can never or should never do so, though if he tells a joke that strikes some as offensive in content or context, let him deal with the fallout like anyone else.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Bryan_Ekers

…

Indeed. In the context of a Correspondent’s Dinner (for example), presidents are expected to use mockery. It’s kind of silly to pretend that a president can never or should never do so, though if he tells a joke that strikes some as offensive in content or context, let him deal with the fallout like anyone else.

The sort of mocking that occurs at a Correspondents Dinner requires* wit*. So Trump is unable to compete. He uses stupid, crude mockery where it should not occur–in political speeches & his ridiculous Tweets. And his pathetic followers rush to his defense. (“I like him because he always says what he believes!” “Oh, he didn’t really mean that.”)

Trump needs to get used to mockery–high & low. (So do his minions.) Alas, I doubt he’ll bother with future Correspondents Dinners. Or artistic gatherings at the White House. Every weekend, he’ll fly up to NYC, leaving the building dark. Unless his daughter & son-in-law want to entertain donors…

[bobot]

I’m curious to see who headlines Trump’s first correspondent’s dinner. Dice Clay?