Hey, don’t take what I said personally, I was talking to Doorknob. It was intended as a simple statement of fact. Not as a slam on his lack of intelligence.
Has he denounced Roman Polanski? If not, then nothing else he says matters. At least, that what I’m reading in many of the boneheads’ comments here.
For that matter, has *Trump *ever denounced Polanski? Surely this is critical information the Electoral College should have had before casting their votes!
Nicole Kidman says it’s time to support Trump but what does she know? She’s just an actor, right?
Polanski is probably a hero of his. He established the right to abuse young women if you’re a star. It’s okay, “I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”
They sure are. They’re all for the “end of PC” as long as only they are flinging shit. But they can’t take it when it flies in their direction.
That’s a curious thing to say, because if you were to check reality, you will see that here the only people calling others special snowflakes are not the “Trumplodytes”.
Like here:
And here:
It’s not for being thin skinned that I point out that the people throwing the worst abuse here are firmly in the anti-Trump camp (I’ve been called and shrugged off much worse things than retarded or mentally deficient) it’s because if your moral standing depends on projecting your sins onto the out-group then, sorry to say, you don’t have a moral standing.
Oh.
Can you…share?
Less televangelist words please - worse than any insults.
Still perfectly intact if everything they said was justified.
I cannot believe that anyone is disputing this. I mean I can believe that there are many different ways to view most things. But to say that Trump wasn’t mocking him…I mean if you were in an acting class (ya know, play acting), and they asked you to mock a person with a disability…not only that, but to mock someone in the most obvious, grade-school level stereotypical way you could imagine mocking someone, you would do it exactly as Trump did it.
First of all: Hats off to the rational thinkers in the thread, who have remained civil despite the astounding stupidity of a few Dopoers.
Trump defenders’ case can be best summarized with:
“No! Trump doesn’t behave like a nasty 3rd-grade bully. He’s better than that. He behaves like a nasty 4th-grade bully!”
I wonder if those defending Trump can comment on his actions and Cabinet selections. Does he deserve a Nobel Peace Prize? Are we looking forward to 4 years of come-uppance for intellectuals and liberals?
Trump tweet, verbatim…
“Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to “leak” into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?”
Are you Trump, trolling us? You whine just as fucking bad as he does.
Trump tells more lies (I mean blatantly, incontestably false statements that are easily proven false, not “you didn’t build that”-type statements that are false only if you deliberately ignore the context) in five minutes than most public figures do in their careers. His followers have to ignore reality. They have no choice.
AFAICT, besides being a liar in the generally accepted sense of the term (i.e., someone who deliberately states something they know to be false for the sake of some desired advantage), Trump also appears to be a fantasist, someone who accidentally imagines or misremembers things that are different from the truth (which we all do from time to time) and then implicitly believes them to the point of refusing to accept any factual correction of them.
I mean, it’s inconceivable that a normally rational person could have engaged in the exchange I quoted above:
Not only did Trump thoughtlessly assert his original false notion of the “thousands of New Jersey Arabs” cheering for the fall of the Towers—a notion that any reasonably conscientious politician would have fact-checked before foolishly running his mouth about it—but then he refused to listen to any factual rebuttal of it.
Most politicians, even if they were dumb enough to make the original statements in the first place, could have weaseled out of them in the interview with some misleading bafflegab like “Well George, I think you’ll find that when it came to celebrations of the attacks in the US, the police did investigate some allegations, some quite serious allegations, now I might have accidentally misspoken about the “thousands” number, which in fact referred to celebrations that occurred in other countries, and it’s very troubling that we’ve had that kind of international animosity and disrespect aimed at us, but even right here in our own country we did have serious investigations about people celebrating the attacks, and I don’t think we ought to make light of that.” (Sheesh. Excuse me while I go wash my hands after typing that weaselwash.)
But did Trump weaselwash his way out of his original stupid mistake, the way any sensible politician would? Nope, he kept on doubling down and doubling down, closing off escape hatches all along the way, to make himself look as stupid and as stubborn as possible.
That’s not the behavior of an ordinary political liar. That’s the behavior of a fantasist who sincerely believes and stands ready to back up anything Donald Trump says (because Trump has a very good brain and has said a lot of things), and who refuses to admit the possibility that Donald Trump could be wrong about something (because Trump is always right, you’ll see, you’ll see, he’s always right).
The problem was his supporters started backing up his horseshit by claiming they had also seen thousands celebrating the Towers falling.
Meh, he could have spun away from that in the way I illustrated. Trump supporters are fine with changing the subject to avoid confronting a truth that embarrasses them. Look at the posters in this very thread who are eager to rail about Roman Polanski, or the genuineness of Streep’s professed emotions, or the intrinsic trustworthiness of professional actors, or the disappointment of Clinton supporters, or various indiscretions or crimes committed by past Presidents, or the regrettable state of American political discourse overall, just to lead the conversation away from the central issue that Trump deliberately made fun of and disparaged an unoffending reporter in an attempt to discredit that reporter’s correction of Trump’s false assertion that the reporter had written something that supported Trump’s original and reiterated idiotic false claim about thousands of cheering Arabs in New Jersey on 9/11.
I’m actually surprised that Trump didn’t double down with “Well, they must’ve been cheering on the inside”. That’s pretty much the level of his kindergarten stunts.
FDR is out. I guess that leaves George Washington.
Meryl Streep wandered outside of the Hollyweird bubble, and discovered that many voters don’t put much faith in the ramblings of play actors. Sure, there are people who will buy a car, or visit a casino, based on the recommendation of a play actor, but even then the voters know that they are simply reading the lines written for them.
Why do I get the feeling that you embarrassed yourself greatly in the past when you were in a school play? I am getting a heavy “sour grapes” vibe from your posts. Did you play a tree in gradeschool and “water” yourself because of stage-fright or something?
Not to mention that if we include Trump, 2 of the last 4 republican presidents made their careers as entertainers and celebrities. It looks to me like the voters love listening to play-actors.