Considering Trump’s history, I think this is the most likely explanation. It’s possible he had a different intention, which is the case the OP (and his linked video) try to make, but I think they fail since the gestures he uses in other instances are different.
But like others in this thread, I think his reaction (refusing to apologize, etc.) reflects even more poorly upon him.
Fine, give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. Don’t give him the benefit of the doubt for the way he handled it, which was to attack everyone who pointed out that it sure looked like he was mocking a disabled person. What a shithead, right? Also don’t give him the benefit of the doubt for attacking Meryl Streep, a talented actress by your own admission, by questioning her talent just because he’s a petty, pathetic person.
And certainly don’t give him the benefit of the doubt for lying about seeing thousands of people cheering on the 9/11 attacks. He lied about seeing thousands of people cheering on the 9/11 attacks because he knew it would drum up anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant support for his xenophobic policies. That’s absolutely despicable behavior. Don’t lose the message here.
Whatever Lauer said or did, an instance about a single reporter says nothing about the media as a whole. Trump got tons of free and positive coverage from the media, for example, and Hillary was hammered relentlessly by all networks on issues with little or no evidence behind them. I don’t think the media as a whole favors anything except what benefits the media (i.e. ratings).
What, in your opinion, is the difference between “play-acting” and “acting”? Clearly you feel that there is a difference, as you continually use the term “play-acting” instead of “acting” to describe what Miss Streep does for a living; what’s the difference between the two?
I haven’t watched the video, and have no idea what Ms. Streep said other than what I can gather from the comments here. However, I hope every single American takes every signle opportunity over the next 2 to 4 years to mock Mr. Trump in every way imaginable. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and we must never forget that his man is poster child for incompetence and ignorance.
Rule #28 of Internet Arguments: When you haven’t done any research and can’t defend your position, demand that your opponents “do the research” instead. If you’re lucky, they’ll give up; if not, it will buy you enough time to change the subject.
STOP? No, this isn’t Nazi Germany, I will express my opinion and listen to yours.
I posted a video that seems to say that he mocks everybody like that who is caught off guard, but you go ahead and believe what you want to believe.
But don’t ever tell me or ANYBODY to stop, Herr Hitler
Please, please, please, won’t someone tweet what that guy offensively said about Michelle Obama, (being a man, going back to Africa, etc, etc), only tweak it to be about Melenia and Slovenia instead!
He said nothing about that guys remarks, but I’m pretty sure his head would explode if someone said such things about his wife!
I’m surprised no one has, he’s so easy to troll!
Don’t ever tell him or ANYBODY to not tell you or ANYBODY to stop, Comrade Stalin.
Or tell anyone to do anything you like, but understand that your commands are not binding.
the nice thing about this country is that she has the right to say what she wants within the boundaries of the platform she’s given.
And you have the right to ignore or dismiss what she says.
No it’s not possible he had another intention. Trump is mimicking a clubbed hand in the clip. Very clearly. At this point I don’t even care about that. Is it possible that I’m the only one seeing this? Is this one of those Mandela effect things? Or the blue-black dress picture all over again? He is mimicking a clubbed hand! Is anybody seeing different?
The mocking is not the same for the other two times he did it. He is obviously going after a disabled reporter in the ridiculous, childish way that he loves. It is not ok.
And love the way the narrator of that video refers to a person as a “handicap.”
Wikihow seems a godo starting point:
More guidance can be found here and here, which include links to some examples of what they consider good acceptance speeches. None suggest using one’s mic time to discuss, at length, matters completely unrelated to the award one has just received.
I’m not seeing different, but the OP and his video link make the case (poorly, IMO) that he uses the clubbed hand thing for everyone he doesn’t like.
I try to avoid talking about intentions, since when it gets right down to it, intentions require mind-reading to know for sure. Further, when it comes to politicians, intentions matter a lot less than actions – it doesn’t matter to me if George Wallace genuinely supported segregation or was just pandering to supporters – what matters to me is what he actually said and did. Similarly, it doesn’t matter to me what Trump actually meant by his mockery – it matters what he said and did, including in the aftermath.
Does Wikihow cover what to do when the award itself has just become a flimsy pretext for gathering a bunch of celebrities together in one spot to point cameras at them in order to sell magazines and commercials? I think we’re past the point where we can pretend that the Golden Globes are legitimate awards, and if the whole point is that getting Meryl Streep on stage and on camera wearing 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars worth of clothes and jewelry is a product that people are willing to pay to consume, I don’t really have a beef with her or anyone else trying to get something back.
Yes, and in one of those two other occasions, he gesticulates briefly with his hands, but he’s not mocking a clubbed hand. Mostly because- why would he?
There is no difference. They are creating a fantasy just like children at play do.
Ergo: Play-Actors
Actors are a dime a dozen, there are so many good ones out there, most who never “make it big” for one reason or another
Writers, Directors and Producers do most of the work for these so called “artists”
But you just told Meryl Streep to stop with the political speech and stick to play-acting.
Who’s Hitler now?
Hollyweird celebrity political activism is just absurd. Entertainers making millions of dollars can afford to be as liberal as they like. It makes their fawning fans more comfortable, so why not? It is after all, in their own best interests.
It is the gesture of a person caught in a lie, not an imitation of a disabled person.