I went to sign up, and I think it might have required a phone number? Which mostly defeats the hope of anonymity, unless you happen to have a burner (or maybe a VPN?).
Agreed. All the statements about “if only the journalists would do…” are meaningless, ultimately because he has no shame, and does not respect any rules.
The only time he’s been made to shut up is when he’s in a courtroom, in front of a judge with contempt powers.
And even then, he pushed the envelope, with frowning, mumbling, etc.
Yeah, I just don’t get this argument. It’s like saying that since trump was a crooked businessman, he can’t also be a crooked politician. He’s both things!
It also makes no sense to me. The Black people I know are voting for Harris because she’s “not Trump” and has good policies, experience, etc. If she were “not Black,” they would still support her. As would I.
I think he thought of two scenarios, either
- They would do like just about every media interview he goes to does and, in an effort not to appear biased, ask him neutral non-threatening questions, and then allow him to spout bullshit unchallenged. Allowing him to then later claim that this proves the blacks like him
- If they did challenge him he could fight back and then Twuth about how he went into the lions den,of unfair black media, and emerged victorious, taking them down and putting them in their place, thus further supporting his guy tough image with is base.
I suggested this early in the thread.
No. I’m sorry, but let’s not “just put this to rest.” That’s how Trump gets away with it.
The NABJ conference would have been the best place to put him in his place. Blacks in the US (and elsewhere) have had to remain respectful to those who were abusing them for centuries. Despite this, great strides have been made in halting that abuse, but abuse comes from all sides. Having a Black moderator shut off all mics and interrupt Trumps soliloquy to remind everyone to remain respectful of others, then back out, would not have stopped Trump, you’re correct. It also wouldn’t have made him take his ball and go home, either.
And, you’re right, he would have started back up as soon as the mics were back on. If he didn’t tone it down some, the moderator would be back and remind everyone that if we cannot show respect, we will have to shut it down. Until that actually happens, Trump will continue.
That’s my point. If we just accept it, Trump wins. Imagine the headline:
Trump’s Disrespect for Black Journalists Shuts Down Conference.
If we continue to play Trump’s game, he’s going to win.
Immediately spun in the Trump world as Black Journalists Conference Silences Trump for Speaking Truth
Nothing is going to shame him into behaving.
And then re-spun as “Black journalists run from Trump! They can’t handle the truth!”
We beat Trump by winning the election, period. Everything else is just a performance. You know he’s going to be a shit show, so just stop inviting him to your shows. This fantasy that you can some how “shut down” Trump and make him look bad is just that, a fantasy.
Don’t try it, it’s a disaster. They eat every ingredient as soon as you hand it to them.
For sure. Trump’s side will ALWAYS spin everything so that he is the victim. Any direct acts such as shutting off his microphone, lecturing him on civility, or stopping an event early will be portrayed as unfair, censorious acts by people who can’t handle the truth.
Personally, I am more in favor of the strategy of goading him and letting him lose his temper and run off at the mouth. Letting him run away with his bad behavior is not going to get him any new votes - he’s got the racist idiots all sewn up already. But it might demonstrate those voters who are, incredibly, still unaware of what a dangerous loon he is, that he is indeed not fit to be president.
As it turned out, I think it was good that they didn’t do this. Continuing the interview gave Trump plenty of opportunities to hang himself and he was very obliging to take them up on that.
If they had cut him off about being disrespectful, then the rest of the interview would be just him and them arguing over who was being disrespectful of whom. And “no you” school yard debate tactics, is where Trump is most in his element.
In order for that type chastisement to work the recipient needs to have some sense of shame and a desire for actual dialogue rather than name calling.
If only.
Legit adults who fall into the “call or say the nastiest words I know” form of arguing show their low vocabulary and poor debating skills.
You lose credibility if all you do is spill filthy words.
A well placed word, occasionally is okay.
I’m not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with my post, and if disagreeing, what we disagree about.
“They’re not coming after me
They’re coming after you
I’m just standing in their way
And I always will stand in their way”
Trump is a salesman, and that is his pitch. By holding him down to what he says after that, he can be defeated.
Ronald Reagan softened up the customers for him. Ron Jr. related how, whenever a discussion became too complicated, dad would say “Well, all I know is…” And that’s who the “you” are, whom “they” are coming after. “All I know is I hate low-flow toilets.” “All I know is I have no intention of committing any crime so I should be able to own any firearm.” “All I know is Moslems attacked us on 9/11, so I support Israel.”
Not bothered by association with that ignorance? How about “All I know is that, with so many good white people in America, why are brown people with funny names running for president, and winning?”
Make him say it out loud, and see how many will stop identifying as his “you.”
I don’t think they ought to have cut him off for being disrespectful, but I DO think there is a useful purpose served in directly and immediately pointing his inappropriate behavior, and stating that such is not acceptable discourse. I think interviewers ought to just calmly and politely point out such things. Also simply saying, “That is not true.”
No, it won’t shut TFG up. But it will be a small step towards regaining common standards of civil discourse.
He kept on with the whole “I was the best President for black people…” nonsense. I really wish one of the journalists would have asked him what he means by that. Like, could he articulate some data that supports that contention? It’s not even a loaded question or anything he could call nasty or disrespectful, but, of course, backed into a corner with nowhere to go, he still probably would have lashed out.
If only to see how many racist stereotypes he could fit into the answer.
Funded HBCUs, helped black workers and entrepreneurs though Senator’s Scott’s bill, closed the border to protect “black jobs.” I don’t know if there is any factual support for any of his claims. I doubt it
PolitiFact | Trump’s exaggerated claim that he ‘saved’ HBCUs with 2019 funding bill
Trump’s Unsupported Claim About Opportunity Zone Investments - FactCheck.org
Yeah, that “black jobs” line. So transparently racist and demeaning - like preventing people from crossing the border will help protect jobs typically held by black people - ya know, janitors, garbage collectors, slaughterhouse workers, housekeepers, field workers, etc. SMH I think one of the panelists asked him what is a black job but then things started going off the rail at that point.