I predict this will end with one party admitting they are completely in the wrong 
*President Donald Trump forecast that Bernie Sanders would run against him in 2020 “even if he’s in a wheelchair,” and mocked the Vermont senator by imitating a scrunched-up body.
per Newsweek.* Because god forbid we elect a president in a wheelchair. Oh right.*
*
Wow, that gave me chills. I have to say, I’m impressed that Trump can express so many levels of ignorance, with so few words. He’s a regular Strunk and White of concise stupidity.
It’s obvious from the form the mockery took that he was mocking the person for their disability. I’m not sure why anyone is claiming it is him an angry person, when his actions resemble neither what people actually act like when they are angry, nor any stereotype of what they look like. An angry person looks aggressive, not flapping around. And they sure don’t put their heads back.
The only angry people who look like that are people with CP, because their tics become more pronounced.
If it’s not partisan, why were you watching something put together by Fox News? Watching with an open mind is the exact opposite of what you should do when watching a biased organization that is hostile to the truth.
It does explain my question. You came up with the idea he is mocking a flustered person from Fox News. They suggested it. It isn’t what flustered or angry people act like. Nor does it fit a stereotype of what they act like. A flustered person doesn’t wave their arms about limply nor do they throw their head back.
The action he took only makes sense as an attack on people who actually do something remotely similar. People with CP and Parkinsons and such do sometimes act like that when angry.
You aren’t being asked to deny your own eyes. You’re just being asked to deny Fox’s spin. You’re being asked to believe the people who actually are disabled or know disabled people and can see this for what it is, the same way a black person can tell you if something is racist even if you don’t think it is.
You have actively chosen to believe something because of what you saw on Fox News. That should not happen.
Count me as one that is dumbfounded that there is a disagreement about this. And the reasoning against it is that, “hey, look at all these other times that he was being an asshole, and mocking some other person that isn’t disabled” is grasping at straws.
In my youth, I gave offensive people the benefit of the doubt, but in my dotage, I call 'em like I see 'em. That’s how I made it to my dotage. Trump cruelly mocked the reporter’s disability. I know a vicious bully when I see one.
I’m curious as to whether he had done this particular pantomime before the **first **time he’d encountered this reporter. It’s entirely possible that the whole reason he did this all those other times was because he was imitating the reporter’s mannerisms in other contexts.
Because he’s definitely the kind of asshole that would do that.
I doubt anything can beat the conciseness of “they’re not sending their best, they’re sending their criminals, their rapists” which manages three falsehoods in one sentence (“they’re” not sending them, they’re not even “theirs” since many are not even Mexican, and they’re not more likely to be violent criminals.) Ironically, what it’s remembered for is the falsehood it doesn’t contain, since in context, he’s definitely saying “their rapists” rather than “they’re”.
Let’s remember what he said…“now the poor guy, you ought to see this guy.” What he means is clear…“what I’m doing now makes sense if you see this guy.” It was a cruel insult, an act of pettiness, and completely in line with Trump’s SOP, which is to punch down. His first impulse is to attack those who he sees as weak or lesser.
Yeah. Let’s sum it up. He knew the reporter, had talked with him many times. He prefaced his mocking activity by saying “the poor guy, you ought to see this guy” and then he does his mocking routine. How can anyone say that this was not a direct mocking of the disability of this particular reporter?
“You ought to see this guy.” Forgot about that. Trump wasn’t even trying to suggest that he didn’t know what “this guy” looked like.
Easy to forget, because people who want this to appear to be other than what it was do what they can to diminish or erase the direct connection Trump made to this specific reporter seconds before he started flailing around. It seems to me that any defense of what Trump did in this case depends on not knowing or deliberately pretending not to know the few simple facts of the case.
Here’s a Washington Post storyabout the whole thing, with a video clip.
Mr. Nylock, UltraVires, phantom lamb, you three were saying earlier that you didn’t buy the idea that Trump was mocking him. Had you heard about how he introduced it, by saying “you ought to see this guy”?
Does that not convince you otherwise?
No, but if they claim “I don’t just hate Black people, I hate everyone who loves fried chicken and watermelon!”, well, then, that’s just even more racist.
That he has also mocked other people as if they fit a stereotype of a “disabled” person doesn’t absolve him of specifically mocking this guy. In fact, as it’s clear he knew exactly who the guy was when he did it, it makes it even worse.
I might call some random guy a moron, but I’d never knowing say that to someone with an actual mental impairment. That’s the difference.
When did I ever say that? Please show me, I would be very concerned if someone who is not me has hacked into my account and posted things under my username.
Mr. Nylock, when you posted that misleading Fox News video without commentary condemning it, I thought you must agree with it. Sorry if I misunderstood your intention.
NO, he was not mocking the reporters disability. Damn democrats and their buddies in the press LOVE to make crap up and use careful editing.
HA HA HA oh God, you’re actually serious, even after viewing yet another “carefully edited” FoxNews clip with manufactured narrative.
Because you say so? You can’t accept that Trump could be that mean-spirited?