Granted, I’ve only read the text in this thread and the linked article in post #2, but I thought the response did address the lameness of the inquiry. It’s off the cuff remarks, but the gist of the response was that the question was PC bullshit.
Keep in mind, I personally don’t think the levels of profanity being used are anything concerning. But remember, Obama’s foreign policy is “don’t do stupid shit”. And according to Obama, Kanye West is a jackass, and he’s not calling him a donkey. So yeah, I could get behind the idea that it’s a good idea for Presidents and candidates to not use profanity. It’s far from a big concern - probably rates ever so slightly above lapel pins. But once children are used as both a shield and a bludgeoning instrument, it’s just political theater BS.
The use of profanity alone isn’t enough to conclude that a person is unserious in pursuing the office of President.
Oh I expect Presidents to swear behind closed doors. That’s accepted, even appropriate. It’s when they do it casually on national television that it becomes an issue.
I agree though that using generic children as a shield or bludgeoning instrument is basically using cheap emotion. Which is ok I guess, except that it doesn’t help us weigh larger vs. smaller issues.
Lead in the water? Elevated, documented and hazardous lead in the bloodstream? Think of the children. (Good. Do that.)
Fluoride in the water? Think of the children. (No. Let’s not. Let’s measure the issue and calibrate fluoridation levels by applying the best science and risk assessment. Fluoride levels can actually be too high when fluoride comes from natural sources. But stop thinking about puerile sentiments. They are a distraction.)
The issue about Trump swearing isn’t about swearing, its about whether or not he can maintain an outer facade when dealing with the issues a president has to deal with calmly. It would be kind of fun to tell the president of China to fuck off, less so if that quip costs the country billions of dollars in trade.
No one actually cares about Trump’s opinion on child rearing. The question is a rhetorical device to question whether he understands and/or agrees that the President has an obligation to communicate professionally.
“The president of China was very unfair to me. OK? He’s unfair. Have you seen this guy? With those eyes? (tugs on the upper corners of his eyes) And you know what they say about Chinese men - let me assure you, I don’t have that problem at all.”
I have never understood why Trump thinks he is less politically correct than his detractors. Trump is the one who thinks any business who says “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” should be boycotted.
Yeah, I agree with Bone that it was a stupid question, and more to the point, kids are exposed to all kinds of shit they shouldn’t emulate. The parenting is in teaching them how to behave appropriately, not in keeping them from being aware that inappropriate exists, or what it looks like. One of my pet peeves is that rather than teach appropriate, we try to deny inappropriate’s existence.
That said, I don’t like Trump and the real indictment of him is that he can’t behave appropriately when answering that question.
Couldn’t a smart person simultaneously have called out the bullshit of a ridiculous question and provided a substantive answer at the same time…while insulting the reporter?
That Trump can’t and has to resort to peurile insults is disturbing
Trump is usually fairly charming (while serving a lot of baloney in the form of knowingly false promises and inaccuracies), but this wasn’t one of his greatest moments.
