Why did the media "cry wolf" about Trump's Mt. Rushmore speech when there are so many real wolves out there?

Trump is a target-rich environment. In the past couple weeks (and this is just off the top of my head, I’m sure I’m forgetting many outrages), he has:

–retweeted a video of a guy quite clearly yelling “WHITE POWER!” multiple times;

–accused Bubba Wallace of perpetrating a “hoax” regarding the noose incident, while criticizing NASCAR for banning the Confederate flag;

–also used the word “hoax” to describe the intelligence in his PDB about Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers (his inaction on which looks literally like treason, no hyperbole there);

–lied about the U.S. supposedly having the lowest Covid death rate in the world, when we have one of the highest;

–falsely claimed that 99% of diagnosed Covid cases (the small percentage of people who actually go to be tested, at that!) are “totally harmless”;

–put out a scurrilous ad against Joe Biden (who was clear from the jump that he is against defunding the police) making it appear as though under a President Biden, you’ll have a five-day wait for police response if you call 911 to report a home invasion;

–and of course he continues to make baseless allegations of coming election fraud, to try to set up some kind of constitutional crisis in the likely event that he gets his ass beat badly by Biden this November.

More quietly, he has been firing inspectors-general, slashing environmental regulations, etc., while people are more occupied with higher-profile concerns.

In the midst of all this, Trump did something he only occasionally does, which is to read a speech someone wrote for him, off a teleprompter, without freelancing. And if you read it, it’s a standard Republican speech: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-transcript-at-mount-rushmore-4th-of-july-event

Do I love this speech? No. I’m a Democrat: I prefer Democratic speeches. And this is definitely not a speech I can imagine a Democratic president giving. It would be shocking and horrifying if s/he did! But when I read this, I can easily imagine Dubya, McCain, or Romney giving the same speech. It’s just a boilerplate, jingoistic, rah-rah-America-mom-and-apple-pie Republican speech. There was nothing in there defending the Confederacy.

He did speak approvingly of Andrew Jackson, who is an absolutely appalling historical figure. I have refused to use twenties for years because of how awful he was. But until a couple years ago, Democratic fundraising dinners were called “Jefferson-Jackson dinners”, and Jackson has unfortunately been considered a towering figure in our history–so it’s silly to act as though an old white conservative president speaking warmly about him is some kind of shocking breaking news.

So why the hell can’t the media just report, as they have in the past, “President Trump stuck to the script on Friday, faithfully delivering a teleprompter speech about patriotism and the figures on Mt. Rushmore”, leave that at that, and go back to reporting on all the other horrendous shit he has gotten up to? They so drastically undermine their credibility by doing this, to where persuadable voters (and yes, there are some–that’s why his poll numbers are down!) can more easily be persuaded by the right that “the media just lies about everything, so disregard anything you hear about John Bolton’s book or Mary Trump’s book”. FFS!

Are you whooshing us? IMO that’s about as nonsensical a protest as “freedom fries.” :stuck_out_tongue:

It’s a classic self-own.

It’s not unheard of. When I was in certain parts of Georgia some years back, I was at a store that did not accept 20’s.

I learned quite a bit about Andrew Jackson when I asked why.

As to the OP, why does the press report on anything that Trump does? Any one thing that he does is generally newsworthy and damning.

But, when you are covering a dumpster fire, you report on when the diapers catch flame, even though you have already reported on the colostomy conflagration and the grease ignition.

It was not rah-rah-America, it was very divisive where he pitted one american against another. It is a little poor to be praising Andrew Jackson while standing on land that was stolen from its rightful owners in order to vandalize their sacred mountains.

We have the president of the United States, calling for an insurrection against the very country that he leads. If that’s not a newsworthy event, the fact that such a thing isn’t newsworthy should be troublesome news indeed.

There were many parts of that speech that could be considered, in a vacuum, relatively standard Republican fare. But we’re not in a vacuum, and in the present circumstances, it’s entirely reasonable to consider much of that speech to be consistent with and reinforcing his anti-American, racist, and xenophobic culture-war campaigning.

Let’s all just be clear: this is textbook concern trolling, and I’m glad this thread was moved to the pit so I could say that (as I recall, it was previously in IMHO).

SlackWit, I do not buy for a second that you’re “totally behind” criticizing Trump, but just think the media was off in this one instance, you disingenuous fuck.

I believe SlackerInc to be a Democrat through and through. He voted twice for Obama. Only once for Trump. Stop making such a big deal out it! Jeez.

Slacker’s a lot of things, but I don’t believe he’s ever said he voted for Trump.

I’m just winding him up.

Fair enough! Always a worthy cause!

Of course not. He’s a lousy poker player and he can’t bluff for shit, but he’s not quite dumb enough to just straight up show us his cards.

This part

is really above and beyond “standard Republican” fare. This is bitterly divisive ground that previous Presidents have not trod upon. Seriously.

And then there is is “statue garden” idea, which would include Billy goddam Graham and Antonin fucking Scalia. This PoS is grasping for every slimy disgusting turd he can reach.

This is similar to something Tammy Duckworth said recently (and presumably knocked herself out of contention for veep, although I think she was aiming for the opposite). It’s a classic “Kinsley gaffe”: absolutely true, and absolutely something a politician cannot say.

You recall wrong: I posted it in the Pit.

And you are even more of an idiot than I thought if you think the litany of grievances I listed against Trump in the OP would make any sense whatsoever for someone to include in a stealth pro-Trump message. I didn’t say “I am a Democrat and not fond of Trump but [list good things about Trump]”. This was not pro forma. This was a blistering bill of particulars against that buffoonish, pussy-grabbing, underage-daughter-creeping, SAT-cheating, constantly-lying, business-tanking, Putin-loving, wretched piece of fetid garbage.

Get a fucking clue, moron.

Wrong again:

https://www.sharkscope.com/#Player-Statistics//networks/PokerStars/players/SlackerInc1

Some of the “achievements” listed in that tab could be earned by someone who simply played a shit-ton and lost money. But not the “in profit over 5000 tournaments” (the ace of spades there if you hover your mouse over it). And it would be unlikely a bad player could achieve “cashed in five consecutive scheduled tournaments” (eight of diamonds) or “won 5 consecutive SNG tournaments” (queen of diamonds). I have not been able to play for money since they shut down real money play for U.S. players a decade ago, but I still play for fun (play money) and anyone who wants to challenge me to a HU (one-on-one) match, LMK and I’ll show you how it’s done.

I really don’t see why a politician can’t say this.

They may piss off racists and bigots, but they weren’t really counting on their vote anyway.

Because the clear implication is that:

(1) Every single American who is not Native American doesn’t really have a right to live and work here. (Those descended from people brought here against their will on slave galleys are a more complicated issue, of course.)

(2) The country they have been raised to be patriotic about, to celebrate its founding and founders, etc., was essentially founded based on theft and we all should be ashamed of our history.

It’s basically what you’ll find in Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the US, and it’s all true (if incomplete), which is why this is a Kinsley gaffe. It’s true, but you can’t say it if you want to win elections (outside of a few congressional districts in Seattle or someplace, maybe). I mean, you don’t seriously believe a Democrat can win a national election, or a competitive Senate election, by running on Zinn as a platform?!?

ETA: Actually, not all of what Duckworth said was true: “He spent all his time talking about dead traitors. Remember the president at Mount Rushmore was standing on ground that was stolen from Native Americans.”

He didn’t talk about any “traitors”, not in a positive way (though he has done so elsewhere). But yes, the land he was standing on was stolen, and no: you can’t say that in competitive U.S. politics.

An example of how this kind of jingoism is nothing new in Republican campaign speechifying:

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/25/us/bush-intensifies-debate-on-pledge-asking-why-it-so-upsets-dukakis.html

With President Reagan at his side in a raucous campaign rally here, Vice President Bush intensified his argument with Michael S. Dukakis today over the Pledge of Allegiance. He said he would have signed a bill that Mr. Dukakis vetoed in 1977 requiring teachers to lead their classes in the pledge.

‘‘What is it about the Pledge of Allegiance that upsets him so much?’’ Mr. Bush said of Mr. Dukakis, as an enthusiastic crowd roared its agreement. ‘‘It is very hard for me to imagine that the Founding Fathers - Samuel Adams and John Hancock and John Adams -would have objected to teachers leading students in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States.’’

In a combative speech, Mr. Bush also criticized Mr. Dukakis’s military policy, saying his Democratic opponent ‘‘would leave America totally defenseless’’ against missile attacks if elected President. ‘‘His policies place him far outside the bipartisan consensus - far out on the liberal left wing,’’ the Vice President said. ‘‘And that’s where he is on these security issues.’’

And this is the guy seen as the most moderate Republican president in modern times!

Is Slacker defending Trump once again from the out of control lib media?

Shocking stuff

Yes, what a “defense”:

Trump is a target-rich environment. In the past couple weeks (and this is just off the top of my head, I’m sure I’m forgetting many outrages), he has:

–retweeted a video of a guy quite clearly yelling “WHITE POWER!” multiple times;

–accused Bubba Wallace of perpetrating a “hoax” regarding the noose incident, while criticizing NASCAR for banning the Confederate flag;

–also used the word “hoax” to describe the intelligence in his PDB about Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers (his inaction on which looks literally like treason, no hyperbole there);

–lied about the U.S. supposedly having the lowest Covid death rate in the world, when we have one of the highest;

–falsely claimed that 99% of diagnosed Covid cases (the small percentage of people who actually go to be tested, at that!) are “totally harmless”;

–put out a scurrilous ad against Joe Biden (who was clear from the jump that he is against defunding the police) making it appear as though under a President Biden, you’ll have a five-day wait for police response if you call 911 to report a home invasion;

–and of course he continues to make baseless allegations of coming election fraud, to try to set up some kind of constitutional crisis in the likely event that he gets his ass beat badly by Biden this November.

More quietly, he has been firing inspectors-general, slashing environmental regulations, etc., while people are more occupied with higher-profile concerns.

Then there was the subsequent post where I called him a “buffoonish, pussy-grabbing, underage-daughter-creeping, SAT-cheating, constantly-lying, business-tanking, Putin-loving, wretched piece of fetid garbage.”

What a stirring defense! :roll_eyes: