Trump (Part 7)

[claig]

Even more Trump.

There may be 4 years of this.
Try to keep it lighthearted and not snide, please.
It's Christmas.

Claig. Talk to us about Trump mocking the disabled reporter.

"Claig. Talk to us about Trump mocking the disabled reporter."

Yes, I am interested to know what Trump apologists think about this. Is this perhaps an example of that freedom from political correctness they are so keen on?

I'd be more comfortable with the trumpeteers saying 'ok, we are happy he won, are confident that an do good things but will keep a close eye on this words, actions and deeds'. Please open your eyes and police this man. Do not swallow everything he says just because he is 'Trump USA USA USA'.

He is not the Messiah (finish sentence yourself). He is a very very wealthy business man who was given a hefty leg up by his wealthy family (not sure what Billy Brag knows about Trump's dad but it sounds dodgy) and, as a very wealthy businessman must have some skeletons rattling around in his closet.

He boasts of not paying his taxes, mocks the disabled, trashed an opponents wife for her looks, makes inappropriate comments about women/girls/own daughter, hinted at assassination of Hilary Clinton, tweets purile nonsense at all hours, and has no sensor button.

No, I don't think that he believes lot of the things he says - he is playing the very vocal crowd. But is is a very nasty game he is playing - making it ok to be sexist, racist, disabilist...

And don't forget provoking hostile nuclear powers on social media.

Well the way I see it is that Trump is appointing people he trusts, and he trusts those who supported him all the way.

So, claig, you disagree with Inkanta?

Say, Ben Carson. Neither a long term supporter (depending on your definition), nor particularly trustworthy or competent in the area he was appointed to.

"So, claig, you disagree with Inkanta?"

What! I hope not.

Yes yes yes to your post originalmavis.

What I don't get is... Trumpeteers support wholeheartedly DTs point of view 100% and they never question it. E.g. he is a larger than life personality (understatement) and he operates by a different set of rules which I get BUT the blind acceptance of absolutely anything he says or he does is just plain weird. So he is to be admired by them, yet he hasn't even begun to prove himself yet, so why the 100% acceptance. Would supporters have been like this about another GOP candidate?

Because of this blind faith, the arguments and discussion are so so frustrating because claig for instance just spouts the same old stuff over and over. I honestly think you and other trumpeteers have somehow or other been taught via more right wing media that HC and BO are contemptible and untrustworthy. Which means that when confronted with actual and objective facts that contradict DTs claims, followers blindly believe DT and disregard any information that doesn't conform to Trump's version of reality. So this means that you claig intentionally seek out and accept only information that reinforces what you already believe.

It is some sort of cult and that means it doesn't matter what DT says or does, his supporters will only see everything through the perspective he has encouraged, even if they're based on distortion of facts, lies, myths, and even if it's total double standards... that'll still be praised, and that's the one thing he criticised HC for doing.

So basically... these threads are all pretty pointless....

'Claig. Talk to us about Trump mocking the disabled reporter.'

Trump says that is how he mocks everyone and that he didn't know the reporter had a disability. I don't know, but it didn't look good how Trump did that.

'So, claig, you disagree with Inkanta?'

Absolutely not. Trump appoints supporters and people he trusts as a lot of his appointees are. But he also asks for recommendations and advice from people he trusts for some roles where he needs the best person and doesn't know anyone and he picks those based on trusted recommendations.

'Say, Ben Carson. Neither a long term supporter (depending on your definition), nor particularly trustworthy or competent in the area he was appointed to.'

Ben Carson is a great guy and Trump never knew him before the campaign and he met him and fought it out with him and respected him and liked him and that is why he appointed him because he learned about his good qualities as he got to know him throughout the campaign. Trump picks people he likes or trusts or who have been recommended to him by people he trusts.

on the disabled reporter... I just don't know why you couldn't condemn him claig. Why couldn't you say... how he mocked him was appalling. There's still an excuse and a 'there there... it's just his way'.

'Would supporters have been like this about another GOP candidate? '

Absolutely not. Are you having a laugh? The other candidates were politically correct elite stooges, no comparison with Trump.

'I'd be more comfortable with the trumpeteers saying 'ok, we are happy he won, are confident that an do good things but will keep a close eye on this words, actions and deeds'.'

But that goes without saying. That is what Trump fans think. We don't know if he will let the people down and sell out to the elite. He won't do everything we all want, he can't, the elite will mess things up for him, that is how they operate.

'So this means that you claig intentionally seek out and accept only information that reinforces what you already believe. '

You have to realise that these threads discuss Trump but are also a laugh. Don't take it too seriously. I exaggerate my support of Trump and criticism of Blair for a laugh. Don't take everything literally like the Establishment journalists did "who took Trump literally but not seriously" while Trump fans were the other way round.

'It is some sort of cult '

OK, you don't get it at all. It is a laugh. Chill out. It is not all serious.

'So basically... these threads are all pretty pointless....'

Of course they are. They are a laugh. Don't take it seriously. These threads are probably not for you as you think it is a cult or something.

'on the disabled reporter... I just don't know why you couldn't condemn him claig. '

Because I don't know for sure. I said I didn't like it, but there is a possibility that Trump was misinterpreted and I don't go around condemning people without being sure, which is why I only condemn Blair.

So basically, Trump shows his lack of political correctness by mocking disabled people, being offensive to the parents of a Muslim veteran, saying that a Judge can't be impartial bcase he is of Mexican extraction, and talking about grabbing women by the genitals.

All jokes?

"but there is a possibility that Trump was misinterpreted"

How?

'All jokes?'

Of course not all jokes, some bullying because that is what Trump does. He threatens, he bullies and he also jokes. That is how he is. But I haven't got time to explain why he said what he did to the Mexican judge etc. and there are reasons that he had for it. It is not how the media and BBC portray it as everyone should have realised by now after seeing all the tricks the media used

'"but there is a possibility that Trump was misinterpreted"'

Because he says he didn't mean it in the way the media portrayed it. Just like the media made out Trump was nasty to a crying baby, when it was obviously a joke, just as they said he encouraged violence in his rallies when it was obvious to anyone who doesn't suscribe to the Guardian that it was a joke and just as the BBC and all the rest tried to stitch Trump up over the David Duke endorsement etc.

The media lie and spin and tried their damndest to stop Trump, no trick was beneath them, so there is always a possibility that they did it again. However, it looked bad what Trump did mocking that reporter and I didn't like it but I don't condemn him because I am not sure that he wasn't misrepresented. However, I did say that he shouldn't have said that all muslims would be banned from entering and I said I thought it was wrong to say that.

"But I haven't got time to explain why he said what he did to the Mexican judge etc. and there are reasons that he had for it."

No, course you haven't. How about the "joke" that women should be punished for having an abortion?

How can he be misrepresented? The footage is out there for all to see. It is him. You keep saying he is misrepresented, it is such a simple clip, there is nothing to misrepresent. Seriously claig, just admit that for god's sake, you're an intelligent woman, I can't believe the excuses you make for him all the time, but on this single point, just give in

Reading your last few posts claig, I realise (but knew already) there is no hope. Glad you are having a good ole laugh though. Hope that your humour continues when he's undiplomatically tweeting to other world leaders and causing a furore.

"Just his way, he's having a joke, he didn't mean it, he's been misrepresented"

'How about the "joke" that women should be punished for having an abortion?'

Brussels, it looks like you are trying to be clever again and failing as usual. I am not aware of any such "joke".

You know perfectly well, that Trump is on record as saying that women should be punished for having abortions.

And the fact that you have become personal again proves it.

'No, course you haven't. How about the "joke" that women should be punished for having an abortion?'

Bert I notice you try to win an argument with an attempt at moral high ground.

You do this a lot.

Interesting.

'How can he be misrepresented? The footage is out there for all to see. It is him. You keep saying he is misrepresented, it is such a simple clip, there is nothing to misrepresent.'

He says he didn't know of the reporter's disability and that his mocking was not about disability. I don't know for sure, but it looks bad to me. I certainly wouldn't have done that but I give Trump the benefit of the doubt because I saw how the BBC and the rest of the media misrepresented him throughout and tried to imply things about him that were untrue. Sorry if I disagree with your opinion on it.

'but on this single point, just give in'

I am not sure and I don't condemn people if I am not sure. On his statement about muslims not entering, I condemned that because I was sure. Remember that Trump does joke, despite what the BBC says, so he often flies close to the wind and you cannot take him "literally" like the Guardian did.

'Reading your last few posts claig, I realise (but knew already) there is no hope'

Then don't bother reading these threads, there are plenty of others on MN. You are taking it too seriously.

'Hope that your humour continues when he's undiplomatically tweeting to other world leaders and causing a furore. '

It will because I like Trump and don't give a stuff about other world leaders and puppets who have lied their way into wars and over climate change and everything else, so if he ruffles their feathers, so much the better. That is what the people's revolution was all about.

As Winston McKenzie said way back in 2014 when the people's revolution started (and it was a laugh and a joke, too)

"The UKIP fox has struck again and there are feathers everywhere"

Bring it on. It's the people's revolution and we invite Dr Piers Corbyn and other truth-tellers to join the revolution and mock Blair and all servants of the elites

Inkanta.. unfortunately I've had to take a serious amount of time off work as I have a slipped disc. I needed some entertainment.

I don't think Bertrand was really talking about a joke, Trump said it, he then walked back on it. Like the Mexican judge and the Islamic veteran's parents it was just something to say at the time. Populist, anything to try to get elected.

" is not how the media and BBC portray it as everyone should have realised by now after seeing all the tricks the media used"

Ah so all the media are wrong, and you Claig, with your massive lack of critical thinking or any type of Trump filter are the oracle?

The getting personal bit just proves your lack of ability to hold your argument.

Under the spreading chestnut tree..

"You are taking it too seriously"

The bullies excuse, you are a bit like Trump really, he knew exactly what he was doing with the mocking of the disabled reporter.

Again, Piers Corbyn is not a Dr, but your appeal to authority, and only one, condems you yet again as a poor arguer.

BTW the reporter was the one who debunked Trump's claim that he saw thousands of muslims celebrate 9/11 in NYC.

More use of the people's revolution, more trite rubbish.

'Ah so all the media are wrong, and you Claig, with your massive lack of critical thinking or any type of Trump filter are the oracle?'

Now you finally get it

"Bert I notice you try to win an argument with an attempt at moral high ground."

Frankly, you don't have to climb very far to take the moral high ground where Trump is concerned.

But actually, I wasn't. Would you like me to explain what taking the moral high ground means? You don't seem to be clear.