President Trump

Can't argue with much of that honestly. I actually have the big government vs. small government argument with my dad quite a bit. I tend to feel both parties have more big government issues than they should or either will admit. Also, I didn't vote for him once, and won't be unless a miracle happens and he becomes a completely different person.

__________________
Letterboxd

1. Current administration != Republicans.
2. Republicans != Conservatives.
3. These anecdotes != decades of near-unanimous push towards centralizing power.

There's simply no question as to which party is more in favor of diffused power, even though it's still a political party and will occasionally contradict itself (insofar as you can really treat a party as a single entity to begin with).

The Trump conservative administration wants to impede Washington state's legalized Marijuana laws, which was approved by state citizens in a vote.

I was hoping Kucinich would be governor of Ohio.

Here's a little story about perception:

I only heard about this latest name-calling "story" yesterday via overhearing news reports from CNN and then reading online discussions arguing each side of these heinous acts of negative labelling.

From what I heard, it sounded like Trump said these words in a public statement broadcasted round the world (but for some reason, I couldn't find the actual tweet, radio address, press conference, address to the nation, or video).

Now I come find out it's only a rumor that he MIGHT have said this in a private meeting behind closed doors, which some who were there now saying they can't even confirm, with Trump denying he even said it?

See how the media spins things and makes false reports that get the public to think things are true that may not necessarily be so?

I'm an example in this case, I took what the CNN media actually said (they reported this as fact) combined with what they inferred (that this "statement" they were "reporting" on was imbued with a hatred that demonstrated Trump's true feelings of white supremacy & ethnic racism), and I concluded that this was all taken from an event that actually took place, was recorded and was broadcast and re-broadcasted for all the world to hear. I'm reading all these online discussions with people in such an uproar, then finding out there's no recording to confirm that it was even said?

"This... is how I define unwarranted. "

(And even if it was said, it pales in comparison to what other Presidents have ALLEGEDLY said in private, behind closed doors about other countries, other governments, peoples, individuals or other world leaders. I bet Trump probably even uses the f-word in private, like so many other Presidents are said to have done... maybe even in front of his children!)

No, but I see how his apologists exaggerate and misrepresent things to try to convince people something isn't true. For example:

First, it's not a rumor. Senator Durbin is on the record saying it happened. You can believe he's lying, but a high-ranking official on the record as witnessing the incident is not a "rumor."

Second, Trump did not simply deny it, as you say. He just says he didn't use those precise words, and even otherwise concedes that he talked "tough." So right off the bat, he's pretty much admitting he said something similar, and might be hiding behind a meaningless technicality, like the quote being almost identical but not technically verbatim.

Third, saying that people there "can't even confirm" it is both false (see the first point), and kind of damning in and of itself. Why can't they deny it? That seems like it would be an easy, obvious thing to do, if it were not true.

Instead, here's what they've said:


Not one denial, two confirmations, and a lot of deflections.

Irrelevant. The fact that this wasn't really in private is the whole point. I have no doubt that Presidents say scathing, vulgar things all the time. Just not usually in these settings.

Also, it would be a blatant mischaracterization (easily worse than whatever you're accusing "the media" of this time) to pretend this was about the word itself. It's not. It's about the absurdly glib sentiment behind it, too. It's an awful idea, expressed with vulgarity, in an inappropriate setting. You don't have to think Presidents don't swear to see this as a departure from Presidential decorum.

Not arguing with you, but still, the media didn't report this properly and it injected all sorts of speculation as part of the report to paint a picture of a specific context. My proof is that my perception of what happened was turned around once I learned more information (i.e. the information as provided by CNN was one sided and speculative - which means it wasn't accurate journalism, but agenda-driven editorializing).

This isn't my argument, but someone suggested if Trump had used the word "cesspool" it would have been acceptable since using that word in a political context usually refers to corrupt or inept governments under which the people suffer due to their leaders' corruption or irresponsibility. Yet cesspool and s-hole are exactly the same thing (the latter just uses what is commonly accepted as a "curse" word).

We already know the guy has a bombastic & inflammatory use of language - the thing is the way the media goes crazy over everything he says (or everything someone else says he said, or everything people fill up entire books with about things they heard somebody say they heard someone say he might've said at some point if they're remembering correctly, but they can't guarantee it's actually true!).

for someone who claims not to like Trump, you sure do spend an awful lot of your time in this thread defending him...

__________________
letterboxd

What speculation? Your initial claim was that they had "reported as if it were fact." That was when you were mischaracterizing the report as a rumor, rather than something from an on-the-record Senator. So now that you know it isn't a rumor...what speculation are you referring to?

Yeah, that isn't proof, since it could just as easily indicate that your perception is based on whatever vibe you get while scanning media coverage, which I know from experience seems to involve a whole lot of reading between the lines and a conspicuous dearth of specifics (IE: "they made it sound like..." or something similarly subjective and unfalsifiable).

I'm glad that isn't your argument, because I don't think it's a very good one. This is an issue because the vulgarity is compounding the ugliness of the idea behind it. I guess there'd be less outrage without the vulgarity, but probably not much.

Nor do I find "hey, there are non-curse words that mean the same things!" to be a meaningful point. "I don't care what you think" means almost the same thing as "f**k you," but people specifically say the former or the latter to indicate their level of contempt or aggression, and that choice is a part of what they're communicating as much as the literal definitions.

First story I read on CNN this morning repot3d it was behind closed doors and reported his denial. Seems pretty clear from the comments today that he said what was reported.

Yep. Just like I did Obama for things leveled against him that I thought were unfair (not so much on this site since I only arrived near the end of Obama's term, but on others) and just as I bashed Bush for invading Iraq in 2003 after I'd supported his retaliation against Al Qaida & the Taliban.

As someone said on another thread, things need to be taken on a case by case (or issue by issue basis).

If you see my defending Trump on occasion as a one-sided position, maybe I'm just reacting to the scales and the side that is on the constant attack, the riots, the violence, the vandalism, the threats, the calls to shut down freedoms of speech, all from a side that said they'd accept the American way ONLY as long as their candidate won, but when she didn't, were willing to resort to anarchy, violence, destruction and the desire to eliminate the rights of others and the freedoms that define America.

P.S. What is so bad about calling countries that people are desperate to leave "s-holes"? That's what they are. That's the reason people want to come to America - usually to get away from the s-hole they're living in.
Man, everyone wants to skirt around the issues due to the language, but the fact is there are a whole lot of s-hole countries in the world and they are the ones where people want to leave to come to America. If anyone doesn't acknowledge that fact, then they are living in denial.

I've called my own state worse names - so does that mean I'm a "racist" against all the races that live in this state (which is all of them from the human species)? Apparently, if you call a place a negative name or put down the systems of government that make life a struggle for the residents, then (according to CNN) you are by definition a "racist."
I guess that makes me racist against myself since I still live in this s-hole!

It stems from the misguided notion that criticism is zero-sum. They don't like the media, and the media doesn't like Trump, so in every conflict they need to pick a side, rather than simply criticize both as necessary.

I was about to post this simply in response to what you said above, but as I was preparing to, he basically confirmed it:

You don't ever criticize Trump from what i've seen at least though so it's not a good defence bringing up your occasional defence of Obama: something none of us saw as you said. The closest i've seen you criticize Trump was the other day when you said:

About his latest "my d is bigger than your d" nuclear missile comments. I could have missed your criticisms of Trump as i don't always read this thread but it sounds to me like you do agree with and support Trump for the most part and i think most would rather you own it rather than prefacing every defence with i don't support him.

Think of the country man!

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

His hair is terrible. You'd think a guy with that much money could afford a decent barber!

Hey! Wait a goshdarn minute he was great in Home Alone 2

Thats the point... Trump says he doesnt WANT these people BECAUSE THEY ARE FROM **** HOLES (including the entire continent of Africa apparently). He didnt say he wants these people to come to America BECAUSE they are from **** holes. He wants Norwegians. Keep up.

Because he didn't just call them sh*tholes. The meeting was about immigration, and he was asking why we would want to accept immigrants from those countries. So it's a statement about the people.

Again, it's not just about the use of a curse word. The idea itself is ugly, and the vulgarity only compounds the problem.

This routine again? Here's something I said to you last week:

What's funny, is that's exactly what I've been accusing some branches of the media as doing - they have their side picked, and no matter what happens, they stick to it, always focusing on negatives even when something good happens, but for all the negatives on their chosen side, they push it under the rug.

We all do this to some extent, we all like to support the horse we bet on. But the nature of the news media (or what it was supposed to have been) is to be unbiased. There really is little actual news journalism in this country anymore. And yeah, I do think journalists should be held to a higher standard as part of their job as opposed to someone expressing opinions & debating others on an internet site in their free time as a form of amusement and social interaction.

And, yeah, I do tend to defend those I perceive as being attacked unfairly or over frivolous things. I saw it plenty of times with Obama. I disagreed with him on more than I agreed with him, policywise, but when I'd see an uproar or all out attack over some irrelevant issue or word or phrase he used, I'd come to his defense.