45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Finlandia said:
Eric Mc said:
Finlandia said:
I am indeed not a part of the problem.
Ah - you're obviously one of the "good" immigrants. There must be some.Funny how people always make exceptions for themselves.
Eric Mc said:
Finlandia said:
I am indeed not a part of the problem.
Ah - you're obviously one of the "good" immigrants. There must be some.Funny how people always make exceptions for themselves.
And he still has time to post on PH?
hidetheelephants said:
His incoherent, rambling 'stream of unconsciousness' speaking is part of the appeal, as is the limited vocabulary; as far as I can see it is deliberate. The vagueness/ambiguity is pounced upon by a wide swathe of the media and they give it prominence, his supporters hear what they want to hear and Donald just says 'Fake News!" when challenged about it. Rinse and repeat.
I agree with the appeal part i.e. his limited vocabulary identifies with his voters, however, I don't believe it's a deliberate ploy and in reality he's an articulate and fluent man. I think Bannon thought he could use his reality to status to appeal to the "ordinary" man.Finlandia said:
Eric Mc said:
Finlandia said:
Eric Mc said:
Finlandia said:
I am indeed not a part of the problem.
Ah - you're obviously one of the "good" immigrants. There must be some.Funny how people always make exceptions for themselves.
johnfm said:
Eric Mc said:
Finlandia said:
I am indeed not a part of the problem.
Ah - you're obviously one of the "good" immigrants. There must be some.Funny how people always make exceptions for themselves.
And he still has time to post on PH?
Eric Mc said:
johnfm said:
Eric Mc said:
Finlandia said:
I am indeed not a part of the problem.
Ah - you're obviously one of the "good" immigrants. There must be some.Funny how people always make exceptions for themselves.
And he still has time to post on PH?
He keeps hammering the press and feeding them, it is a vicious circle. His tenure of the Oval office will become know for the press, news and sound bites relating to. He could draft the best law ever, get it thorough but still be remembered for the knee jerks.
Now I read the Democrats are concerned that possible evidence relating to possible Russian contacts will be erased.
Now I read the Democrats are concerned that possible evidence relating to possible Russian contacts will be erased.
rscott said:
Bill said:
Stickyfinger said:
I cannot really say it better than this so I will quote as a reply................"an attack" in Sweden "last night" , not accurate as a quote is it ?
No. Not remotely.Trump said:
You look at what's happening last night in Sweden, Sweden. Who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible.
He's very clearly referring to a specific incident which occurred Friday night. Far as I'm aware, the only trouble in Sweden friday night was a group of mainly English passengers spent an hour grumbling to each other about the inefficiencies of Ryanair/Swedavia as their flight was delayed and no one could tell us what was going on...
rscott said:
If he'd said "If you look at what's was reported last night on tv about Sweden" then it'd make sense, but anyone could go back and rewrite his speeches to be more coherent (possibly start by removing made up words...). It amazes me that someone who claims to be a successful businessman, tv presenter, etc is such a poor public speaker.
...
And yet he resonates well enough to get elected as POTUS...(resist calling the electorate thick ...
). And to keep his business empire and TV shows running (probably less able to withstand scrutiny without calling people out as thick 
).While we're all guessing what he meant, my guess is that in his head that is exactly what he was saying. I'm sure we've all meant one thing but ended up saying something that can be taken in other ways. Should the US President be more polished? Again, probably. But the fact that he isn't is probably what got him elected (at least in part). And he's only been in the job a month.
I think it would be wise to take the guy less literally in the absolute at the moment and judge him on the "theme"/"direction of travel" and then on the outcomes. He may get more polished in terms of his comms as he goes on. He may not (he is 70 after all. The only 70yr olds I know are constantly saying s
t that taken literally would make you wince! Yes, they're not POTUS. But then POTUS is just a normal person who managed to get a lot of people to vote for him). Greg66 said:
No, there would not have been any issues. But he is copping flak for what he said, not what he could have but didn't say.
"Soft" is a bit pejorative for my liking, but "benefit of the doubt" fits the bill. Personally, I don't see why Trump gets the benefit of the doubt for making something up when he is the one complaining about fake news. He's set a high bar for himself.
He's copping flak for people taking him too literally and dissecting every last word as if it was the poet laureate saying them. Which we know is not who he is! If every single thing any of us said was dissected to that degree we could all be made to look a little...fragile. (Yes, you and I included!)."Soft" is a bit pejorative for my liking, but "benefit of the doubt" fits the bill. Personally, I don't see why Trump gets the benefit of the doubt for making something up when he is the one complaining about fake news. He's set a high bar for himself.
If we accept that (and I fully get that some people will be incapable/unprepared to do so), then he's not "making something up"...
Is he hypocritical where the press are concerned? Quite possibly - in seemingly believing only those who agree with him. That said, however, I've listened to some intelligent sounding commentators and they note that he is not like that at all, and that indeed people in his cabinet are not all people he agrees with (and vv) per se.
There are a few things that had he said ever so subtly differently or acted in a slightly different way would probably see him being lauded by a lot of people (the Swedish "adjustment" ref having heard about their issues on TV; perhaps ceasing immigration for a wider range of countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc). Then again, I think there are an awful lot of people out there who are specifically looking to find fault in everything he does such that it doesn't really matter what he does or what the outcomes, they would still feel him being POTUS is unjust.
Out of interest, what are your thoughts on HRC and the various bits of "fake news" (or not so) about her? Use of private emails? Hew somewhat hawkish approach on foreign affairs?
p1stonhead said:
Eric Mc said:
johnfm said:
Eric Mc said:
Finlandia said:
I am indeed not a part of the problem.
Ah - you're obviously one of the "good" immigrants. There must be some.Funny how people always make exceptions for themselves.
And he still has time to post on PH?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_IKEA_stabbing_a...
Eric Mc said:
I have noticed before that some Finns are indeed humourless.
What shouldn't we take what he says literally? If he doesn't really MEAN something, he shouldn't say it in the first place.
At the moment we have his underlings running around having to correct or even reverse what he has said. That can't go on.
Saying what you don't mean is dishonest - so if you are claiming that what he says is not really what he thinks, then, by default, he MUST be lying.
At the moment we have his underlings running around having to correct or even reverse what he has said. That can't go on.
Saying what you don't mean is dishonest - so if you are claiming that what he says is not really what he thinks, then, by default, he MUST be lying.
Murph7355 said:
rscott said:
If he'd said "If you look at what's was reported last night on tv about Sweden" then it'd make sense, but anyone could go back and rewrite his speeches to be more coherent (possibly start by removing made up words...). It amazes me that someone who claims to be a successful businessman, tv presenter, etc is such a poor public speaker.
...
And yet he resonates well enough to get elected as POTUS...(resist calling the electorate thick ...
). And to keep his business empire and TV shows running (probably less able to withstand scrutiny without calling people out as thick ).While we're all guessing what he meant, my guess is that in his head that is exactly what he was saying. I'm sure we've all meant one thing but ended up saying something that can be taken in other ways. Should the US President be more polished? Again, probably. But the fact that he isn't is probably what got him elected (at least in part). And he's only been in the job a month.
I think it would be wise to take the guy less literally in the absolute at the moment and judge him on the "theme"/"direction of travel" and then on the outcomes. He may get more polished in terms of his comms as he goes on. He may not (he is 70 after all. The only 70yr olds I know are constantly saying s
t that taken literally would make you wince! Yes, they're not POTUS. But then POTUS is just a normal person who managed to get a lot of people to vote for him). Greg66 said:
No, there would not have been any issues. But he is copping flak for what he said, not what he could have but didn't say.
"Soft" is a bit pejorative for my liking, but "benefit of the doubt" fits the bill. Personally, I don't see why Trump gets the benefit of the doubt for making something up when he is the one complaining about fake news. He's set a high bar for himself.
He's copping flak for people taking him too literally and dissecting every last word as if it was the poet laureate saying them. Which we know is not who he is! If every single thing any of us said was dissected to that degree we could all be made to look a little...fragile. (Yes, you and I included!)."Soft" is a bit pejorative for my liking, but "benefit of the doubt" fits the bill. Personally, I don't see why Trump gets the benefit of the doubt for making something up when he is the one complaining about fake news. He's set a high bar for himself.
If we accept that (and I fully get that some people will be incapable/unprepared to do so), then he's not "making something up"...
Is he hypocritical where the press are concerned? Quite possibly - in seemingly believing only those who agree with him. That said, however, I've listened to some intelligent sounding commentators and they note that he is not like that at all, and that indeed people in his cabinet are not all people he agrees with (and vv) per se.
There are a few things that had he said ever so subtly differently or acted in a slightly different way would probably see him being lauded by a lot of people (the Swedish "adjustment" ref having heard about their issues on TV; perhaps ceasing immigration for a wider range of countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc). Then again, I think there are an awful lot of people out there who are specifically looking to find fault in everything he does such that it doesn't really matter what he does or what the outcomes, they would still feel him being POTUS is unjust.
Out of interest, what are your thoughts on HRC and the various bits of "fake news" (or not so) about her? Use of private emails? Hew somewhat hawkish approach on foreign affairs?
He also unlike say Bill Gates or Branson or the Apple guys of even facebook founder hasn't really created anything. He just brought stuff up with his vast INHERITED wealth, or just got stuff built with his vast INHERITED wealth...
That's it. Daddy left him loads of cash he brought stuff and built stuff and started to cultivate a story of being self made... 6 billion he inherited i think...
He didn't invent or create anything of any note that we use today that is any good.
SystemParanoia said:
The media don't actually help themselves though.
they're all as bad as each other, and all claiming innocence at the same time
press and president alike
Precisely. They also want him to implement some kind of controlling measures on the MSM, so that their ridiculous claims that he is a fascist/Hitler-like figure can get some iota of credibility.they're all as bad as each other, and all claiming innocence at the same time
press and president alike
Murph7355 said:
He's copping flak for people taking him too literally and dissecting every last word as if it was the poet laureate saying them. Which we know is not who he is! If every single thing any of us said was dissected to that degree we could all be made to look a little...fragile. (Yes, you and I included!).
He and his administration is copping flak for outright making stuff up whilst calling everyone else liars.The moral high ground is so far above them they can't even see the bottom of it.
Are the media blameless? Absolutely not. Does the administration help itself? Not in the slightest, it lies about the dumbest things imaginable. Inconsequential things, yet it lies and lies and lies.
Then it is outraged, outraged that people don't take their word for things - potentially actually important things like a bad national security adviser.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff