45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 5)

[unrepentant]

La Liga said:

Blackpuddin said:

La Liga said:

That still doesn't mean he can hear them above other questions / noise.

If you're being asked multiple questions at once in a noisy room which is attempting to be cleared (answering questions discourages people clearing out), that's probably not the best environment to answer any of them.

Most if not all of the noise seems to be Sanders et al telling the press corps to get out.

Possibly, but we're hearing one microphone where positioning / the polar pattern can make a significant difference to what we can hear vs what people in other locations can.

There are much better things to go at him for than that.

ANY other "president" in history would not have needed the questions. They would have made a statement at the commencement of the meeting.

[Blackpuddin]

unrepentant said:

La Liga said:

Blackpuddin said:

La Liga said:

That still doesn't mean he can hear them above other questions / noise.

If you're being asked multiple questions at once in a noisy room which is attempting to be cleared (answering questions discourages people clearing out), that's probably not the best environment to answer any of them.

Most if not all of the noise seems to be Sanders et al telling the press corps to get out.

Possibly, but we're hearing one microphone where positioning / the polar pattern can make a significant difference to what we can hear vs what people in other locations can.

There are much better things to go at him for than that.

ANY other "president" in history would not have needed the questions. They would have made a statement at the commencement of the meeting.

No other President would have needed to make any statement as they would have got it right in the first place.

[minimoog]

Of course we remember the stick Dubya got. He's famous for it.

What the fk has that got to do with Trump being an appalling excuse for a man?

Nanook said:

Yeah, Trump's bad, but you'd think everyone else was perfect, the way a lot of you go on.

The only reason you'd genuinely think that is if you are thick as mince.

Edited by minimoog on Tuesday 28th August 15:59

[Tallow]

Nanook said:

Maybe stick to the content of the post, instead of getting all outraged and insulting? Missing the point then calling someone else thick doesn't make you look at smart as you seem to think it does.

I would say is that you're right in as much as if Trump had responded to the reporters he would have been torn apart for his response (either saying he's a heartless bd or a hypocrite depending on what he said). But the solution to that would surely to behave with some decorum in the first place? He's his own worst enemy.

[captain_cynic]

Nanook said:

Remember the stick Bush Jr got for finishing reading a story book to some kids?

A lot of selective recall occurring in this thread.

Yeah, Trump's bad, but you'd think everyone else was perfect, the way a lot of you go on.

Trump makes Dubya look good though.

GWB's presidency was pockmarked by many gaffs, malapropisms, linguistic or semantic errors, so much so we have a whole list of Bushisms like "they misunderestimated me", "There's no French word for Entrepreneur" or "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning". I'm sure Obama had a few gaffs as well and William Jefferson "I did not have sex with that Woman" Clinton... None of them were perfect but Trump is far worse than we've ever seen, he's the kind of leader I'd expect to be running 3rd world dictatorships, not a respectable, modern democracy.

G.W. Bush (Jr) was merely incompetent, he seemed like he was out of his depths in the presidency and knew it. Trump is incompetent and arrogant about it. He is definitely out of his depth but doesn't have a clue. A case study in the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don't have many kind things to say about GWB but he at least respected the office and process of democracy, Trump respects neither.

Trump is deliberately divisive, aggressive and offensive. He doesn't realise that if he makes enemies at the Presidential level, he cant simply pay political enemies to be quiet. Ultimately the fact he is now playing on a field where his enemies can strike back and because he's never had to play on a level field before, it will be his downfall.

[minimoog]

Nanook said:

Maybe stick to the content of the post, instead of getting all outraged and insulting? Missing the point then calling someone else thick doesn't make you look at smart as you seem to think it does.

Looks like you've deleted this but i'll respond anyway.

Your only point was whataboutism. It's the refuge of those with no on-topic point to make, and consequently it's endemic among Trumpists. If you don't like being called out for it then don't do it. Easy.

As for 'thick' - I used the word 'genuinely' for a reason. See if you can work out why.

[captain_cynic]

Nanook said:

captain_cynic said:

Trump makes Dubya look good though.

GWB's presidency was pockmarked by many gaffs, malapropisms, linguistic or semantic errors, so much so we have a whole list of Bushisms like "they misunderestimated me", "There's no French word for Entrepreneur" or "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning". I'm sure Obama had a few gaffs as well and William Jefferson "I did not have sex with that Woman" Clinton... None of them were perfect but Trump is far worse than we've ever seen, he's the kind of leader I'd expect to be running 3rd world dictatorships, not a respectable, modern democracy.

G.W. Bush (Jr) was merely incompetent, he seemed like he was out of his depths in the presidency and knew it. Trump is incompetent and arrogant about it. He is definitely out of his depth but doesn't have a clue. A case study in the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don't have many kind things to say about GWB but he at least respected the office and process of democracy, Trump respects neither.

Trump is deliberately divisive, aggressive and offensive. He doesn't realise that if he makes enemies at the Presidential level, he cant simply pay political enemies to be quiet. Ultimately the fact he is now playing on a field where his enemies can strike back and because he's never had to play on a level field before, it will be his downfall.

Really? Trump is aggressive, Bush was just a bit dim?

Remind me, how many countries has Trump invaded?

Do you think that GBW was alone in orchestrating the Iraq invasion? Quite an achievement for a bloke who's a bit dim. Bush was a patsy, a figurehead who did as his party asked of him.

However, as you know, I was speaking about their personalities. Trump is quick to lash out at his enemies, regularly resorting to name calling, impetuous and capricious in childish outbursts. GWB at the very least projected the image of a friendly Texan in his speech and mannerisms. Hence I'd call Trump aggressive but not Bush.

[esxste]

Nanook said:

captain_cynic said:

Trump makes Dubya look good though.

GWB's presidency was pockmarked by many gaffs, malapropisms, linguistic or semantic errors, so much so we have a whole list of Bushisms like "they misunderestimated me", "There's no French word for Entrepreneur" or "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning". I'm sure Obama had a few gaffs as well and William Jefferson "I did not have sex with that Woman" Clinton... None of them were perfect but Trump is far worse than we've ever seen, he's the kind of leader I'd expect to be running 3rd world dictatorships, not a respectable, modern democracy.

G.W. Bush (Jr) was merely incompetent, he seemed like he was out of his depths in the presidency and knew it. Trump is incompetent and arrogant about it. He is definitely out of his depth but doesn't have a clue. A case study in the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don't have many kind things to say about GWB but he at least respected the office and process of democracy, Trump respects neither.

Trump is deliberately divisive, aggressive and offensive. He doesn't realise that if he makes enemies at the Presidential level, he cant simply pay political enemies to be quiet. Ultimately the fact he is now playing on a field where his enemies can strike back and because he's never had to play on a level field before, it will be his downfall.

Really? Trump is aggressive, Bush was just a bit dim?

Remind me, how many countries has Trump invaded?

"I don't have many kind things to say about GWB but he at least respected the office and process of democracy, Trump respects neither."


That should be your key takeaway point of that post, tbh.

[p1stonhead]

I am with Nanook here. Trump is a petulent child, but he has some way to go to match Dubya for actual stty 'things' done in my book.

Edited by p1stonhead on Tuesday 28th August 16:34

[minimoog]

Nanook said:

And I'm not a 'Trumpist', but once again someone else has made the point for me, that this thread is no place for rational debate. the tribalism is pathetic, idiotic even, and stifles any possible reasonable discussion.

Disingenuous nonsense. We can all see what you wrote and the context it was in. Pure whataboutism, plain and simple. I's suggest it's the biggest single reason why anyone speaking for (or at least not against) Trump doesn't get taken seriously and engaged in 'reasonable discussion'.

GWB is pretty much universally derided as 'dumb' and a warmonger to boot. That however has zero bearing on what we have seen from the WH this last few days, or since Trump came to power, come to that.

[minimoog]

Nanook said:

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so I'm afraid.

Goes double for your condescending 'a lot of selective recall' accusation.

Edited by minimoog on Tuesday 28th August 16:43

[minimoog]

Nunes came to London recently on a fishing trip for dirt on Steele from UK security orgs. Didn't get any bites.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/...

[p1stonhead]

Nanook said:

minimoog said:

Nanook said:

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so I'm afraid.

Goes double for your condescending 'a lot of selective recall' accusation.

Edited by minimoog on Tuesday 28th August 16:43

Grasping.

Anyway, Trumps says this supposed bias by Google is a 'very serious situation' that 'will be addressed!'

What do we think he means? His solution to companies pissing them off is to badmouth them, then threaten to tax them.

Can he be more original this time?

He will do nothing, because he can do nothing, especially because its in his own narccistic head.

[deckster]

Nanook said:

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so I'm afraid.

It seems other can see the context it was in, you seem to be struggling to understand.

You've basically stopped to Trump's level of debating skills here. You're providing no reasoning, you're just saying "You're wrong, I'm right"

I'm not interested in that. If you have something meaningful to say, let's hear it. If you'd rather just have a go at people you disagree with, have a word with yourself.

But it doesn't matter. What GWB may or may not have done is entirely irrelevant. We may as well be comparing Trump to Genghis Khan, or indeed to my goldfish.

I have absolutely no idea why you even brought the subject up.

[Gameface]

Well that was boring.

[minimoog]

Nanook said:

Anyway, Trumps says this supposed bias by Google is a 'very serious situation' that 'will be addressed!'

What do we think he means?

First and foremost it means he doesn't understand how the internet works - seeing as he doesn't normally use it I think this is a given. So he'll just be parroting some story he's seen on Fox. Second it means he doesn't know how the First Amendment works. And thirdly it means he'll be promised an investigation amid much eye rolling and it'll be quickly kicked into the long grass.

There's a good chance though this will be (one of) his next squirrels deployed and further whipped up by Fox etc to distract from his misdeeds and those of his accomplices.

[deckster]

Nanook said:

deckster said:

But it doesn't matter. What GWB may or may not have done is entirely irrelevant. We may as well be comparing Trump to Genghis Khan, or indeed to my goldfish.

I have absolutely no idea why you even brought the subject up.

Well, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

A wise man might observe that if you are misunderstood, the fault lies with you and not your audience.

But now I'm arguing with someone on the internet, which is against my principles so I'm going to stop.

[_dobbo_]

Context is everything though.

Would Bush, when shown a written statement about a dead senator, refuse to release it and instead post a photo of himself on instagram sending best wishes to the family?

[vonuber]

How is th3 reaction to 911 - an unfolding event that clearly took everyone by surprise - equivalent to that of commemorating a dead senator well after the event of his death?

[minimoog]

_dobbo_ said:

Would Bush, when shown a written statement about a dead senator, refuse to release it and instead post a photo of himself on instagram sending best wishes to the family?

It's not easy to interpret Nanook's point. He seems to be saying that Bush Jnr, for one, would also be capable of insulting a political opponent by refusing to implement established protocol on the death of that opponent. Whether he thinks that's because Bush and Trump are both too stupid to understand the tradition, or because they have similar levels of moral turpitude and petty vindictiveness, or some combination of the two, isn't clear. He does seem to think that how Bush handled the 9/11 news should mean Trump is cut some slack about McCain though.