Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

donegal_man

I actually really like Sarah. I think she’s very resourceful. But she burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smokey eye. Like maybe she’s born with it, maybe it’s lies. It’s probably lies.

This appears to to be the section that people are interpreting as being an attack on Sarah Huckabee Sanders appearance but surely it's just a reference to her complicity in the ongoing saga of the Trump Whitehouse. And to be fair as an attack on the person charged with defending Trump it's hardly up (or down depending on your view of personal attacks) with those her boss has launched.

As for those taking issue with Wolf's voice, she was ahead of you.

I took an aptitude test in seventh grade, and it said in my best profession was a clown or a mime. Well, at first it said clown, and then it heard my voice and then was like, “Or maybe mime. Think about mime.”

Christy42

Christy42 wrote: »

I rarely watch the correspondence dinner and didn't watch this one. I did get a decent laugh out of hearing that Trump supporters got so offended they left. And indeed that they are complaining that people were mean about them. After all that Trump has said and they have defended? It is just a joke, don't get so easily offended.

To be fair correspondence dinner was never going to appeal to anyone but those with a dislike of Trump. It is designed to take the piss out of the president and the current administration can't take a joke. What can you do at that point? You are at a comedy evening about people without a proper sense of humour. People will always be offended in that situation, the fact that they are the tell it like it is crowd is brilliant though.

As for her jokes I obviously can't comment but I feel like you should be able to accept people have a different sense of humour to you? It seems unimportant. If you don't laugh don't look up the rest of her stuff and if you do then do look her up. Hardly the biggest point of the night as it turns out anyway.

Well that's a reasonable response.

However, I think the comedy factor was largely non-existent objectively. If this was in some other country with a president and administration nobody cared about, no one would be saying it was funny to be talking about a white woman disappointing white women, with the person sitting a metre from you.

52% of white women voted for Trump, 43% for Clinton. It's frankly ridiculous to ignore that statistic for the sake of a couple of jokes. A significant number of those of 52% will take that "roast" personally and it will drive them further to the right.

Even "roasts" should have some wit in them. It sounded like she got called in last minute and didn't have time to write a proper set.

markodaly wrote: »

This x100

This is all well and good in the short term, hell it will probably benefit her career as well. Money talks after all.

However, in the medium term, this short of stuff plays into the hand of Trump and the wider GOP, Conservative and middle American community. It plays perfectly into the narrative of the MSM in their cosy ivory towers, laughing and making fun of 'them' while they are the ones who have to deal with the day to day problems facing the US.

This is part of the reason why the Democrats are in such a weak position now electorally. Think Hunger Games, Panem and the like. So, laugh all you want because it just makes defeat for the Dem's in the next election more likely.

Yeah, it absolutely played into the hands of Trump.

Just like him getting properly roasted a few years ago at the correspondents dinner helped him (I saw proper because at least there was some comedy in it.). Or when Obama came out with the now classic "Well at least I will go down as a President."

This "comedian" adding fire to the stigma of any female Trump voter being a gender traitor is setting up 2020 to be the same as 2016. People will yet again secretly support Trump and their friends will never have a chance to convince them of anything else because it's social suicide to admit it. Polling will continue to be totally inaccurate because people can't answer truthfully when called on their home phone.

As long as Democrats continue this charade of Trump being a horrific consequence of Moroccan Facebook accounts or whatever it is these days, they'll never right the wrongs they've made. A comedy set about Clinton in 2016, and how Trump in 2020 will have no chance against a non-scandal-ridden opponent would help their cause far more than just insulting people yet again.


"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

spacecoyote

So, I need to get this straight in my head. The users who spend most of their time giving out about lefty snowflakes are suddenly filled with faux outrage over SHS getting jokes made about her make-up?

She called Chris Christie fat, to his face, which seems like a more explicit joke about someone's appearance. Where's your outrage over that?

I don't think the set was great, a good few jokes landed flat but the reaction to it is embarrassingly hypocritical

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well that's a reasonable response.

However, I think the comedy factor was largely non-existent objectively. If this was in some other country with a president and administration nobody cared about, no one would be saying it was funny to be talking about a white woman disappointing white women, with the person sitting a metre from you.

52% of white women voted for Trump, 43% for Clinton. It's frankly ridiculous to ignore that statistic for the sake of a couple of jokes. A significant number of those of 52% will take that "roast" personally and it will drive them further to the right.

Even "roasts" should have some wit in them. It sounded like she got called in last minute and didn't have time to write a proper set.




Yeah, it absolutely played into the hands of Trump.

Just like him getting properly roasted a few years ago at the correspondents dinner helped him (I saw proper because at least there was some comedy in it.). Or when Obama came out with the now classic "Well at least I will go down as a President."

This "comedian" adding fire to the stigma of any female Trump voter being a gender traitor is setting up 2020 to be the same as 2016. People will yet again secretly support Trump and their friends will never have a chance to convince them of anything else because it's social suicide to admit it. Polling will continue to be totally inaccurate because people can't answer truthfully when called on their home phone.

As long as Democrats continue this charade of Trump being a horrific consequence of Moroccan Facebook accounts or whatever it is these days, they'll never right the wrongs they've made. A comedy set about Clinton in 2016, and how Trump in 2020 will have no chance against a non-scandal-ridden opponent would help their cause far more than just insulting people yet again.


"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

She was hired to do a set and did a set. Not run the 2020 campaign. Honestly at this point everything plays into the hands of Trump. If people are nice they will claim it is because everyone loves him and if they aren't they will give out about people being mean while repeating Donald's own insults. It is ridiculous that they feel one rule exists for them and another for everyone else. I see no reason to stop simply because they are easily offended.

Polling was pretty accurate. There was no silent Trump vote. Polls got to within 1-2% if I remember correctly. Many poll aggregators messed up reading them admittedly (check 538 for one that gave Trump decent odds due to electoral college issues). That is a myth that keeps getting repeated with no evidence.

Finally at a certain point Republicans need to stop blaming Democrats for Trump. They might not have run the greatest campaign ever but they still were not the ones to vote for him.

Finally the 2020 democratic candidate will not be scandal free. Trump will go for something if he is still in power and his supporters will repeat it as if it is the only thing that matters. No matter how small.

Christy42

Christy42 wrote: »

She was hired to do a set and did a set. Not run the 2020 campaign. Honestly at this point everything plays into the hands of Trump. If people are nice they will claim it is because everyone loves him and if they aren't they will give out about people being mean while repeating Donald's own insults. It is ridiculous that they feel one rule exists for them and another for everyone else. I see no reason to stop simply because they are easily offended.

Polling was pretty accurate. There was no silent Trump vote. Polls got to within 1-2% if I remember correctly. Many poll aggregators messed up reading them admittedly (check 538 for one that gave Trump decent odds due to electoral college issues). That is a myth that keeps getting repeated with no evidence.

Finally at a certain point Republicans need to stop blaming Democrats for Trump. They might not have run the greatest campaign ever but they still were not the ones to vote for him.

Finally the 2020 democratic candidate will not be scandal free. Trump will go for something if he is still in power and his supporters will repeat it as if it is the only thing that matters. No matter how small.

This post got thanks, and will get more. Mine will get none.

Your reply points out that I am just wrong in everything I said, which paints a comical picture of the political acumen of the rabid Trump-haters in here.


Do you want to concede that anything I said is correct, or are you steadfast in saying I'm wrong? If you're saying that everything I said is wrong, is that because of political leanings, or because I'm an idiot?

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This post got thanks, and will get more. Mine will get none.

Your reply points out that I am just wrong in everything I said, which paints a comical picture of the political acumen of the rabid Trump-haters in here.


Do you want to concede that anything I said is correct, or are you steadfast in saying I'm wrong? If you're saying that everything I said is wrong, is that because of political leanings, or because I'm an idiot?

None of this is a counter argument? It just seems to be annoyed that I came up with a counter argument and an insult thrown in for good measure.

What did I say that is wrong? You have made no argument or point here.

Yes I believe what you posted was wrong. No a disagreement on a post does not make you an idiot. I never suggested this as the reason and since when has there only been such a binary reasons for a difference in opinion.

Sure the opinion here is pretty anti Trump but when the most compelling argument in his favour is these posts complaining that too many people are complaining about Trump he gets pretty hard to support.

Christy42

Christy42 wrote: »

None of this is a counter argument? It just seems to be annoyed that I came up with a counter argument and an insult thrown in for good measure.

What did I say that is wrong? You have made no argument or point here.

Yes I believe what you posted was wrong. No a disagreement on a post does not make you an idiot. I never suggested this as the reason and since when has there only been such a binary reasons for a difference in opinion.

Sure the opinion here is pretty anti Trump but when the most compelling argument in his favour is these posts complaining that too many people are complaining about Trump he gets pretty hard to support.

I'm honestly tired of giving counter-arguments to people who will absolutely never entertain a word I say. I'll always be a Trump-loving c*nt in this thread to everyone.
I posted that to see where I stand, and now I know. Everything I said is wrong, even though it happened in 2016.

I agree with a lot of things you said, and I also hate Trump, but I'm tired of people just not being in any way willing to concede anything in this thread. I don't see why I should take time to respond to you in earnest when I could come up with a unifying theory of everything, and still be called wrong in some low-effort post unvoted to the hilt.


This "comedian" adding fire to the stigma of any female Trump voter being a gender traitor is setting up 2020 to be the same as 2016. People will yet again secretly support Trump and their friends will never have a chance to convince them of anything else because it's social suicide to admit it.

Your reply didn't deal with this paragraph in telling me how I wrong am I. Would you mind doing it now? I consider it to be one of the most important things happening consistently in politics right now. I am absolutely not alone in thinking that.

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm honestly tired of giving counter-arguments to people who will absolutely never entertain a word I say. I'll always be a Trump-loving c*nt in this thread to everyone.
I posted that to see where I stand, and now I know. Everything I said is wrong, even though it happened in 2016.

I agree with a lot of things you said, and I also hate Trump, but I'm tired of people just not being in any way willing to concede anything in this thread. I don't see why I should take time to respond to you in earnest when I could come up with a unifying theory of everything, and still be called wrong in some low-effort post unvoted to the hilt.


This "comedian" adding fire to the stigma of any female Trump voter being a gender traitor is setting up 2020 to be the same as 2016. People will yet again secretly support Trump and their friends will never have a chance to convince them of anything else because it's social suicide to admit it.

Your reply didn't deal with this paragraph in telling me how I wrong am I. Would you mind doing it now? I consider it to be one of the most important things happening consistently in politics right now. I am absolutely not alone in thinking that.

I did deal with it. Please provide evidence that people his the fact that they were Trump supporters from pollsters. It is based off a false premise.

The polls for the country at large were close in the 2016 election. Many aggregators missed the effect that a small percent swing could have in localised areas (maximising Trump's electoral college vote). People were not hiding who they voted for in 2016 (at least not in large enough numbers to affect polling). Therefore I see no evidence they will lie to pollsters in 2020 based off of this.

Seriously that has been covered to death. I am tired of it needing to be dealt with repeatedly.

Whatever you believe I am not disagreeing with you for the sake of it. I am disagreeing with you because I disagree with your viewpoint.

pixelburp

So to get back to the Trump-adjacent subject of possible peace in North Korea (although the idea of him getting a Nobel prize over Moon Jae-in is so hilarious it's straight up insulting to the Korean president), there's an interesting side story to it all that IMO colours the recent exchanges...

In summary of the article below: there's a strong possibility that at the location of N. Korea's nuclear ambitions, there was a massive seismic disturbance caused by an explosion, the readings of which being consistent with a cave-in or something similarly disastrous.

Reading way, way between the lines, it's quite possible these peace overtures are purely because N. Korea's nuclear program has collapsed due to catastrophe. Who knows, maybe the poor scientists working in the facility are all dead too; it would then track that if indeed the North can no longer credibly continue its research, it's somewhat left with no choice but to speak of peace - especially given the US is now a total point of chaos in this scenario, and not necessarily the 'honest broker' anymore. With the South Korean president making legitimate noises about peace, it makes sense for Pyongyang to grasp this chance.

"BEIJING (AP) — Research by Chinese geologists suggests that the mountain above North Korea's main nuclear test site has likely collapsed, rendering it unsafe for further testing and requiring that it be monitored for any leaking radiation."

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2018/A-study-by-Chinese-geologists-suggests-the-mountain-where-North-Korea-has-conducted-five-successive-nuclear-bomb-tests-has-likely-collapsed/id-8a02d34f7c3142d3a283d943070fef8e

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

She's just helping Trump in order to benefit her own career.

I've watched a good bit more of the performance and it caters solely to people like you guys who already despise that administration.

For everyone else, it's just more of the same. People who see that performance and then hear people describing it as funny are left thinking "what are these people on about?"

Well maybe they might look into it to find out. People should keep calling Trump's administration out because they are still doing the same. Lying non stop every single day over and over with no remorse or shame. It should be pointed out to them every day and it should make them and the people uncomfortable.

I have to laugh at conservatives and their faux outrage about a non existent insult to SHS's appearance. They're all up in the air about something the comedian didn't say. Notice how they have very little to say about the comments about SHS and Kelly Ann lying. Even conservatives know that's spot on.

I expect Trump will make some announcement about his staff boycotting the event next year.

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm honestly tired of giving counter-arguments to people who will absolutely never entertain a word I say. I'll always be a Trump-loving c*nt in this thread to everyone.
I posted that to see where I stand, and now I know. Everything I said is wrong, even though it happened in 2016.

I agree with a lot of things you said, and I also hate Trump, but I'm tired of people just not being in any way willing to concede anything in this thread. I don't see why I should take time to respond to you in earnest when I could come up with a unifying theory of everything, and still be called wrong in some low-effort post unvoted to the hilt.


This "comedian" adding fire to the stigma of any female Trump voter being a gender traitor is setting up 2020 to be the same as 2016. People will yet again secretly support Trump and their friends will never have a chance to convince them of anything else because it's social suicide to admit it.

Your reply didn't deal with this paragraph in telling me how I wrong am I. Would you mind doing it now? I consider it to be one of the most important things happening consistently in politics right now. I am absolutely not alone in thinking that.

I know a guy who continuously mistreats women. Treats them like garbage. He lies constantly to them and about them. Those he employs, his family or even fleetingly meets. He has called them pigs, made crude jokes about them having their period, their facial surgery and joked about forcing himself on them.

He has committed adultery on all 3 of his wives, including while one was at home with his newborn baby.

Thing is though, he relies on them for his job (which he is absolutely rubbish at it). He takes no issue with men who he works with who treat them like garbage either.

Now here is the weird part about it - other women have a problem with those women who can't see was a a-hole he is. They believe they are enablers. Go figure.

Zubeneschamali

pixelburp wrote: »

there was a massive seismic disturbance caused by an explosion, the readings of which being consistent with a cave-in or something similarly disastrous.

No, the cave-in is just one cavern of many. It will not end their program, it just means a suspension of testing for a year or two.

So Kim will come to the table and offer to suspend testing for a year or two to allow talks, and Trump will claim a massive victory.

Then NK will resume tests when they are able.

mcmoustache

Deco99 wrote: »

Please provide one quote where she mocked her physical appearance?

I'm still waiting for this. I've heard lots of outrage about mocking SHS's looks but I haven't yet heard an example of this. Hopefully, somebody video-taped this event and those outraged should be able to pull a quote from it or at least point at what they considered offensive.


Whatever Michelle Wolf said must have been pretty shocking too. It was clearly more extreme than joking about grabbing a married woman's vagina or mimicking a disabled person, otherwise Trump supporters would have just laughed it off because they showed themselves to be OK with a bit of locker-room banter.

That is of course unless there's a bit of hypocrisy and faux outrage at play here.

B0jangles

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm still waiting for this. I've heard lots of outrage about mocking SHS's looks but I haven't yet heard an example of this. Hopefully, somebody video-taped this event and those outraged should be able to pull a quote from it or at least point at what they considered offensive.


Whatever Michelle Wolf said must have been pretty shocking too. It was clearly more extreme than joking about grabbing a married woman's vagina or mimicking a disabled person, otherwise Trump supporters would have just laughed it off because they showed themselves to be OK with a bit of locker-room banter.

That is of course unless there's a bit of hypocrisy and faux outrage at play here.

SHS's father encapsulates the attitude perfectly:

https://twitter.com/DSky3/status/990604794430664704

It's only funny when I'm laughing at you!!!

listermint

Are they real!


because that is excellent.

Christy42

listermint wrote: »

Are they real!


because that is excellent.

Yup. Just took a flick over his feed to double check.

Mumha

markodaly wrote: »

Like Bill Clinton then? Were the same jokes used then at the same White House Correspondents dinner in the 90's? I think not.

Actually the 1996 WHCD comedian had a big go off Clinton.

edit : here ya go https://www.c-span.org/video/?70684-1/1996-radio-television-correspondents-dinner

Don Imus starts his "gig" at 42.40

Mumha

spacecoyote wrote: »

So, I need to get this straight in my head. The users who spend most of their time giving out about lefty snowflakes are suddenly filled with faux outrage over SHS getting jokes made about her make-up?

She called Chris Christie fat, to his face, which seems like a more explicit joke about someone's appearance. Where's your outrage over that?

I don't think the set was great, a good few jokes landed flat but the reaction to it is embarrassingly hypocritical

Exactly. And it should be said that the camera panned to Christie who was laughing, while eating his dessert !

Mumha

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Hey guys

Going to be doing a lot of driving over the next couple of weeks, any of ye reccomend a few political TuneIn stations to Listen to. Both liberal and conservative, I listen to Fox News on it but it's starting to melt my head and I need something intelligent

Thanks

Oh I don't have premium TuneIn...who does

Podcasts ; Pod Save America : Rachel Maddow : Slate's Trumpcast : FiveThirtyEight Politics : The Randi Rhodes Show : NPR Politics Podcast

and the wonderful Stay Tuned with Preet

Hande hoche!

pixelburp wrote: »

So to get back to the Trump-adjacent subject of possible peace in North Korea (although the idea of him getting a Nobel prize over Moon Jae-in is so hilarious it's straight up insulting to the Korean president), there's an interesting side story to it all that IMO colours the recent exchanges...

In summary of the article below: there's a strong possibility that at the location of N. Korea's nuclear ambitions, there was a massive seismic disturbance caused by an explosion, the readings of which being consistent with a cave-in or something similarly disastrous.

Reading way, way between the lines, it's quite possible these peace overtures are purely because N. Korea's nuclear program has collapsed due to catastrophe. Who knows, maybe the poor scientists working in the facility are all dead too; it would then track that if indeed the North can no longer credibly continue its research, it's somewhat left with no choice but to speak of peace - especially given the US is now a total point of chaos in this scenario, and not necessarily the 'honest broker' anymore. With the South Korean president making legitimate noises about peace, it makes sense for Pyongyang to grasp this chance.

"BEIJING (AP) — Research by Chinese geologists suggests that the mountain above North Korea's main nuclear test site has likely collapsed, rendering it unsafe for further testing and requiring that it be monitored for any leaking radiation."

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2018/A-study-by-Chinese-geologists-suggests-the-mountain-where-North-Korea-has-conducted-five-successive-nuclear-bomb-tests-has-likely-collapsed/id-8a02d34f7c3142d3a283d943070fef8e

Think that's reading too much in to it. The collapse at the site was reported a few months ago. They wouldn't have too many scientists located in the one area as it would be a case of all the eggs in the one basket. Likewise dispersing your WMD programme across the country geographically makes any potential adversity's strike harder.

As regards the likelihood of peace prizes, imagine as you say the Koreans would take the honours. The only way I can see Trump doing so is if he remains in the Iran deal and tries his hand at peace making elsewhere e.g. putting some pressure on the Saudis in Yemen.

markodaly

I doubt they are going to have a comedian at next years event.

https://twitter.com/whca/status/990773612226412545

Captain Obvious

markodaly wrote: »

I doubt they are going to have a comedian at next years event.

https://twitter.com/whca/status/990773612226412545

Not really surprising considering how easy a run they give SHS in the briefings. Rarely called out on anything for fear of losing their seat.

amandstu

markodaly wrote: »

I doubt they are going to have a comedian at next years event.

https://twitter.com/whca/status/990773612226412545

Did you answer the question directed to you more than once as to where Wolf commented on Sander's physical appearance?
(in your own words)

eg

Deco99 wrote: »

Please provide one quote where she mocked her physical appearance?

Mumha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not really surprising considering how easy a run they give SHS in the briefings. Rarely called out on anything for fear of losing their seat.

True, they've been as craven towards Trump after the election as before it, so to capitulate with the WHCD is just one more step towards a totalitarian US media.

Christy42

markodaly wrote: »

I doubt they are going to have a comedian at next years event.

https://twitter.com/whca/status/990773612226412545

Ah they will just find one willing to insult democrats and immigrants. Someone more PC (for Donald's definition of PC which means its politically incorrect to insult him or his lackeys)

Pelvis

Can you guys stop being so obtuse? The makeup comment was a clear insult on her appearance, no sane person could think her eye makeup could possibly be nice in any way. Why are you so at pains to deny this? It was clearly was her intention, much like it was regarding Chris Christie.

I say this as someone who enjoyed the monologue.

markodaly

amandstu wrote: »

Did you answer the question directed to you more than once as to where Wolf commented on Sander's physical appearance?
(in your own words)

eg

Yes.

wes

Nothing worse then people who are happy to fire off insults, who then cry when they get a small taste of there own medicine. The entire notion that you are not suppose to be offensive to Trump and his ilk is laughable. They lowered the tone and imo they are legit targets for insults.

If you don't want people insulting you, then don't insult people yourself. The level of right wing hypocrisy is utterly stunning. When, they say something racist or homophobic, its free speech, but the moment anyone targets them, they are "triggered cry baby snow flakes" (to borrow there own terms they use).

jobbridge4life

Although it certainly wasn't necessary, I am grateful for Michelle Wolf exposing once again the insane hypocrisy that surrounds everything Trump. The man is a walking insult, to everyone and everything, especially women. Someone makes fun of one his stooges and suddenly everyone is morally replused. America is doomed.

Zubeneschamali

Pelvis wrote: »

The makeup comment was a clear insult on her appearance, no sane person could think her eye makeup could possibly be nice in any way.

No, the comment said her makeup was excellent. The gag was that it was made by burning lies and using the ash.

So the insult is for the constant lies, not appearance.