No question Trump was mocking him, backtracking on remembering the story, like he mocked others but was he mocking his disability? That's what Hilliary and MSM claimed.
It's beyond clear that he was mocking his disability. Only a pro-Trump bias could lead a rational person to conclude otherwise.
maybe you were duped... I cant be sure bec I dont know Trumps intentions but some devilish details casts doubt on MSM and Hilliars claims. If he never acted out so foolishly mocking others, I would be more inclined to believe you and them. Like I said in any event most people probably dont know the backstory and it didnt help Hilliary anyway.
Do you read the items that you post? The reporter says that he interviewed Trump in person more than a few times. Trump was clearly mocking his disability.
What "details" are you referring to that cast doubt on that?
when did these interviews happen? before or after 911? (when the reporter dont remember events related to the most newsworthy event in american history?)
What does that have to do with Trump lying about not knowing what the reporter looked like?
Plus...the guys said something to the effect of "NO....it didn't happen (the way Trump described "thousands")...not to my memory"
That doesn't mean he is questioning his own memory.
ok fair enough... u think trump or pearl jam remembers reporters from the 1980s?
They were on a first name basis....yeah I believe he did
You have become quite the Trump apologist.
True, no true Jimmy Dore "fan" like him would apologize for Orange Peter Griffin.
Without knowing with certainty whether Trump was mocking the reporter in general like he has so many others or if he mocked the disability not being certain if he has ever had anything against the disabled, the question is what's more reprehensible?
1. Mocking people in general 2. Mocking this reporter because he "don't remember" 3. Using a disability for political gain
Remember Trump denied mocking the disability many times well before the tv ad.
not to mention she lifted up hollywood at the same time as bringing down athletes, she completely discredited herself in the midst of one sentence.
"Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners and if we kick them all out, you'll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts,"
this gives you a glimpse into the mindset and outlook.
The mindset is that not only Hollywood, but the whole country is made up of people from somewhere else, and if you're agenda is divisiveness, then we all lose something as a result of that divisiveness. One side will not "win" over the other.
Trump was criticized the moment he mocked the guy. He never apologized or made excuses for himself at the time from what I can remember. Now... he feels the need to deny he mocked the guy?
There's no question he was belittling him. No question. At all. Don't be foolish suggesting maybe he wasn't.
And you see... this is how he got elected. People just wanted him to be what he wasn't- ignoring the reality (which is horrendous) and choosing to believe what they hoped to believe.
Let's Make America Great Again. Just put this in your sights and keep peripheral vision to an all time low.
It's hilarious. Sociology textbooks need revisions. This has demonstrated stuff that is simply unfathomable. Trump? President of the US? Hahahahahahaha.
Without knowing with certainty whether Trump was mocking the reporter in general like he has so many others or if he mocked the disability not being certain if he has ever had anything against the disabled, the question is what's more reprehensible?
1. Mocking people in general 2. Mocking this reporter because he "don't remember" 3. Using a disability for political gain
Remember Trump denied mocking the disability many times well before the tv ad.
Now here is the real irony and hypocrisy in this meme....ready???
^^^ Interesting vids JC People will still dispute it as not true though and will still insist President Trump was mocking.
You think Clinton campaign seeked Kovelskis approval before running the campaign ad?
I have know way of proving my opinion on this question but I would say no.
Based on those Putin Russia hacked emails that were sent to an intermediary then sent to wikileaks and how they see minorities I could see your belief, I would think thou knowing it was a bigly ad, they at minimal made him aware it was going to air, if not got his approval.
Trump was criticized the moment he mocked the guy. He never apologized or made excuses for himself at the time from what I can remember. Now... he feels the need to deny he mocked the guy?
There's no question he was belittling him. No question. At all. Don't be foolish suggesting maybe he wasn't.
And you see... this is how he got elected. People just wanted him to be what he wasn't- ignoring the reality (which is horrendous) and choosing to believe what they hoped to believe.
Let's Make America Great Again. Just put this in your sights and keep peripheral vision to an all time low.
It's hilarious. Sociology textbooks need revisions. This has demonstrated stuff that is simply unfathomable. Trump? President of the US? Hahahahahahaha.
Oh boy.
Thirty, you don't know what was in his heart..........
^^^ Interesting vids JC People will still dispute it as not true though and will still insist President Trump was mocking.
You think Clinton campaign seeked Kovelskis approval before running the campaign ad?
I have know way of proving my opinion on this question but I would say no.
More irony...After this we will have exceeded our suggested daily dose of iron for the day.
Those same media outlets and the same people here that were so sure Hilliary was next president are still so sure Trump purposefully mocked the disabled.
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
She did not knock athletes.
sounded like it to me.
I never heard her say that one was better than another, just that they are different.
Hollywood is most likely going to be a target (like journalism already is) of this administration, not sports. I can understand why she is speaking out. Very commendable and needed.
The people upset about someone using their platform to speak their mind need to find a safe place where they won't be triggered (not directed at you Hugh).
directed at me or not, I am getting so sick of those words, "safe space/place" and "triggered". anytime someone has a differening opinion now it's muddled down to being kneejerk and without merit. *sigh*
when someone shouts into the microphone and yells "AND IT IS NOT ART!!!!", tells me it's highly possible she has an issue with it.
maybe it's because Dana White spoke at the RNC. I don't know. But she also, right after the MMA comment, made a point of saying "violence begets violence", which, while obviously true in a societal context, seemed timed to coincide with the comment.
she left what she said and how she said it just vague enough to be left open to interpretation and open for denial.
As the parent of a child of a developmental disability, Trump absolutely made fun of those who are disabled by doing what he did in mocking a person w/ a disability.
Anytime that you use the retard word, you are using derogatory speech against those who are physically, mentally or developmentally disabled who can't even defend themselves.
However, yes everything that Trump says is mocking someone else. It's embarrassing, it's wrong, and the media eating it all up is gonna send us to the pit of Hell.
Trump was criticized the moment he mocked the guy. He never apologized or made excuses for himself at the time from what I can remember. Now... he feels the need to deny he mocked the guy?
There's no question he was belittling him. No question. At all. Don't be foolish suggesting maybe he wasn't.
And you see... this is how he got elected. People just wanted him to be what he wasn't- ignoring the reality (which is horrendous) and choosing to believe what they hoped to believe.
Let's Make America Great Again. Just put this in your sights and keep peripheral vision to an all time low.
It's hilarious. Sociology textbooks need revisions. This has demonstrated stuff that is simply unfathomable. Trump? President of the US? Hahahahahahaha.
Oh boy.
Thirty, you don't know what was in his heart..........
I know what's in his blood stream though: carotene. Lots of it. Holy Christ that guy is orange. "Hello orange man! Take me to your carrot patch!"
Trump was criticized the moment he mocked the guy. He never apologized or made excuses for himself at the time from what I can remember. Now... he feels the need to deny he mocked the guy?
There's no question he was belittling him. No question. At all. Don't be foolish suggesting maybe he wasn't.
And you see... this is how he got elected. People just wanted him to be what he wasn't- ignoring the reality (which is horrendous) and choosing to believe what they hoped to believe.
Let's Make America Great Again. Just put this in your sights and keep peripheral vision to an all time low.
It's hilarious. Sociology textbooks need revisions. This has demonstrated stuff that is simply unfathomable. Trump? President of the US? Hahahahahahaha.
Oh boy.
I think you're confusing things, have you not read any of the last 3 pages? I've only said it 3 times, there are his tweets in plain sight, nobody including trump is denying mocking the guy, for not remembering, trump says he didn't mock the guys disability.
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
She did not knock athletes.
sounded like it to me.
I never heard her say that one was better than another, just that they are different.
Hollywood is most likely going to be a target (like journalism already is) of this administration, not sports. I can understand why she is speaking out. Very commendable and needed.
The people upset about someone using their platform to speak their mind need to find a safe place where they won't be triggered (not directed at you Hugh).
directed at me or not, I am getting so sick of those words, "safe space/place" and "triggered". anytime someone has a differening opinion now it's muddled down to being kneejerk and without merit. *sigh*
when someone shouts into the microphone and yells "AND IT IS NOT ART!!!!", tells me it's highly possible she has an issue with it.
maybe it's because Dana White spoke at the RNC. I don't know. But she also, right after the MMA comment, made a point of saying "violence begets violence", which, while obviously true in a societal context, seemed timed to coincide with the comment.
she left what she said and how she said it just vague enough to be left open to interpretation and open for denial.
Don't forget 'buthurt' as well. That's another goofy term used to agitate (because it does nothing else).
She took a teeny weeny dig at athletics. It was reasonable. As a former university athlete and avid, lifelong sport enthusiast... I didn't take any offence. I never detected malice as much as I detected playfulness.
I could be wrong though.
She definitely took a shot at the orange man. I was okay with it. Trump has stepped up in the public eye to a level that might be his undoing- he's not even sworn in and he's already as defensive as a kicked kitten. This is going to be very difficult for him- especially since he can't keep his mouth shut given his impulsive nature.
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
She did not knock athletes.
sounded like it to me.
I never heard her say that one was better than another, just that they are different.
Hollywood is most likely going to be a target (like journalism already is) of this administration, not sports. I can understand why she is speaking out. Very commendable and needed.
The people upset about someone using their platform to speak their mind need to find a safe place where they won't be triggered (not directed at you Hugh).
directed at me or not, I am getting so sick of those words, "safe space/place" and "triggered". anytime someone has a differening opinion now it's muddled down to being kneejerk and without merit. *sigh*
when someone shouts into the microphone and yells "AND IT IS NOT ART!!!!", tells me it's highly possible she has an issue with it.
maybe it's because Dana White spoke at the RNC. I don't know. But she also, right after the MMA comment, made a point of saying "violence begets violence", which, while obviously true in a societal context, seemed timed to coincide with the comment.
she left what she said and how she said it just vague enough to be left open to interpretation and open for denial.
The "safe place" and "triggered" comments are tongue in cheek. Just throwing it back at the idiots who decided it was an insult. Remember that is where it's origin lies.
I will continue to use those terms because I find them funny, and they point out some peoples hypocrisy.
For the record I'm a big sports fan and I never took what she said as a slight to sports. We see it differently.
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
She did not knock athletes.
sounded like it to me.
It's interesting to see how everyone interprets something different even though she never negatively referenced them. She made a statement about her profession, outlined what would be left without certain types of people and than identified those groups as something different then her profession so it wouldn't be the same. Never did she discredit their intelligence, political view or talents. People need to quit connecting a dot to an already completed picture.
anytime someone makes a statement "without (x), you will be left with only (y), and (y) is certainly not (x)", that statement is, I would argue in most if not all cases, meant to tear down the merits of (y), while at the same time attempting to elevate (x).
if Trump had said the same thing with x=Trump and y=Hillary, you know exactly what you would interpret that as. that is not saying "ah, Hillary and I are just different". come on.
Trump was criticized the moment he mocked the guy. He never apologized or made excuses for himself at the time from what I can remember. Now... he feels the need to deny he mocked the guy?
There's no question he was belittling him. No question. At all. Don't be foolish suggesting maybe he wasn't.
And you see... this is how he got elected. People just wanted him to be what he wasn't- ignoring the reality (which is horrendous) and choosing to believe what they hoped to believe.
Let's Make America Great Again. Just put this in your sights and keep peripheral vision to an all time low.
It's hilarious. Sociology textbooks need revisions. This has demonstrated stuff that is simply unfathomable. Trump? President of the US? Hahahahahahaha.
Oh boy.
I think you're confusing things, have you not read any of the last 3 pages? I've only said it 3 times, there are his tweets in plain sight, nobody including trump is denying mocking the guy, for not remembering, trump says he didn't mock the guys disability.
So much for eyes ears and critical thinking!
I'm not confusing anything. What critical thought is occurring when persisting, for three pages, to try and illustrate that the guy may very well not have been mocking the disabled guy (or his disability for that matter)?
Here's as much critical thought as one needs: wow... the guy is either a liar... or he thinks everyone- including the people who never voted for him- are bumbling idiots that will believe him just like many did before voting for him.
Trump was criticized the moment he mocked the guy. He never apologized or made excuses for himself at the time from what I can remember. Now... he feels the need to deny he mocked the guy?
There's no question he was belittling him. No question. At all. Don't be foolish suggesting maybe he wasn't.
And you see... this is how he got elected. People just wanted him to be what he wasn't- ignoring the reality (which is horrendous) and choosing to believe what they hoped to believe.
Let's Make America Great Again. Just put this in your sights and keep peripheral vision to an all time low.
It's hilarious. Sociology textbooks need revisions. This has demonstrated stuff that is simply unfathomable. Trump? President of the US? Hahahahahahaha.
Oh boy.
I think you're confusing things, have you not read any of the last 3 pages? I've only said it 3 times, there are his tweets in plain sight, nobody including trump is denying mocking the guy, for not remembering, trump says he didn't mock the guys disability.
So much for eyes ears and critical thinking!
But the reporter did remember his own article. What he didn't remember is the bullshit Trump made up about thousands celebrating. Kovaleski also never reported that they were indeed doing such a thing, just that LE was responding to alleged claims. People forget, the source of the lie began with the Don and then he backtracked and tried to blame a journalist who never even made close to that claim. Sounds similar to the misinterpretation of Streep's speech.
Trump was criticized the moment he mocked the guy. He never apologized or made excuses for himself at the time from what I can remember. Now... he feels the need to deny he mocked the guy?
There's no question he was belittling him. No question. At all. Don't be foolish suggesting maybe he wasn't.
And you see... this is how he got elected. People just wanted him to be what he wasn't- ignoring the reality (which is horrendous) and choosing to believe what they hoped to believe.
Let's Make America Great Again. Just put this in your sights and keep peripheral vision to an all time low.
It's hilarious. Sociology textbooks need revisions. This has demonstrated stuff that is simply unfathomable. Trump? President of the US? Hahahahahahaha.
Oh boy.
I think you're confusing things, have you not read any of the last 3 pages? I've only said it 3 times, there are his tweets in plain sight, nobody including trump is denying mocking the guy, for not remembering, trump says he didn't mock the guys disability.
So much for eyes ears and critical thinking!
I'm not confusing anything. What critical thought is occurring when persisting, for three pages, to try and illustrate that the guy may very well not have been mocking the disabled guy (or his disability for that matter)?
Here's as much critical thought as one needs: wow... the guy is either a liar... or he thinks everyone- including the people who never voted for him- are bumbling idiots that will believe him just like many did before voting for him.
And I have said the choice was a outsider liar celebrity game show host, or a pathological insider totally corrupt liar. Electorally the outsider liar won.
But I'm not sure if you think the disability was mocked
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
She did not knock athletes.
sounded like it to me.
It's interesting to see how everyone interprets something different even though she never negatively referenced them. She made a statement about her profession, outlined what would be left without certain types of people and than identified those groups as something different then her profession so it wouldn't be the same. Never did she discredit their intelligence, political view or talents. People need to quit connecting a dot to an already completed picture.
anytime someone makes a statement "without (x), you will be left with only (y), and (y) is certainly not (x)", that statement is, I would argue in most if not all cases, meant to tear down the merits of (y), while at the same time attempting to elevate (x).
if Trump had said the same thing with x=Trump and y=Hillary, you know exactly what you would interpret that as. that is not saying "ah, Hillary and I are just different". come on.
I am conflicted about the Meryl Streep speech. On one hand, she's right, that we (the public) and they (the media) need to hold Trump accountable and not normalize his behaviour.
On the other hand, putting celebrities on a pedestal and giving them this platform and encouraging them to believe that we should all sit and listen to whatever it is they have to say, for no other reason than they look good on tv, is the exact reason we are where we are today.
Trump as President does not exist without celebrity fascination in the US.
Anyone w/ a microphone has the power to say anything. Good AND bad in some cases.
of course they do. but it's our fault for letting them believe what they say holds more weight than the average joe.
Agreed, and the drama/media major students that I knew in college were the ones that were the least educated in political science, government, accounting, history, etc...they sure as hell knew a lot about acting and being fake though! Blows my mind that people put anything weight in what actors say outside of their acting.
Maybe we should stick to what Streep said....she never mentioned Trump by name. What did she say that you disagree with?
it was a veiled "as a famous person, we have an obligation" blah blah blah. I don't mind being educated by someone who has the microphone. But when all it is, is partisan bullshit, then I have an issue with it. It's not different than if Chachi were receiving an award and telling everyone in the audience how terrible Obama is. Just not a fan.
Honestly, had she not torn down athletes (intentional or not) while elevating actors, I might have nothing to say about it at all (and besides MMA, I'm not a big sports fan). The message was great until that dig on those not in the arts community. she came off as self-important and I hate that shit.
at least when Ed does it, he is the first to admit his opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's.
She did not knock athletes.
sounded like it to me.
It's interesting to see how everyone interprets something different even though she never negatively referenced them. She made a statement about her profession, outlined what would be left without certain types of people and than identified those groups as something different then her profession so it wouldn't be the same. Never did she discredit their intelligence, political view or talents. People need to quit connecting a dot to an already completed picture.
anytime someone makes a statement "without (x), you will be left with only (y), and (y) is certainly not (x)", that statement is, I would argue in most if not all cases, meant to tear down the merits of (y), while at the same time attempting to elevate (x).
if Trump had said the same thing with x=Trump and y=Hillary, you know exactly what you would interpret that as. that is not saying "ah, Hillary and I are just different". come on.
No need with the come on. I get what you're saying, but that wasn't her point or reference if you listen to her speech. She clearly says that those two examples are not "the arts". Are people offended that she labelled them as such? I don't know, I've never considered Football, MMA or any other "sport" to be known as "the Arts". The Arts have historically meant the Fine Arts. We have enough issues with direct attacks being made daily that it seems ridiculous to be offended by something possibly be construed as offensive.
If Trump made a statement that was specific to something he was affiliated to and then said Hillary was not that, I wouldn't argue because it's not an offensive statement. It's just a fact. I try not to create an issue where one doesn't exist because there are plenty of legit ones that are indisputable.
No need with the come on. I get what you're saying, but that wasn't her point or reference if you listen to her speech. She clearly says that those two examples are not "the arts". Are people offended that she labelled them as such? I don't know, I've never considered Football, MMA or any other "sport" to be known as "the Arts". The Arts have historically meant the Fine Arts. We have enough issues with direct attacks being made daily that it seems ridiculous to be offended by something possibly be construed as offensive.
If Trump made a statement that was specific to something he was affiliated to and then said Hillary was not that, I wouldn't argue because it's not an offensive statement. It's just a fact. I try not to create an issue where one doesn't exist because there are plenty of legit ones that are indisputable.
I said "come on", because to me it seems quite obvious you don't mention something you are left with if not to accentuate its perceived inferiority and to make superior what you may be losing. you can't tell me that the context of what she said, not to mention how it was said, doesn't show that.
I don't create issues where there aren't ones, either. Look at my first post on the matter. I have never outwardly said "she hates MMA". I stated very clearly I was conflicted on it, because it SEEMED she was tearing something down and lifting something else up. Just because you say it's not an issue does not therefore mean I am creating it.
to me, it's not a massive deal. Not the massive deal that the MMA community is making it out to be. or the MMA media. All I'm saying is that part of the comment wasn't warranted.
I loathe a trump presidency as much as the next person. But I think about comments made by both sides. If the left makes a comment that I believe veers onto the side of insult, I mention it. Because, a lot of the time, leftists pride themselves on little-to-no mud slinging. "we go high".
No need with the come on. I get what you're saying, but that wasn't her point or reference if you listen to her speech. She clearly says that those two examples are not "the arts". Are people offended that she labelled them as such? I don't know, I've never considered Football, MMA or any other "sport" to be known as "the Arts". The Arts have historically meant the Fine Arts. We have enough issues with direct attacks being made daily that it seems ridiculous to be offended by something possibly be construed as offensive.
If Trump made a statement that was specific to something he was affiliated to and then said Hillary was not that, I wouldn't argue because it's not an offensive statement. It's just a fact. I try not to create an issue where one doesn't exist because there are plenty of legit ones that are indisputable.
I said "come on", because to me it seems quite obvious you don't mention something you are left with if not to accentuate its perceived inferiority and to make superior what you may be losing. you can't tell me that the context of what she said, not to mention how it was said, doesn't show that.
I don't create issues where there aren't ones, either. Look at my first post on the matter. I have never outwardly said "she hates MMA". I stated very clearly I was conflicted on it, because it SEEMED she was tearing something down and lifting something else up. Just because you say it's not an issue does not therefore mean I am creating it.
to me, it's not a massive deal. Not the massive deal that the MMA community is making it out to be. or the MMA media. All I'm saying is that part of the comment wasn't warranted.
I loathe a trump presidency as much as the next person. But I think about comments made by both sides. If the left makes a comment that I believe veers onto the side of insult, I mention it. Because, a lot of the time, leftists pride themselves on little-to-no mud slinging. "we go high".
I saw mud. So I mentioned it.
Oh, I definitely agree that all sides/views should get called out. I just didn't see mud, on this one I guess. This seemed more like an issue of fog; slow down, look more carefully and soon it will all be clear and behind you.
See what happens when hollywood tries to speak out? Now the "right" is pointing to Streeps standing ovation for pedophile Roman Polanski back some years ago. Goes back to the point Meryl was trying to make.
Comments
Interesting vids JC
People will still dispute it as not true though and will still insist President Trump was mocking.
... what people don't want to hear that.
Trump was criticized the moment he mocked the guy. He never apologized or made excuses for himself at the time from what I can remember. Now... he feels the need to deny he mocked the guy?
There's no question he was belittling him. No question. At all. Don't be foolish suggesting maybe he wasn't.
And you see... this is how he got elected. People just wanted him to be what he wasn't- ignoring the reality (which is horrendous) and choosing to believe what they hoped to believe.
Let's Make America Great Again. Just put this in your sights and keep peripheral vision to an all time low.
It's hilarious. Sociology textbooks need revisions. This has demonstrated stuff that is simply unfathomable. Trump? President of the US? Hahahahahahaha.
Oh boy.
1. Dnc emails
2. Podesta emails
But wait...the media didn't report on those!!
Are you saying you 'know' a way to prove your opinion... or there is 'no' way to prove your opinion?
Typed too fast and didn't proofread.
ya know?
Those same media outlets and the same people here that were so sure Hilliary was next president are still so sure Trump purposefully mocked the disabled.
when someone shouts into the microphone and yells "AND IT IS NOT ART!!!!", tells me it's highly possible she has an issue with it.
maybe it's because Dana White spoke at the RNC. I don't know. But she also, right after the MMA comment, made a point of saying "violence begets violence", which, while obviously true in a societal context, seemed timed to coincide with the comment.
she left what she said and how she said it just vague enough to be left open to interpretation and open for denial.
www.headstonesband.com
Anytime that you use the retard word, you are using derogatory speech against those who are physically, mentally or developmentally disabled who can't even defend themselves.
However, yes everything that Trump says is mocking someone else. It's embarrassing, it's wrong, and the media eating it all up is gonna send us to the pit of Hell.
I've only said it 3 times, there are his tweets in plain sight, nobody including trump is denying mocking the guy, for not remembering, trump says he didn't mock the guys disability.
So much for eyes ears and critical thinking!
She took a teeny weeny dig at athletics. It was reasonable. As a former university athlete and avid, lifelong sport enthusiast... I didn't take any offence. I never detected malice as much as I detected playfulness.
I could be wrong though.
She definitely took a shot at the orange man. I was okay with it. Trump has stepped up in the public eye to a level that might be his undoing- he's not even sworn in and he's already as defensive as a kicked kitten. This is going to be very difficult for him- especially since he can't keep his mouth shut given his impulsive nature.
I will continue to use those terms because I find them funny, and they point out some peoples hypocrisy.
For the record I'm a big sports fan and I never took what she said as a slight to sports. We see it differently.
if Trump had said the same thing with x=Trump and y=Hillary, you know exactly what you would interpret that as. that is not saying "ah, Hillary and I are just different". come on.
www.headstonesband.com
Here's as much critical thought as one needs: wow... the guy is either a liar... or he thinks everyone- including the people who never voted for him- are bumbling idiots that will believe him just like many did before voting for him.
But I'm not sure if you think the disability was mocked
If Trump made a statement that was specific to something he was affiliated to and then said Hillary was not that, I wouldn't argue because it's not an offensive statement. It's just a fact. I try not to create an issue where one doesn't exist because there are plenty of legit ones that are indisputable.
I don't create issues where there aren't ones, either. Look at my first post on the matter. I have never outwardly said "she hates MMA". I stated very clearly I was conflicted on it, because it SEEMED she was tearing something down and lifting something else up. Just because you say it's not an issue does not therefore mean I am creating it.
to me, it's not a massive deal. Not the massive deal that the MMA community is making it out to be. or the MMA media. All I'm saying is that part of the comment wasn't warranted.
I loathe a trump presidency as much as the next person. But I think about comments made by both sides. If the left makes a comment that I believe veers onto the side of insult, I mention it. Because, a lot of the time, leftists pride themselves on little-to-no mud slinging. "we go high".
I saw mud. So I mentioned it.
www.headstonesband.com