Donald Trump
Comments
-
Screaming no.
Insistently saying he's got nothing but flawed policies and personnel around him, and his base is populated with morons, guilty AF.Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180 -
I think a politician talking a day or two after the event is a ok. I mean fdr waited until december 8th. but by no means do I support the President.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is that a great point? his comments 2 days apart contradict each other. the first was obviously from his puny brain, the second was probably written by Ivanka.mcgruff10 said:
that's a great point!PJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
I think instead of making an immediate off the hip speech right after the tragic event happened would have been lost on so many. No one cares what a politician says during an extreme time of hate/mourning/pain. After a few days for everything to sink in and emotions a little ( I say a little) less heated the people who the message was intended for were in a better position to receive it. You can't react to everything at every second and expect your message to be heard. It's like people that constantly post in one thread. Eventually people don't read them. So to answer no I don't think it was damage control.
I don't ever recall a sitting president saying nothing about a major event to "let the events sink in".
follow up question: what is everyone's opinion of taking down these statues of confederate generals? As a historian I have mixed emotions; it is a part of u.s. history but what they stood for is obviously wrong.Post edited by mcgruff10 onI'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
And there you have it. He technically doesn't have to do anything. Why does he have to? To save his Presidency or because it is the right thing or both? Who is saying he has to do this?HesCalledDyer said:
Like someone else said: too little, too late. He should've called them out Saturday. At the very latest it should've been his first statement when he woke up yesterday. The white supremacist groups already took his initial statement as "he wasn't talking about us, he said all sides."PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
He's just saying it now because he has to, not because he wants to.
0 -
fair. but what about the "both sides" comment?mcgruff10 said:
I think a politician talking a day or two after the event is a ok. I mean fdr waited until december 8th.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is that a great point? his comments 2 days apart contradict each other. the first was obviously from his puny brain, the second was probably written by Ivanka.mcgruff10 said:
that's a great point!PJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
I think instead of making an immediate off the hip speech right after the tragic event happened would have been lost on so many. No one cares what a politician says during an extreme time of hate/mourning/pain. After a few days for everything to sink in and emotions a little ( I say a little) less heated the people who the message was intended for were in a better position to receive it. You can't react to everything at every second and expect your message to be heard. It's like people that constantly post in one thread. Eventually people don't read them. So to answer no I don't think it was damage control.
I don't ever recall a sitting president saying nothing about a major event to "let the events sink in".By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Those are your words bub.dignin said:
You're right, totally the same as Nazis and ISIS.PJPOWER said:
They burn those too, evidently BLM and Antifa's go to is to burn up everything in sight.dignin said:
Power was there to check their BLM ID cards.Go Beavers said:
Were the people setting fires part of organized blm?PJPOWER said:
Um...Where were you last year???Go Beavers said:
How do you know blm was setting fires?PJPOWER said:
Yep, just named the KKK, Neo Nazis, White Supremacist specifically...Way better speech than Obama's dodging when BLM was setting Baltimore on fire...not that I'm a "trumpito" or anything.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:There he just called out all those hate groups. Is he still a racist?0 -
Trump didn't wait. He said what he really felt the day of.mcgruff10 said:
I think a politician talking a day or two after the event is a ok. I mean fdr waited until december 8th. but by no means do I support the President.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is that a great point? his comments 2 days apart contradict each other. the first was obviously from his puny brain, the second was probably written by Ivanka.mcgruff10 said:
that's a great point!PJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
I think instead of making an immediate off the hip speech right after the tragic event happened would have been lost on so many. No one cares what a politician says during an extreme time of hate/mourning/pain. After a few days for everything to sink in and emotions a little ( I say a little) less heated the people who the message was intended for were in a better position to receive it. You can't react to everything at every second and expect your message to be heard. It's like people that constantly post in one thread. Eventually people don't read them. So to answer no I don't think it was damage control.
I don't ever recall a sitting president saying nothing about a major event to "let the events sink in".
follow up question: what is everyone's opinion of taking down these statues of confederate generals? As a historian I have mixed emotions; it is a part of u.s. history but what they stood for is obviously wrong.0 -
oh the original speech was absolutely terrible! For god sakes Lindsay Graham ridiculed him! Today was definitely late but it was a good speech. I hated the fact that he started with talking about the economy.HughFreakingDillon said:
fair. but what about the "both sides" comment?mcgruff10 said:
I think a politician talking a day or two after the event is a ok. I mean fdr waited until december 8th.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is that a great point? his comments 2 days apart contradict each other. the first was obviously from his puny brain, the second was probably written by Ivanka.mcgruff10 said:
that's a great point!PJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
I think instead of making an immediate off the hip speech right after the tragic event happened would have been lost on so many. No one cares what a politician says during an extreme time of hate/mourning/pain. After a few days for everything to sink in and emotions a little ( I say a little) less heated the people who the message was intended for were in a better position to receive it. You can't react to everything at every second and expect your message to be heard. It's like people that constantly post in one thread. Eventually people don't read them. So to answer no I don't think it was damage control.
I don't ever recall a sitting president saying nothing about a major event to "let the events sink in".I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
hPJ_Soul said:What I have found most infuriating in the past couple of days is the refusal of SO many people to acknowledge the distinction between good and evil. This has been the weekend of false equivalencies like we've rarely been able to witness before.
Goddam right...0 -
Except he never took time to think about the situation and formulate a response.mcgruff10 said:
I think a politician talking a day or two after the event is a ok. I mean fdr waited until december 8th. but by no means do I support the President.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is that a great point? his comments 2 days apart contradict each other. the first was obviously from his puny brain, the second was probably written by Ivanka.mcgruff10 said:
that's a great point!PJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
I think instead of making an immediate off the hip speech right after the tragic event happened would have been lost on so many. No one cares what a politician says during an extreme time of hate/mourning/pain. After a few days for everything to sink in and emotions a little ( I say a little) less heated the people who the message was intended for were in a better position to receive it. You can't react to everything at every second and expect your message to be heard. It's like people that constantly post in one thread. Eventually people don't read them. So to answer no I don't think it was damage control.
I don't ever recall a sitting president saying nothing about a major event to "let the events sink in".
follow up question: what is everyone's opinion of taking down these statues of confederate generals? As a historian I have mixed emotions; it is a part of u.s. history but what they stood for is obviously wrong.
He flapped off and tipped his hat. His second response was damage control- written by his advisors."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
No, doesn't change my perception of him at all. If anything, it's worse (if that is even possible). He showed his usual true self with his first statement. The only reason he made the second one was because he realized that his real statement caused a lot more backlash than his dimwitted brain could conceive of at the time. This was damage control, pure and simple. Trump is WAAAAAAY beyond the point of redemption at this point.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
He bowed to political pressure. Nothing more. Where was this the previous 48 hours? His officials tried to defend it, not tried to couch it, but the story wasn't fading. We'll see what happens after the Texas rally.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:Anyone? Is President Trump still a racist now? Anyone?0 -
agreed.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Except he never took time to think about the situation and formulate a response.mcgruff10 said:
I think a politician talking a day or two after the event is a ok. I mean fdr waited until december 8th. but by no means do I support the President.HughFreakingDillon said:
how is that a great point? his comments 2 days apart contradict each other. the first was obviously from his puny brain, the second was probably written by Ivanka.mcgruff10 said:
that's a great point!PJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
I think instead of making an immediate off the hip speech right after the tragic event happened would have been lost on so many. No one cares what a politician says during an extreme time of hate/mourning/pain. After a few days for everything to sink in and emotions a little ( I say a little) less heated the people who the message was intended for were in a better position to receive it. You can't react to everything at every second and expect your message to be heard. It's like people that constantly post in one thread. Eventually people don't read them. So to answer no I don't think it was damage control.
I don't ever recall a sitting president saying nothing about a major event to "let the events sink in".
follow up question: what is everyone's opinion of taking down these statues of confederate generals? As a historian I have mixed emotions; it is a part of u.s. history but what they stood for is obviously wrong.
He flapped off and tipped his hat. His second response was damage control- written by his advisors.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
He bowed to political pressure. Nothing more. Where was this the previous 48 hours? His officials tried to defend it, not tried to couch it, but the story wasn't fading. We'll see what happens after the Texas rally.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:Anyone? Is President Trump still a racist now? Anyone?0 -
Trumpito is well known for nothing but measured response and tact.Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 061320180
-
PJ_Soul said:
No, doesn't change my perception of him at all. If anything, it's worse (if that is even possible). He showed his usual true self with his first statement. The only reason he made the second one was because he realized that his real statement caused a lot more backlash than his dimwitted brain could conceive at the time. it was damage control, pure and simple. Trump is WAAAAAAY beyond the point of redemption at this point.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
But you guys wanted/needed him to call out the despicable evil and he did. How is that not redemption?0 -
Falling down,...not staying down0
-
Everyone has already answered this question.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:PJ_Soul said:
No, doesn't change my perception of him at all. If anything, it's worse (if that is even possible). He showed his usual true self with his first statement. The only reason he made the second one was because he realized that his real statement caused a lot more backlash than his dimwitted brain could conceive at the time. it was damage control, pure and simple. Trump is WAAAAAAY beyond the point of redemption at this point.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
But you guys wanted/needed him to call out the despicable evil and he did. How is that not redemption?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
PJ_Soul said:
Everyone has already answered this question.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:PJ_Soul said:
No, doesn't change my perception of him at all. If anything, it's worse (if that is even possible). He showed his usual true self with his first statement. The only reason he made the second one was because he realized that his real statement caused a lot more backlash than his dimwitted brain could conceive at the time. it was damage control, pure and simple. Trump is WAAAAAAY beyond the point of redemption at this point.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
But you guys wanted/needed him to call out the despicable evil and he did. How is that not redemption?
I'm just asking you specifically. The speech today was it bullshit or not?0 -
He missed the sincere opportunity... today was about limiting damage. Think... please.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:PJ_Soul said:
Everyone has already answered this question.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:PJ_Soul said:
No, doesn't change my perception of him at all. If anything, it's worse (if that is even possible). He showed his usual true self with his first statement. The only reason he made the second one was because he realized that his real statement caused a lot more backlash than his dimwitted brain could conceive at the time. it was damage control, pure and simple. Trump is WAAAAAAY beyond the point of redemption at this point.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
But you guys wanted/needed him to call out the despicable evil and he did. How is that not redemption?
I'm just asking you specifically. The speech today was it bullshit or not?0 -
Well, I, for one am glad that he did.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:PJ_Soul said:
No, doesn't change my perception of him at all. If anything, it's worse (if that is even possible). He showed his usual true self with his first statement. The only reason he made the second one was because he realized that his real statement caused a lot more backlash than his dimwitted brain could conceive at the time. it was damage control, pure and simple. Trump is WAAAAAAY beyond the point of redemption at this point.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
But you guys wanted/needed him to call out the despicable evil and he did. How is that not redemption?
It was a paltry step after his initial statement and the tacit approval that it garnered in white supremacist circles, but better than nothing.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ8swY06eRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGn-C0G6xcw
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help