President Elect Trump

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Free said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

JC29856 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Lol

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!

HughFreakingDillon said:

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Free said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

HughFreakingDillon said:

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Free said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

HughFreakingDillon said:

tbergs said:

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.