Donald Trump

PJPOWER · March 2019

OnWis97 said:

PJPOWER said:

Personally, I do like the longer evenings better, but I HATE the transition to waking up an hour earlier. I could handle a few more dark mornings. Those two or so weeks after this change suck, though. I feel like I’m in a daze.

That's so strange. It's never bothered me. Not even the first day.

Well when you’ve got a toddler that likes to wake up at 5:45 am...lol

Hi! · March 2019

PJPOWER said:

OnWis97 said:

PJPOWER said:

Personally, I do like the longer evenings better, but I HATE the transition to waking up an hour earlier. I could handle a few more dark mornings. Those two or so weeks after this change suck, though. I feel like I’m in a daze.

That's so strange. It's never bothered me. Not even the first day.

Well when you’ve got a toddler that likes to wake up at 5:45 am...lol

I thought Trump got up earlier than that.

mrussel1 · March 2019

cincybearcat said:

Meltdown99 said:

I guess Trump isn’t worth impeaching according to Pelosi ...

Yeah that was a weird comment.

She should just say the senate won’t convict. I think it was her point. Lots of time and energy for a known outcome

Right.. juice isn't worth the squeeze

njnancy · March 2019

Hi! said:

PJPOWER said:

OnWis97 said:

PJPOWER said:

Personally, I do like the longer evenings better, but I HATE the transition to waking up an hour earlier. I could handle a few more dark mornings. Those two or so weeks after this change suck, though. I feel like I’m in a daze.

That's so strange. It's never bothered me. Not even the first day.

Well when you’ve got a toddler that likes to wake up at 5:45 am...lol

I thought Trump got up earlier than that.

Nice.

njnancy · March 2019

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?noredirect=on

Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..

mrussel1 · March 2019

njnancy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?noredirect=on

Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..

For those that have burned their free washpo articles of the month...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/splinternews.com/tucker-carlson-calls-iraqis-primitive-monkeys-dreams-o-1833217490/amp

josevolution · March 2019

It’s over the Democrats best card to play is just put up a viable candidate and see if you can get him out in 2020 otherwise this has run its course ..Democrats have been outwitted by professional crooks and so has Muller !

mrussel1 · March 2019

njnancy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?noredirect=on

Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..

And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-culture-of-fake-outrage-comes-for-tucker-carlson/

josevolution · March 2019

Question for everyone here how long has Manafort been doing this he’s 69 he didn’t just start last year , even if he gets 10 yrs this weds it’s a failure he was supposed to be the connected dot to the Baffoon and he has outwitted Muller and all the congressional committees ..

Halifax2TheMax · March 2019

mrussel1 said:

njnancy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?noredirect=on

Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..

And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-culture-of-fake-outrage-comes-for-tucker-carlson/

Yea sure, and Democrats are the party of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. Maybe the author should get his own house in order and lead by example? It’s like listening to the bully Chris Christy bemoan the toxicity of our political discourse on his “if the dems and libs would just be civil rehabilitation tour.” It’s rotten from the head down. Please.

PJPOWER · March 2019

Hi! said:

PJPOWER said:

OnWis97 said:

PJPOWER said:

Personally, I do like the longer evenings better, but I HATE the transition to waking up an hour earlier. I could handle a few more dark mornings. Those two or so weeks after this change suck, though. I feel like I’m in a daze.

That's so strange. It's never bothered me. Not even the first day.

Well when you’ve got a toddler that likes to wake up at 5:45 am...lol

I thought Trump got up earlier than that.

Lol, touché

oftenreading · March 2019

mrussel1 said:

njnancy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?noredirect=on

Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..

And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-culture-of-fake-outrage-comes-for-tucker-carlson/

And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.

French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".

njnancy · March 2019

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

njnancy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?noredirect=on

Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..

And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-culture-of-fake-outrage-comes-for-tucker-carlson/

And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.

French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".

The entire 'good rapist' and 'bad rapist' argument is mind boggling and disgusting.

mrussel1 · March 2019

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

njnancy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?noredirect=on

Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..

And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-culture-of-fake-outrage-comes-for-tucker-carlson/

And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.

French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".

You're right that he appears to be defining it as whether it gets contemporaneous outrage. I agree that's not the bar. But I also think it's kind of silly that fully half of the population (women) were 'hurt' by his comments. I asked my wife what she thought and she wasn't hurt, she just thinks he's an idiot. I think that both things are true, Tucker is an idiot, but the daily outrage machine just further divides the country.

benjs · March 2019

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

njnancy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?noredirect=on

Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..

And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-culture-of-fake-outrage-comes-for-tucker-carlson/

And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.

French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".

You're right that he appears to be defining it as whether it gets contemporaneous outrage. I agree that's not the bar. But I also think it's kind of silly that fully half of the population (women) were 'hurt' by his comments. I asked my wife what she thought and she wasn't hurt, she just thinks he's an idiot. I think that both things are true, Tucker is an idiot, but the daily outrage machine just further divides the country.

I think we have to own a failure to hold people to account at the time they made these statements, but rather than spending inordinate time and resources to find 'dirt' from their pasts, just commit to holding present and future makers of ugly comments to account, and make damn sure people are aware of this new reality. It's always going to read as inauthentic to the accused if we're always playing the "let's find skeletons in their closets" game, but it's not like there isn't a regular inflow of ugly words from characters like this. Better to get them on current grievances.

oftenreading · March 2019

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

njnancy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?noredirect=on

Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..

And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-culture-of-fake-outrage-comes-for-tucker-carlson/

And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.

French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".

You're right that he appears to be defining it as whether it gets contemporaneous outrage. I agree that's not the bar. But I also think it's kind of silly that fully half of the population (women) were 'hurt' by his comments. I asked my wife what she thought and she wasn't hurt, she just thinks he's an idiot. I think that both things are true, Tucker is an idiot, but the daily outrage machine just further divides the country.

Who said 50%, and who is your wife that she gets to be arbiter of whether others are “hurt” or not? Because she’s a woman, she gets to speak for other women? Maybe people - men and women - who were sexually assaulted may feel differently.

In any case, the issue of “hurt” is a red herring. Both you and Frank bring it up to minimize the issue. It seems to me that any reasonable person should be offended by the minimization of the importance of the sexual abuse of children.

mrussel1 · March 2019

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

njnancy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?noredirect=on

Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..

And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-culture-of-fake-outrage-comes-for-tucker-carlson/

And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.

French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".

You're right that he appears to be defining it as whether it gets contemporaneous outrage. I agree that's not the bar. But I also think it's kind of silly that fully half of the population (women) were 'hurt' by his comments. I asked my wife what she thought and she wasn't hurt, she just thinks he's an idiot. I think that both things are true, Tucker is an idiot, but the daily outrage machine just further divides the country.

Who said 50%, and who is your wife that she gets to be arbiter of whether others are “hurt” or not? Because she’s a woman, she gets to speak for other women? Maybe people - men and women - who were sexually assaulted may feel differently.

In any case, the issue of “hurt” is a red herring. Both you and Frank bring it up to minimize the issue. It seems to me that any reasonable person should be offended by the minimization of the importance of the sexual abuse of children.

No she doesn't speak for everyone, and neither does the twitter mob. And that really is my point. The outrage culture is out of control now and it is counter-productive in my opinion. I agree with Benjs as far as not going overboard with comments of the past. I think he gets it right.
And to be clear, I don't think French is correct across the board, by any means. As I said in my lead, it's a counterpoint that I think is worth discussing.

HughFreakingDillon · March 2019

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Bentleyspop said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

look for an SNL bit on "saving time with fewer words" with Alec Baldwin this coming saturday.

Tim-Ap-ple. Three syllables.
Tim-Cook. Two syllables.

A master of efficiency.

I said the same exact thing to a co worker. it makes zero sense. he now is saying he said the word "cook" in between Tim and Apple but it was less pronounced. He's such a fucking idiot.

Who is the bigger "fucking idiot"?
The "president "
Or
His advisers, believers, supporters, and voters?

i knew this question was coming. it's as predictable these days as "....all the way to impeachment". LOL

You forgot, “follow the money, from Russia with love and a PTape,” as I prefer not to be taken out of context. LOL.

well, to be fair, I did have the preceding "....", to indicate it wasn't the full quote. LOL

Halifax2TheMax · March 2019

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Bentleyspop said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

look for an SNL bit on "saving time with fewer words" with Alec Baldwin this coming saturday.

Tim-Ap-ple. Three syllables.
Tim-Cook. Two syllables.

A master of efficiency.

I said the same exact thing to a co worker. it makes zero sense. he now is saying he said the word "cook" in between Tim and Apple but it was less pronounced. He's such a fucking idiot.

Who is the bigger "fucking idiot"?
The "president "
Or
His advisers, believers, supporters, and voters?

i knew this question was coming. it's as predictable these days as "....all the way to impeachment". LOL

You forgot, “follow the money, from Russia with love and a PTape,” as I prefer not to be taken out of context. LOL.

well, to be fair, I did have the preceding "....", to indicate it wasn't the full quote. LOL

True enough but go full quote or go home.

oftenreading · March 2019

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

njnancy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/12/new-tucker-carlson-audio-released-this-time-using-racist-homophobic-language/?noredirect=on

Only the best people to surround the President with advise. Ugh..

And an interesting counter by David French who is a real conservative that has maintained his integrity in the era of Trump. I encourage everyone to read it. Valid points about the state of the culture.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-culture-of-fake-outrage-comes-for-tucker-carlson/

And let’s be clear, Tucker’s words aren’t “hurtful” or “offensive” in the truest sense. At the time, they passed through the media ether without notice or comment. There were no outraged victims seeking redress. Nobody was crying sincere tears on camera because of the bad things a (then) MSNBC contributor said about them.

French's definition of whether something is hurtful of offensive appears to be whether it garnered media attention at the time. As definitions go, that's clearly ridiculous. And I think there's something wrong with someone who thinks that Carlson's comments about Warren Jeff's rape of an underaged girl aren't "offensive in the truest sense".

You're right that he appears to be defining it as whether it gets contemporaneous outrage. I agree that's not the bar. But I also think it's kind of silly that fully half of the population (women) were 'hurt' by his comments. I asked my wife what she thought and she wasn't hurt, she just thinks he's an idiot. I think that both things are true, Tucker is an idiot, but the daily outrage machine just further divides the country.

Who said 50%, and who is your wife that she gets to be arbiter of whether others are “hurt” or not? Because she’s a woman, she gets to speak for other women? Maybe people - men and women - who were sexually assaulted may feel differently.

In any case, the issue of “hurt” is a red herring. Both you and Frank bring it up to minimize the issue. It seems to me that any reasonable person should be offended by the minimization of the importance of the sexual abuse of children.

No she doesn't speak for everyone, and neither does the twitter mob. And that really is my point. The outrage culture is out of control now and it is counter-productive in my opinion. I agree with Benjs as far as not going overboard with comments of the past. I think he gets it right.
And to be clear, I don't think French is correct across the board, by any means. As I said in my lead, it's a counterpoint that I think is worth discussing.

I agree the issue is worth discussing, or I wouldn't be discussing it, but I don't see where you see the value in French's article specifically. His points basically boil down to (1) it was a long time ago, and (2) the comments aren't really all that bad anyway. The first point is nothing that hasn't already been made by a 100 conservative writers before him, and the second is repellent. Where's the new thought there? So the "twitter mob" doesn't speak for everybody - that's nothing new, either.

Honestly, I think the only fair criticism of the Carlson episode is to ask why they bothered to go back 15 or 20 years to find those comments when he makes comments like that today.

Donald Trump

Comments

Categories