Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1139140142144145148

Comments

  • That was some time ago.
  • Penny S wrote: »
    That was some time ago.

    Indeed. I've noticed a significant decline in Trump's public speaking effectiveness just over the five years of his campaign and presidency*.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    It's also the case that (in addition to the aging issue Penny S brings up) even the most level-headed, stable, realistic, both-feet-on-the-ground of personalities (Jimmy Carter, maybe?) might find it a struggle to maintain balance / perspective / common sense in the social isolation which this president experiences. Even if self-imposed, it can't be stabilizing or healthy.
  • stetson--

    Re T and talking about 9/11:

    He may not have been "bombastic or maniacal", but he's known to have said a variety of lies, delusions, and/or fantasies about what he saw and did.
  • stetson wrote: »
    As I've said before, when I see him speaking one-on-one with reporters, he comes off as fairly well-adjusted and even-tempered. There's a YouTube video of him talking about the 9-11 rescue operations a few days after the attacks. Nothing bombastic or maniacal about it.

    This reminded me that Donald Trump's immediate reaction to the 9/11 attacks was to call up a local television station and use that time (in part) to remind everyone watching that since the World Trade Center had collapsed (just a few hours earlier) he now owned the tallest building in New York. That seems at least a little bombastic.
  • The guy is clearly a narcissist and grossly insensitive. I take issue with the idea that his speaking style as President is an indication of his mental decline, or that he can't perform exactly how he wants to perform in a debate.

    His performance in the debates with Clinton was crafted to send a message that just doesn't gel with people like me, or with reporters and analysts in the media. The stalking of Clinton was deliberate and calculated intimidation of her, perhaps directed at her to try and unsettle her, but more directed at people watching who like aggression. They don't give a rats arse about what he says. They want to see him be tough and aggressive, and that was what he was trying to do during the debates. Its always what he's trying to do, because he knows that his supporters want to elect a strongman who will protect them and their way of life.

    I don't really care what Clinton says, to be frank. I trust her. I trust that she is going to do the right thing for the world. If she does something surprising or concerning, well, she knows more than me, and I trust her judgement. I'm no different to a Trump supporter in how I choose politicians I like. I just have different criteria.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited September 23
    Don't forget that dementia is progressive, people. Just because he is coherent in 2011 or 2013, he could still have decompensated. Just comparing the videos back then to the videos today will show just how fast he has deteriorated.
    The stalking of Clinton was deliberate and calculated intimidation of her, perhaps directed at her to try and unsettle her, but more directed at people watching who like aggression. They don't give a rats arse about what he says. They want to see him be tough and aggressive, and that was what he was trying to do during the debates. Its always what he's trying to do, because he knows that his supporters want to elect a strongman who will protect them and their way of life.

    Remember when Al Gore "invaded Bush's personal space? He got crucified for it. Double Standard?
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    I lamented then, and lament now, that Mrs. Clinton didn't have the presence of mind to say, "Back off, if you don't mind" instead of allowing herself to be stalked.
  • I lamented then, and lament now, that Mrs. Clinton didn't have the presence of mind to say, "Back off, if you don't mind" instead of allowing herself to be stalked.

    Clinton has said she regretted not telling him to back off. But I don't think she should have added: "if you don't mind."
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Middle-class American women (I have been one for more than 50 years) are trained from birth never to call attention to this sort of thing. I suspect there's a primitive fear in the hindbrain that calling attention to one's victimization may encourage others to join in.
  • Yep. There's a docco on Hillary and in the first episode she talks about her and a handful of women sitting an entrance exam to get into lawschool. Blokes were whispering stuff to them like - if I don't get a job because of you I'll make you pay. She specifically said that she trained herself not to respond. That was how you handled it. Now, she says, I'm supposed to express my emotions?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited September 23
    Gramps wrote:
    Clinton has said she regretted not telling him to back off. But I don't think she should have added: "if you don't mind."

    I think she should have made a joke of it. "Oh, there you are, little boy. I was wondering where you'd got to."

    (For some reason, I could imagine Elizabeth Warren really making that work.)
  • She should have moved back and "inadvertently" trodden on his instep with her high heel.
  • Heck, she should've swept his leg out, and decked him.
  • Dunno which of you might be mansplaining what she should have done.
    Also noting that I always find it easier to imagine what I should say after the incident and I've thought it over a few times.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    I always find it easier to imagine what I should say after the incident and I've thought it over a few times.

    Yes, that's usually the case with all of us, I think.
  • .
    Dunno which of you might be mansplaining what she should have done.

    You appear to not know what "mainsplaining" is.
  • mainsplaining

    ???
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    When a man explains to a woman something she understands as well as or better than he, suggesting he assumes that as a woman she wouldn’t understand it.
  • Yes, but not with MT's spelling.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    True. Why I am not a proofreader…
  • mousethief wrote: »
    You appear to not know what "mainsplaining" is.

    When a water main explains to a service line how hydraulics "really" works.
  • Sorry for typo. Clever definition Crœsos.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    When a man explains to a woman something she understands as well as or better than he, suggesting he assumes that as a woman she wouldn’t understand it.

    I was half expecting someone would try to femsplaine the mainsplaine--but I do not want to get into a battle of the sexes.
  • Mainsplaining is outlining the basic way to do a job, but omitting the little tweaks that make it easy to do.
  • mansplaining is recommending a book on a topic as "a great analysis" to the book's author.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Mainsplaining is outlining the basic way to do a job, but omitting the little tweaks that make it easy to do.

    This reminds me of my high school math teacher. He would show us the standard way to work out a formula, then he would show us an easier way to solve the equation.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Mainsplaining is outlining the basic way to do a job, but omitting the little tweaks that make it easy to do.

    No it's not.
  • It's a man laboriously 'explaining' something a woman who knows as least as much as he does on the subject.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Actually, I think Eirenist is playing with the typo now and talking about mainsplaining - not making a sexist point about mansplaining.
  • So this time you spotted that and I didn't. :)
  • It's a man laboriously 'explaining' something a woman who knows as least as much as he does on the subject.

    ...And it never entering his head that she might know at least as much--if not more.
  • Precisely
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    The New York Times has obtained over 20 years of Trump's tax returns. He's losing money hand over fist, he has huge loans he's personally guaranteed coming due in 2022, and he's barely paid any taxes for years: $750 in 2017.

    The Times plans to publish a series of articles over the next few weeks. I'm reminded that when Al Capone finally went down, it was over his taxes.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited September 27
    Here's a link to the NYT article @Ruth mentioned.

    It should be remembered that the documents are what Donald Trump told the IRS about the state of his finances. It's possible he might have shaded the truth a bit. Shocking, I know!
  • Well, this is nice.

    .
    .
    .

    ::yipee::::yipee::::yipee::::yipee::::yipee::::yipee::
  • So...to what non-extradition country might T flee?
    ;) :grey_question:
  • Hasn't he mentioned wanting to send someone to Mars? Would he like to volunteer?
  • You want to risk an inter-planetary incident?
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Hasn't he mentioned wanting to send someone to Mars? Would he like to volunteer?

    Even Trump's not the right shade to easily camouflage on the Martian surface. At least he wouldn't have to worry about the radiation turning him into some kind of hideous monstrosity.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    So...to what non-extradition country might T flee?
    ;) :grey_question:

    It's traditional when on the run, to head for the Mexican border... maybe Mexico will pay for the wall afterall...

    AFZ
  • Hmmm...well, a "run for the border" is a theme in Taco Bell fast-food ads. I wonder if T likes any of their food? Perhaps he could move into a Taco Bell, and declare sanctuary or some such? He probably wouldn't know the difference between that and Mexico, anyway.
  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited September 28
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Here's a link to the NYT article @Ruth mentioned.

    It should be remembered that the documents are what Donald Trump told the IRS about the state of his finances. It's possible he might have shaded the truth a bit. Shocking, I know!

    If the documents are genuine: he will (may) have told the IRS whatever it takes to pay less tax than he should and his finances aren't that bad; no surprise really knowing how he is.

    So now he'll either have to admit he lied on his tax returns (presumably a crime) and be re-assessed and pay up OR admit publicly that his claims of great wealth and good business acumen were a tissue (bundle, shipload) of lies. This should surely implicate his accountants, lawyers and tax advisors (who may wish to weigh in to clear themselves).
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Here's a link to the NYT article @Ruth mentioned.

    It should be remembered that the documents are what Donald Trump told the IRS about the state of his finances. It's possible he might have shaded the truth a bit. Shocking, I know!

    I think there's a breakdown in any common sense of epistemology; For many people who support Trump, they resent paying their taxes too, they admire his ability to get away with it, and that these documents (which he'll argue the toss about) were printed in the NYT shows that the liberal media are out to get him.
  • He won't admit either; as usual he will bluster, avoid the questions, avoid the answers, introduce total irrelevancies and blame other people. But firstly I hope the US legal and tax systems see through this; secondly, and more importantly, that the American people do the same.
  • amyboamybo Shipmate

    I think there's a breakdown in any common sense of epistemology; For many people who support Trump, they resent paying their taxes too, they admire his ability to get away with it, and that these documents (which he'll argue the toss about) were printed in the NYT shows that the liberal media are out to get him.

    Unfortunately the local Trumpholes have already started doing this.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited September 28
    amybo wrote: »

    I think there's a breakdown in any common sense of epistemology; For many people who support Trump, they resent paying their taxes too, they admire his ability to get away with it, and that these documents (which he'll argue the toss about) were printed in the NYT shows that the liberal media are out to get him.

    Unfortunately the local Trumpholes have already started doing this.

    The NYT won’t release the actual documents because they claim to do so would implicate the people involved in leaking them. So Trump is already saying it’s fake news.
  • The best way for Trump to prove they're fake is to release his actual returns.
    :wink:
  • I can truthfully say I paid many times more than Trump in federal taxes both in 2016 and 2017.
  • edited September 28
    There's nothing at all that convinces a true believer out of their belief. Probably some will think that trump did well to start defunding government decades ago. It's draining the swamp isn't it?
Sign In or Register to comment.