Black History Month (Political)

[Matata]

Seriously Kate ... just stop. I'm literally almost doubled over in laughter at your responses and choices in trying to defend that which you (and your 'like-minded folks') claim to be against. I'm actually beginning to feel kind of embarrassed for you.

Your arrogance is cruel. You are intelligent enough to know that laughing at someone and telling them you feel sorry for them is a deliberate attempt to demean and shame. YOU, who rails against partisanship, who castigates those with liberal beliefs and berates posters for not attempting to see the other side. YOU, who is the self-appointed queen of laboriously exposing what you deem as hypocritical postings by others. YOU dare to demean someone through laughter. YOU insult someone who believes differently than you by feeling "kind of embarrassed" for that person. YOU exhibit the hypocrisy that you claim to hate. YOU strike out against a poster who has shown intelligence and critical thinking in her responses because she has exposed insecurities in you and weaknesses in your arguments and you just can't handle that.

You have been foe-d and I won't see your response to ME but I'm sure you'll be compelled to write a treatise for others to read.

 

[monarch64]

Wow.

 

[lovedogs]

Wow.

Seriously. So much hostility, just because other posters dare to use logic and reason to disagree?? Give me a break.

 

[lovedogs]

#1Have you ever wondered why the press (and so many of us) dislike this man and are hard on him? That maybe it isn't because the press is "mean", but because he is incompetent and offensive?

#2To play devil's advocate, let's pretend that it IS just the media being unfair to him. Since when does being hard on a president mean that he should exclude media from his meetings? Since when does reporting on what a president says or does constitute something that should be punished? The press has been covering presidents for a long time, and no president that I'm aware of has talked about excluding them.

#3So that means either 1) he's too thinned skinned, b) the media is on to something, 3) we should somehow treat him differently than all other presidents. If he can't take heat from the press, he's really in the wrong job.

1) It's the press. 'Nuff said. They spill the garbage, idiots gobble it up, they make money, wash, rinse & repeat. THAT certainly isn't 'news' (to me at least).

2) Because they report lies and spin 'news' faster than a Maytag, and they should be punished for it. That's what we do in this country when someone is proven to have done something wrong (not the mere suggestion of wrong-doing for ratings; if there's confusion here, see #1). Or do you condone people in business partaking in unscrupulous actions (e.g. Wells Fargo, EpiPen, etc.)?

3) First off, it goes "1, 2, 3" (that's how I was taught anyway) which reminds me of another teacher - my SIL, funny story; will share later. Anyway, if there is ANYONE in this country who is thin-skinned, it sure as heck doesn't appear to be the unscripted, potty-mouth from New York; rather, those who cling to his every breath, waiting in bloodthirsty anticipation for him to pass gas so they can critique the odor and decipher just what he really did have for lunch that day.

OK. So your argument comes down to "the press is all wrong and deserves to be punished?" Does that mean all news, or just the "liberal news" you disagree with? If you have a problem with all news outlets, where do you get your information?

And sorry to break it to you, but the press reporting things about Trump you don't like isn't a crime. It just isn't, and it won't be. Who was "proven to have done something wrong"? The press accurately reported Chumps remarks about BHM, so what's the problem with that? His incompetent words and actions are his own, and will continue being reported.

And sorry you don't like my numbering. Typos happen.

 

[mary poppins]

[quote="TekatePlease tell me this is a joke. [/quote]

I know, right? It looks like a Saturday Night Live transcript. Even South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone say the Trump administration is too hard to satirise. Parker went on to say "It's tricky now because satire has become reality,"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-02/donald-trump-too-hard-to-satirise-say-trey-parker-and-matt-stone/8236338?pfmredir=sm

I'll come back and address other posts/issues later.

 

[Tekate]

Kate, it seems you are the one who is upset currently. And that is certainly your right.

Logical fallacy, not biting sorry.... carry on!

 

[Tekate]

[b]Absolutely, I am in favor of no president making any references to religion or god. period. certainly he/she can say whatever the heck they want when they aren't representing me .. they have lives.. [/b]

And to make your point, you chose THAT link! Did you by chance ... read it?
Obama - while representing YOU - started off that PRAYER brunch with:

Giving all praise and honor to God for bringing us together here this morning.

I want to thank everyone who helped organize this breakfast, especially our co-chairs, Robert and Juan, who embody the tradition of friendship, fellowship, and prayer. I will begin with a confession: I have always felt a tinge of guilt motorcading up here at the heart of D.C.'s rush hour. (Laughter.) I suspect that not all the commuters were blessing me as they waited to get to work. (Laughter.) But it's for a good cause. A National Prayer Brunch doesn't have the same ring to it. (Laughter.)

Where was the protest? I mean come on, he made 5 references to himself, 5 references to religion, 3 comments garnering laughter, and one that could be perceived as belittling us less fortunate folks who have to sit in traffic to accommodate his motorcade (not that I really care; I don't live there anymore, thank God! ... oops!).

Just as big a stretch as the right to bear arms means people can own as many guns as they want. As to the racial divide, it wouldn't be hard to 'bridge' if people weren't racists, that doesn't have anything to do with religion.

Your opinion on about bridging the racial divide (that you DIDN'T write with a quill & ink, clearly influenced by media that DIDN'T distribute news with wooden press machines and who spoonfed biased left-leaning drivel the last 8 years to help pump up a man who WASN'T protected with muskets) might be better shared with "those who share your opinions" further up in this thread ... perhaps in a GTG about how 'progressive' you are to expect advancements in every area you want, but not for others. How very 'equall'!

You think the right doesn't gobble up farfetched wacko ideas? Well they print glowing reports of Cheeto and crew, and their readers gobble up those lies.. so to each his own I'd say.

I don't 'think' they do, I KNOW they do/have ... for far longer than the last couple weeks/election. That's why I don't believe everything I read or hear out of their pie holes, and actually make an effort to research things on my own to. Maybe try it sometime!

While there's still a constitution, I and people who think the same as I, will continue to point out that Cheeto does not represent the majority of people who voted. I don't understand why right wingers get their panties in an uproar over a fact. SMH

I celebrate EVERYONE who is 'loud & proud' ... male or female ... of any skin color ... any religion ... any origin ... and I'd be the first in line to help defend them ALL with my GUNS! But don't worry ... I won't hold my breath waiting for the same 'defense of my rights' in return.

fried chicken and Michelle Obama.. she was asked a question and she was joking with the questioner.. if you found that offensive, so be it, soul food is known as traditional african american southern food of which friend chicken is one item, if she had said, sure people can eat sauerbraten and potato dumplings I would have been surprised as the question when asked about SOUL FOOD.

Do you find it distasteful that Melania Trump posed nude and girl on girl pix? or That Cheeto was a lady part grabber? If I had to gauge my distasteful feelings the latter two I find more distasteful.

Annnnnd comments about 'the media' were directed at Chump (you know, the guy they actually came to meet with). Obama opened with a joke about traffic (a well known problem at the time); Chump did the same. I don't really care what Michelle said, or what Melania did; they're people, humans - including the past & present Presidents. NO ONE should have to live their life inside a filter-bubble any more than someone who is gay should be made to feel the need to live 'in the closet'. Words matter, and they might sting, but they ONLY create a negative impact if YOU give them power to. I rather focus my concern on actual, physical pain ... like people who literally, actually, assault others; not some blown-to-crap comment made by a couple of 'typical guys' on a bus 8 years ago.

Seriously Kate ... just stop. I'm literally almost doubled over in laughter at your responses and choices in trying to defend that which you (and your 'like-minded folks') claim to be against. I'm actually beginning to feel kind of embarrassed for you.

Again you are doing a logical fallacy. I didn't ask for your psychoanalysis of my thoughts.. I gave you an answer to what you asked. You can divert, throw stones, use strawman tactics, juvenile remarks, baiting.. I'm not falling for it.

If you cannot understand what I put up for you to read, not my problem.

Please, continue onward and upward. I will continue to not pray for you..

 

[monarch64]

[quote="TekatePlease tell me this is a joke.

I know, right? It looks like a Saturday Night Live transcript. Even South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone say the Trump administration is too hard to satirise. Parker went on to say "It's tricky now because satire has become reality,"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-02/donald-trump-too-hard-to-satirise-say-trey-parker-and-matt-stone/8236338?pfmredir=sm

I'll come back and address other posts/issues later.[/quote]

Wut. This hurts my brain. You can't satirize satire. Or can you?

 

[E B]

The press accurately reported Chumps remarks about BHM, so what's the problem with that? His incompetent words and actions are his own, and will continue being reported.

It really does come down to this. People can explain what he really meant, or say that we're focusing on one part of a not-much-better whole, but his words are his words, and that's why a near-constant media presence is pretty damn important. Otherwise, we'd be left taking only Trump's word for it. Or, Bannon's, really. Spicer's. Can you imagine?

 

[the_mother_thing]

Wow.

Not me! I self-medicate with coffee ... lots and lots of freshly-ground-out-of-the-bur-mill steaming COOOOFFFFFEEEEEEEE!

Seriously. So much hostility, just because other posters dare to use logic and reason to disagree?? Give me a break.

That's not hostility; thinking about blowing up the white house is 'hostility' (and publicly stating it is just stupid).

And I am literally and sincerely BEGGING YOU to - pretty please with a cherry on top of a massive fudge covered sundae - point out to me in this thread where logic & reason were used (besides my own posts) to 'back up' a point. I'd put out an APB, but don't want to be charged with filing a false report.

And before you get started, FTR:

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.

and

Logic ... is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments. A valid argument is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion. In ordinary discourse, the conclusion of such an argument may be signified by words like therefore, hence, ergo and so on.

Go forth & conquer lovedogs! Report back post haste.

 

[the_mother_thing]

The press accurately reported Chumps remarks about BHM, so what's the problem with that? His incompetent words and actions are his own, and will continue being reported.

It really does come down to this. People can explain what he really meant, or say that we're focusing on one part of a not-much-better whole, but his words are his words, and that's why a near-constant media presence is pretty damn important. Otherwise, we'd be left taking only Trump's word for it. Or, Bannon's, really. Spicer's. Can you imagine?

LOVEDOGS: the source quoted to start this thread is "DeadSpin" ... a sattire & sports website; not exactly what anyone considers 'the press' when looking for ethics, facts, etc. To MaryPoppins' defense, she may not have been looking for 'serious', 'facts', etc. I get it, we all have non-serious stuff we browse. But come on ... to start a thread about "Black History Month" and proceed to make a mockery of the event by picking apart El Cheeto is really in poor taste - I don't care what your politics are. Start a thread, by all means, but don't tear down the first shred of partnership we see in the WH that for many people of color (and not) may have been quite meaningful. I genuinely feel sad for any PS member who opens that thread hoping to discuss something 'uplifting' about the observance, and is instead greeted by a flood of vomit pics mocking Chump.

EB: In all seriousness - and even stretching to include the Obama speech Kate posted - what exactly/specifically did El Cheeto say in that round table honoring BHM that was really so bad, poor, whatever to warrant the 'PS response' of casting such a negative relation between these two events here? Seriously? Did I miss an excerpt where he dropped a slur? Grabbed a woman anywhere other than her hand to shake hands? What?

And don't ya'll go stealing my 'El Cheeto'; Monarch or Matata has "Cheeto von Tweeto"; this one is mine!

 

[ruby59]

The president used a speech for BHM to whine about the mean, biased media in two separate places (!) and we're the ones politicizing? Gotta pull on those big boy pants, 'cause scrutiny is part of the job. Just ask ol' arugula-eating Obama.

Sure, there are MANY other, more important things to criticize President Trump for just 2 weeks in, but going from Obama to Trump in terms of writing/public speaking alone is a devastating downgrade and will take some time getting used to.

Obama was an eloquent orator. There is no question about that.

Trump is not. He can be repetitive with certain words and clumsy on many of the ones he chooses.

He does need to improve in that area, but why not give him a bit of time to do so.

I thought he did much better when he named his choice for Supreme Court Justice.

And his handlers would do him justice if someone smashed his twitter account.

 

[lovedogs]

Obama was an eloquent orator. There is no question about that.

Trump is not. He can be repetitive with certain words and clumsy on many of the ones he chooses.

He does need to improve in that area, but why not give him a bit of time to do so.

I thought he did much better when he named his choice for Supreme Court Justice.

And his handlers would do him justice if someone smashed his twitter account.

Lol Ruby, thank you (genuinely) for my first snort-laugh of the day. I just pictured his handlers smashing all of his electronics, only to have him escape to an internet cafe or similar but yes, I agree on that point--they aren't doing him any favors by letting the tweeting continue.

 

[maccers]

The president used a speech for BHM to whine about the mean, biased media in two separate places (!) and we're the ones politicizing? Gotta pull on those big boy pants, 'cause scrutiny is part of the job. Just ask ol' arugula-eating Obama.

Sure, there are MANY other, more important things to criticize President Trump for just 2 weeks in, but going from Obama to Trump in terms of writing/public speaking alone is a devastating downgrade and will take some time getting used to.

Obama was an eloquent orator. There is no question about that.

Trump is not. He can be repetitive with certain words and clumsy on many of the ones he chooses.

He does need to improve in that area, but why not give him a bit of time to do so.

I thought he did much better when he named his choice for Supreme Court Justice.

And his handlers would do him justice if someone smashed his twitter account.

Yes, his twitter account would be better handled by a four year old.

Regarding Trump needing to improve his oratory skills, I wholeheartedly agree but I have wondered if that's part of his appeal to many Americans? A number of pro-Trump PS-ers have cited that they're sick of being talked down to - maybe that is Trump's strength? I'm asking this question with sincerity; I'd really like to know the answer.

 

[Ella]

Folks, I can only tell you so many times to stop the hostility.

This includes eye rolling emojis, nasty side comments directed at others, hostility, etc.

Stop it or you will be on a time out. Fair warning that I am getting less charitable about both time outs and their length.

 

[monarch64]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg

Trump's interview on Oprah, 1988. He sounded slightly less crazy then, but near the end he's totally campaigning while he just seconds before said he wouldn't be inclined to do the job.

Maccers, he has always appealed to human greed. That has always been what he has stood for. In that interview, he uses the comparison of "everyone else has money, why shouldn't WE have money?" (the "it's not fair!" mentality.) Hmmm. Who else says that? His base. The base that shops at WalMart and believes in the American Dream and works a lot of hours a week just to break even and have a little leftover but is worried about their future. They feel shortchanged and he appeals to that. People look at him and think that if he started with a pretty modest inheritance from his father and turned it into an empire (no one cares about his bankruptcies-that makes him more REAL and relatable), why couldn't they have a chance to do that? It's a fantasy.

 

[partgypsy]

I LEGALLY & PEACEFULLY cast a vote for a person who didn't (to my knowledge) lie to the FBI & Congress, didn't confess to (and later apologize for) hiding classified government documents on a private server, and wasn't charged with & found guilty of a criminal act. And it's not about HER; that WAS the alternative.

Trump is a serial lier. I'm not going to get into this, put you can google "Trump lies" or whatever and there are various lists out there. One of the biggest one, is continuing to state that 3 million people illegally voted, and to do an investigation of that. Or the whole Birther conspiracy that he wasted government time and tax dollars on. But some may ask, is it a lie if he doesn't know it's a lie? I think he does have a problem distinguishing his beliefs from reality. Which is now our problem as well.

As far as private servers, senior officials at Trump's administration are using a private server. The same one that Bush administration says lost 22 MILLION emails. Were any of those classified government documents? Who knows, they went missing.
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/25/hypocrisy-alert-trump-white-house-private-rnc-email-system-again.html

At least as of 7 days ago, Trump was still using an old, unsecure android phone for personal and whitehouse business, including Twitter!
Hell I work at the VA and I could get fired for that.

Regarding criminality, Trump has had about 3500 lawsuits against him. Some he was found guilty of illegal acts, such as not allowing Blacks to rent his apartments. I'm not going to look through all of them but yes he has done illegal (criminal things). I have severe concern that he is going to use the privilege of the office to personally enrich him and his family members. He has not divested to the degree the ethics committee has requested, has not even released his tax records. I'm not sure why this does not concern people on both sides of the aisle?

 

[ruby59]

I LEGALLY & PEACEFULLY cast a vote for a person who didn't (to my knowledge) lie to the FBI & Congress, didn't confess to (and later apologize for) hiding classified government documents on a private server, and wasn't charged with & found guilty of a criminal act. And it's not about HER; that WAS the alternative.

Trump is a serial lier. I'm not going to get into this, put you can google "Trump lies" or whatever and there are various lists out there. One of the biggest one, is continuing to state that 3 million people illegally voted, and to do an investigation of that. Or the whole Birther conspiracy that he wasted government time and tax dollars on. But some may ask, is it a lie if he doesn't know it's a lie? I think he does have a problem distinguishing his beliefs from reality. Which is now our problem as well.

As far as private servers, senior officials at Trump's administration are using a private server. The same one that Bush administration says lost 22 MILLION emails. Were any of those classified government documents? Who knows, they went missing.
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/25/hypocrisy-alert-trump-white-house-private-rnc-email-system-again.html

At least as of 7 days ago, Trump was still using an old, unsecure android phone for personal and whitehouse business, including Twitter!
Hell I work at the VA and I could get fired for that.

Regarding criminality, Trump has had about 3500 lawsuits against him. Some he was found guilty of illegal acts, such as not allowing Blacks to rent his apartments. I'm not going to look through all of them but yes he has done illegal (criminal things). I have severe concern that he is going to use the privilege of the office to personally enrich him and his family members. He has not divested to the degree the ethics committee has requested, has not even released his tax records. I'm not sure why this does not concern people on both sides of the aisle?

I would have had no problem if Clinton had said she did it and made a mistake.

But she chose to erase and deny.

 

[partgypsy]

I LEGALLY & PEACEFULLY cast a vote for a person who didn't (to my knowledge) lie to the FBI & Congress, didn't confess to (and later apologize for) hiding classified government documents on a private server, and wasn't charged with & found guilty of a criminal act. And it's not about HER; that WAS the alternative.

Trump is a serial lier. I'm not going to get into this, put you can google "Trump lies" or whatever and there are various lists out there. One of the biggest one, is continuing to state that 3 million people illegally voted, and to do an investigation of that. Or the whole Birther conspiracy that he wasted government time and tax dollars on. But some may ask, is it a lie if he doesn't know it's a lie? I think he does have a problem distinguishing his beliefs from reality. Which is now our problem as well.

As far as private servers, senior officials at Trump's administration are using a private server. The same one that Bush administration says lost 22 MILLION emails. Were any of those classified government documents? Who knows, they went missing.
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/25/hypocrisy-alert-trump-white-house-private-rnc-email-system-again.html

At least as of 7 days ago, Trump was still using an old, unsecure android phone for personal and whitehouse business, including Twitter!
Hell I work at the VA and I could get fired for that.

Regarding criminality, Trump has had about 3500 lawsuits against him. Some he was found guilty of illegal acts, such as not allowing Blacks to rent his apartments. I'm not going to look through all of them but yes he has done illegal (criminal things). I have severe concern that he is going to use the privilege of the office to personally enrich him and his family members. He has not divested to the degree the ethics committee has requested, has not even released his tax records. I'm not sure why this does not concern people on both sides of the aisle?

I would have had no problem if Clinton had said she did it and made a mistake.

But she chose to erase and deny.

Yes, she should not have lied about it.
But wouldn't you agree, the reasons why people say they would not vote for Hillary: lying, use of insecure technology for White House business, involved in criminal acts, and cronyism/also using the office for personal enrichment, that Trump has far deeper, troubling problems with ALL of these areas compared to Hillary? It is not even close. And Hillary is not in office. Trump is. Why is no one on both sides of the aisle stating their concerns? Why is it a problem for Hillary and not for Trump?

 

[ruby59]

I LEGALLY & PEACEFULLY cast a vote for a person who didn't (to my knowledge) lie to the FBI & Congress, didn't confess to (and later apologize for) hiding classified government documents on a private server, and wasn't charged with & found guilty of a criminal act. And it's not about HER; that WAS the alternative.

Trump is a serial lier. I'm not going to get into this, put you can google "Trump lies" or whatever and there are various lists out there. One of the biggest one, is continuing to state that 3 million people illegally voted, and to do an investigation of that. Or the whole Birther conspiracy that he wasted government time and tax dollars on. But some may ask, is it a lie if he doesn't know it's a lie? I think he does have a problem distinguishing his beliefs from reality. Which is now our problem as well.

As far as private servers, senior officials at Trump's administration are using a private server. The same one that Bush administration says lost 22 MILLION emails. Were any of those classified government documents? Who knows, they went missing.
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/25/hypocrisy-alert-trump-white-house-private-rnc-email-system-again.html

At least as of 7 days ago, Trump was still using an old, unsecure android phone for personal and whitehouse business, including Twitter!
Hell I work at the VA and I could get fired for that.

Regarding criminality, Trump has had about 3500 lawsuits against him. Some he was found guilty of illegal acts, such as not allowing Blacks to rent his apartments. I'm not going to look through all of them but yes he has done illegal (criminal things). I have severe concern that he is going to use the privilege of the office to personally enrich him and his family members. He has not divested to the degree the ethics committee has requested, has not even released his tax records. I'm not sure why this does not concern people on both sides of the aisle?

I would have had no problem if Clinton had said she did it and made a mistake.

But she chose to erase and deny.

Yes, she should not have lied about it.
But wouldn't you agree, the reasons why people say they would not vote for Hillary: lying, use of insecure technology for White House business, involved in criminal acts, and cronyism/also using the office for personal enrichment, that Trump has far deeper, troubling problems with ALL of these areas compared to Hillary? It is not even close. And Hillary is not in office. Trump is. Why is no one on both sides of the aisle stating their concerns? Why is it a problem for Hillary and not for Trump?

Again, I did not vote for either Trump or Clinton. Look at my earlier posts where I called him a disgusting pig.

Do I agree with everything he says and does? H*ll no, not even close.

But he is our President and I feel he should be given a chance, and I do not feel anyone is giving him one. They are picking on every little thing he does, some of which was done by other Presidents as well.

But like I posted here already, I will join you guys with pitchfork in hand if he betrays that trust.

And said today in another thread, his handlers need to destroy his twitter account and maybe clean up his rough edges.

 

[mary poppins]

The press accurately reported Chumps remarks about BHM, so what's the problem with that? His incompetent words and actions are his own, and will continue being reported.

It really does come down to this. People can explain what he really meant, or say that we're focusing on one part of a not-much-better whole, but his words are his words, and that's why a near-constant media presence is pretty damn important. Otherwise, we'd be left taking only Trump's word for it. Or, Bannon's, really. Spicer's. Can you imagine?

LOVEDOGS: the source quoted to start this thread is "DeadSpin" ... a sattire & sports website; not exactly what anyone considers 'the press' when looking for ethics, facts, etc. To MaryPoppins' defense, she may not have been looking for 'serious', 'facts', etc. I get it, we all have non-serious stuff we browse. But come on ... to start a thread about "Black History Month" and proceed to make a mockery of the event by picking apart El Cheeto is really in poor taste - I don't care what your politics are. Start a thread, by all means, but don't tear down the first shred of partnership we see in the WH that for many people of color (and not) may have been quite meaningful. I genuinely feel sad for any PS member who opens that thread hoping to discuss something 'uplifting' about the observance, and is instead greeted by a flood of vomit pics mocking Chump.

EB: In all seriousness - and even stretching to include the Obama speech Kate posted - what exactly/specifically did El Cheeto say in that round table honoring BHM that was really so bad, poor, whatever to warrant the 'PS response' of casting such a negative relation between these two events here? Seriously? Did I miss an excerpt where he dropped a slur? Grabbed a woman anywhere other than her hand to shake hands? What?

And don't ya'll go stealing my 'El Cheeto'; Monarch or Matata has "Cheeto von Tweeto"; this one is mine!

Thank you for your deference in the quoted portion about me, Jenn, I appreciate it. However, this speech is real. Deadspin does report real news. When initially posting the thread I was not familiar with Deadspin. I copied the initial sentence and transcript from a social media source that did not indicate the source. I posted after checking a reliable news source to see if the speech was real. Quite frankly, the speech was so ridiculous I didn't believe it was real. Upon reading your comment I looked further into Deadspin and found that there is a real news portion and a satire portion that is clearly labeled as satire in the URL. I will remove Deadspin from my OP so others don't get the same impression you did.

Also, I included "political" in my thread title to provide notice that the content would not be uplifting. I appreciate the graphics by Kenny, Elliot and lovedogs. They provided humor and depicted how I initially felt while reading Trump's drivel.

So yeah, his speech is indeed real but I can understand why you could believe, other than the Deadspin mention, that it is satire. That's why I said upthread that it reads like a Saturday Night Live transcript.

Here's a more reliable source so your false accusations about me don't stand and also in case it makes you feel better. And no need to respond with a comment about Al Sharpton. I already know how he is perceived by some.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-black-history-month-speech

Based on this information and your new understanding of the situation, is there anything you wrote in this thread that you are inclined to retract?

 

[the_mother_thing]

Again you are doing a logical fallacy. I didn't ask for your psychoanalysis of my thoughts.. I gave you an answer to what you asked. You can divert, throw stones, use strawman tactics, juvenile remarks, baiting.. I'm not falling for it.

If you cannot understand what I put up for you to read, not my problem.

Please, continue onward and upward. I will continue to not pray for you..

Really? Which "Logical Fallacy" did I employ? Besides plain old LOGIC.

Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and therapeutic techniques related to the study of the unconscious mind, which together form a method of treatment for mental-health disorders.

I didn't 'psychoanalyze' your thoughts; you POSTED them. I responded. THAT is called discussion.

We didn't discuss any 'therapy' that I recall (and I didn't recommend any).

You were awake and conscious while posting your thoughts and of your own will, I assume (you weren't on my couch, at least).

I didn't suggest you seek any sort of treatment or that you have any sort of mental health disorder.

So what exactly did I post that you perceive to be 'psychoanalysis'?

 

[mary poppins]

Well, too late to edit my OP. Hopefully, if anyone else gets the same wrong impression he or she will read through the second page.

 

[Tekate]

Again you are doing a logical fallacy. I didn't ask for your psychoanalysis of my thoughts.. I gave you an answer to what you asked. You can divert, throw stones, use strawman tactics, juvenile remarks, baiting.. I'm not falling for it.

If you cannot understand what I put up for you to read, not my problem.

Please, continue onward and upward. I will continue to not pray for you..

Really? Which "Logical Fallacy" did I employ? Besides plain old LOGIC.

Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and therapeutic techniques related to the study of the unconscious mind, which together form a method of treatment for mental-health disorders.

I didn't 'psychoanalyze' your thoughts; you POSTED them. I responded. THAT is called discussion.

We didn't discuss any 'therapy' that I recall (and I didn't recommend any).

You were awake and conscious while posting your thoughts and of your own will, I assume (you weren't on my couch, at least).

I didn't suggest you seek any sort of treatment or that you have any sort of mental health disorder.

So what exactly did I post that you perceive to be 'psychoanalysis'?

You don't take what I say at face value, you interpret what I say and twist it. That is all I can say..

Onward Jo.. you and I will never be on the same page for our country.. we talk past each other, it's like whistling in the wind. No worries doesn't mean we cannot talk about jewelry etc.

As I said before: Onward!

 

[the_mother_thing]

Thank you for your deference in the quoted portion about me, Jenn, I appreciate it. However, this speech is real. Deadspin does report real news. When initially posting the thread I was not familiar with Deadspin. I copied the initial sentence and transcript from a social media source that did not indicate the source. I posted after checking a reliable news source to see if the speech was real. Quite frankly, the speech was so ridiculous I didn't believe it was real. Upon reading your comment I looked further into Deadspin and found that there is a real news portion and a satire portion that is clearly labeled as satire in the URL. I will remove Deadspin from my OP so others don't get the same impression you did.

Also, I included "political" in my thread title to provide notice that the content would not be uplifting. I appreciate the graphics by Kenny, Elliot and lovedogs. They provided humor and depicted how I initially felt while reading Trump's drivel.

So yeah, his speech is indeed real but I can understand why you could believe, other than the Deadspin mention, that it is satire. That's why I said upthread that it reads like a Saturday Night Live transcript.

Here's a more reliable source so your false accusations about me don't stand and also in case it makes you feel better. And no need to respond with a comment about Al Sharpton. I already know how he is perceived by some.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-black-history-month-speech

Based on this information and your new understanding of the situation, is there anything you wrote in this thread that you are inclined to retract?

Your new 'news' linked article is a biased reporting, and that is evidenced by the very first two sentences:

On Monday Donald Trump marked the first day of black history month with a so-called “listening session”, pulling together about a dozen black Americans, virtually all campaign supporters or administration staffers, to inaugurate the month. The meeting, which was only open to the press for about 12 minutes, resembled most of Trump’s interactions with the black community to date: self-referential and placing style ahead of substance, to the chagrin of civil rights advocates.

This writer did not 'report facts'; he/she editorialized, in other words, laced his/her story about the event with three incidents of personal opinion. That is not IMO an unbiased account of the event. Yes the event is real, but it wasn't a 'speech' (prepared/scripted comments). And that's evident reading the ACTUAL transcript that I posted. But hey, if you want to read that kind of garbage and use it to form your basis for what's going on in the world, by all means. But I didn't bother to read passed that paragraph because it is garbage, and because I went to the source of the event and read the entire transcript of the event - BEFORE commenting with more garbage like barf images.

Do you think someone new to PS or someone who has not read the now-buried thread discussing the "subject/politics" suggestion is going to really know what that means? That "Politics" equates to satire or "puke"? And I'm not even going to dive into how that looks from an advertiser perspective; that's for the owners to decide.

So no, there is nothing I wish nor feel the need to retract. I think EVERYONE'S posts & pictures speak for themselves.

 

[AnnaH]

Kate, it seems you are the one who is upset currently. And that is certainly your right.

Logical fallacy, not biting sorry.... carry on!

Be fair. I was just responding to your "panties in a wad" accusation. Although, it probably would have been better to just ignore it.

 

[Tekate]

Kate, it seems you are the one who is upset currently. And that is certainly your right.

Logical fallacy, not biting sorry.... carry on!

Be fair. I was just responding to your "panties in a wad" accusation. Although, it probably would have been better to just ignore it.

I know what you mean, I do a great deal of 'probably would have been better to just ignore it' on this board also.

 

[mary poppins]

Thank you for your deference in the quoted portion about me, Jenn, I appreciate it. However, this speech is real. Deadspin does report real news. When initially posting the thread I was not familiar with Deadspin. I copied the initial sentence and transcript from a social media source that did not indicate the source. I posted after checking a reliable news source to see if the speech was real. Quite frankly, the speech was so ridiculous I didn't believe it was real. Upon reading your comment I looked further into Deadspin and found that there is a real news portion and a satire portion that is clearly labeled as satire in the URL. I will remove Deadspin from my OP so others don't get the same impression you did.

Also, I included "political" in my thread title to provide notice that the content would not be uplifting. I appreciate the graphics by Kenny, Elliot and lovedogs. They provided humor and depicted how I initially felt while reading Trump's drivel.

So yeah, his speech is indeed real but I can understand why you could believe, other than the Deadspin mention, that it is satire. That's why I said upthread that it reads like a Saturday Night Live transcript.

Here's a more reliable source so your false accusations about me don't stand and also in case it makes you feel better. And no need to respond with a comment about Al Sharpton. I already know how he is perceived by some.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-black-history-month-speech

Based on this information and your new understanding of the situation, is there anything you wrote in this thread that you are inclined to retract?

Your new 'news' linked article is a biased reporting, and that is evidenced by the very first two sentences:

On Monday Donald Trump marked the first day of black history month with a so-called “listening session”, pulling together about a dozen black Americans, virtually all campaign supporters or administration staffers, to inaugurate the month. The meeting, which was only open to the press for about 12 minutes, resembled most of Trump’s interactions with the black community to date: self-referential and placing style ahead of substance, to the chagrin of civil rights advocates.

This writer did not 'report facts'; he/she editorialized, in other words, laced his/her story about the event with three incidents of personal opinion. That is not IMO an unbiased account of the event. Yes the event is real, but it wasn't a 'speech' (prepared/scripted comments). And that's evident reading the ACTUAL transcript that I posted. But hey, if you want to read that kind of garbage and use it to form your basis for what's going on in the world, by all means. But I didn't bother to read passed that paragraph because it is garbage, and because I went to the source of the event and read the entire transcript of the event - BEFORE commenting with more garbage like barf images.

Do you think someone new to PS or someone who has not read the now-buried thread discussing the "subject/politics" suggestion is going to really know what that means? That "Politics" equates to satire or "puke"? And I'm not even going to dive into how that looks from an advertiser perspective; that's for the owners to decide.

So no, there is nothing I wish nor feel the need to retract. I think EVERYONE'S posts & pictures speak for themselves.

Read carefully and don't reframe what I say for your own purposes. I didn't tell you there was new "news", and the purpose of the linked article was to show that the speech was indeed factual and not satire. It was not to influence anyone's opinion about what Trump said. Ignore the commentary in the article like I did and all that's left is a transcript of the speech. It's factual that that's what Trump said. Incidentally, a speech is a form of communication in spoken language, made by a speaker before an audience for a given purpose. There's no requirement that it be prepared or scripted. Someone can give a speech simply by winging an entire oral communication to a group of people.

Yes, I think people are bright enough to see a list of unlabeled politic-related thread titles on the front page and then see one there that clearly states "political" and understand it contains a discussion on politics without having to read a separate topic on the subject of labeling. And yes, anyone who has any experience at all with politics in forums can expect to open the thread and find a bunch of crap from both sides. Sadly, there is no satire in this thread, so I don't know why you again said there was.

Trump's speech is reality. Ironically and inappropriately, he's the one who included politics and political references to himself in it instead of focussing on the purpose of and people being honored and remembered this month. That's how it became BHM political. Trump's talk about politics from the first sentence onward, and commenting about the media when the focus should have been on BHM, is shameful That's why people are commenting about it here and elsewhere.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Regarding Trump needing to improve his oratory skills, I wholeheartedly agree but I have wondered if that's part of his appeal to many Americans? A number of pro-Trump PS-ers have cited that they're sick of being talked down to - maybe that is Trump's strength? I'm asking this question with sincerity; I'd really like to know the answer.

I would answer with a resounding, emphatic YES!

El Cheeto might be a pig, and he might be wrong in how he goes about some things, but yes - if there is anything about him that I do like/appreciate/whatever you want to call it - it's that he speaks like a human being to human beings - off the cuff and not in a condescending manner (usually). Does that mean he is going to have to 'walk' some comments back, yes ... as well as open him to misinterpretation. I think that's what a lot of people who hang on his every word to chew him up over it either can't understand or can't get beyond ... is the fact there is someone in the WH now who is not a political robot. I am so freaking tired of every comment out of the Prez having to be floated through 20 speech writers, lawyers, scientific experts, medical personnel, and foreign policy experts that by the time anyone got what's left of the 'message', it sounded like a sermon. And I can get that from Church.

By the way, did I answer 'yes' to your question? If not, YES!

Well, too late to edit my OP. Hopefully, if anyone else gets the same wrong impression he or she will read through the second page.

Or maybe you could ask the mod to edit the thread title to something more 'reflective' of the conversation ... "POLITICAL: More Chump Chat" perhaps?

Read carefully and don't reframe what I say for your own purposes. I didn't tell you there was new "news", and the purpose of the linked article was to show that the speech was indeed factual and not satire. It was not to influence anyone's opinion about what Trump said. Ignore the commentary in the article like I did and all that's left is a transcript of the speech. It's factual that that's what Trump said. Incidentally, a speech is a form of communication in spoken language, made by a speaker before an audience for a given purpose. There's no requirement that it be prepared or scripted. Someone can give a speech simply by winging an entire oral communication to a group of people.

Reading comprehension is NOT my problem, dear mary, but it appears to be yours. Perhaps YOU read this carefully ... and slowly - I said 'you posted a new 'news' link.' That means - earlier - you posted a link to a story, and later, you posted another link to the same story told differently by a different person. That second link is the new 'news' link. I put 'news' that way (in quotes) because I don't consider it to be such; rather, it's garbage. And to that point, why on earth would I subject myself to sifting through garbage in hopes of finding some tidbits when there is a PERFECTLY GOOD, COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF THE EVENT INCLUDING WHO SAID WHAT TO WHOM WITHOUT THE OPINIONS OF THE 'JOURNALIST' TO MUCK IT UP WITH BIAS?

And if you didn't intend for it to "influence anyone's opinion about what was said", why would you bother posting it ... with the following comments ... in a thread called "Black History Month"?

Here's the complete transcript (via Deadspin) of Trump's remarks this morning to kick off Black History Month. OMG, it's so bad. So far his term seems like he's trolling all of us.

Yes, I think people are bright enough to see a list of unlabeled politic-related thread titles on the front page and then see one there that clearly states "political" and understand it contains a discussion on politics without having to read a separate topic on the subject of labeling. And yes, anyone who has any experience at all with politics in forums can expect to open the thread and find a bunch of crap from both sides. Sadly, there is no satire in this thread, so I don't know why you again said there was.

Because a few people made reference to thinking it was satire, and the website you posted originally (the NOT new 'news' link) is a satire site.

I wouldn't pass two SBDs about a 'politics' thread; but this isn't 'just a politics' thread. You chose the subject line; not me. If you (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't feel like you're even maybe just the slightest bit apologetic for your actions, why do you keep responding? Defending yourself?

Just FYI, we are ALL human, and it's 2017; it IS okay to just admit you might have made a mistake or had a lapse in judgement; that is FAR more respectable than continuing to argue why you feel it's okay to basically be a "little Chump" by doing the same thing you complain about him doing.

Trump's speech is reality. Ironically and inappropriately, he's the one who included politics and political references to himself in it instead of focussing on the purpose of and people being honored and remembered this month. That's how it became BHM political. Trump's talk about politics from the first sentence onward, and commenting about the media when the focus should have been on BHM, is shameful That's why people are commenting about it here and elsewhere.

If you don't like what you're reading, perhaps you and others could learn to "ignore the commentary in the article like I did and all that's left is a transcript of the speech." Gee, where have I heard that before?

And no, I still don't feel the need to apologize for calling out the 'party of tolerance' for acting in such intolerable disrespect - not even to/about/toward Chump - but toward BHM by yet again not letting any moment pass by without seizing the chance to politicize it to pieces.


And this was buried in a quote four posts deep, so I don't even know for sure who said it (possibly Part Gypsy?):

I have severe concern that he is going to use the privilege of the office to personally enrich him and his family members.

Let's just pause for a moment, set aside politics, take a deep breath, and try to think about this rationally - does anyone know or recall there being a man or woman who was a multi-millionaire/billionaire to the level Chump is, who runs a multi-billion dollar global company, and aside from his own outlandishness and participation on a reality show, lived a pretty peaceful life and quite well-to-do life ... who has ever looked at all of that and said, "Ya know what, I'm going to risk my family's & my privacy, have us ALL drug through the mud and every dirty secret & skeleton uncovered (including my spouse's nudes) for the world to see, at the risk of not only my 'reputation', but theirs also, as well as my business and thus - my legacy for my kids, grand-kids and future generations because while I don't seem to have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, I think it would be like so fun to run for President for gits & shiggles, and maybe earn a few extra bucks in the process, because my millions/billions isn't enough."

I know Chump's ego is bigger than his hands, but I think even THAT would be a stretch for him for the sole purpose of earning a few extra bucks. JMO, but I do not see 'money' being the source of his motivation. Power? Oh sure! A chance to maybe thumb his nose at someone who whizzed in his wheaties once? Yup, I'd buy that too.

 

[mary poppins]

Jenn, I didn't read past where you stated "Chump Chat" because it's clear you've come here with an agenda and are not paying attention to details. The tone and nature of a lot of your posts overshadow the substance of your message, if any, and make your posts no longer worth my time and effort to read.