• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

A day without stupid?

Bear in mind: The entire discussion about birthright citizenship is because a single reporter--Jonathan Swan of Axios--was interviewing President Trump and brought up the issue. Nobody knows why he mentioned it, but when asked about it, Trump said a few things about it off the cuff. Swan asked when it would happen, and Trump said it was in process.

No one is actually working on it, because everybody knows it won't go anywhere. But it's a convenient dogwhistle for anti-immigrants right before an election, and the media is only happy to oblige with breathless discussions and piercing analysis.

In short, it was insane. It started with a reporter who thought he was being clever and ended up with the collective might of America’s news media weighing in on a topic with less actual substance than Kim Kardashian. Is the entire industry embarrassed by how they handled this yesterday? I guess there’s no telling. But they should be.
Click to expand...

Link
 
James Brown said:
Bear in mind: The entire discussion about birthright citizenship is because a single reporter--Jonathan Swan of Axios--was interviewing President Trump and brought up the issue. Nobody knows why he mentioned it, but when asked about it, Trump said a few things about it off the cuff. Swan asked when it would happen, and Trump said it was in process....
Click to expand...

Thanks. Just more proof Trump is a fucking moron who engages mouth before engaging his brain.
 
James Brown said:
Bear in mind: The entire discussion about birthright citizenship is because a single reporter--Jonathan Swan of Axios--was interviewing President Trump and brought up the issue. Nobody knows why he mentioned it, but when asked about it, Trump said a few things about it off the cuff. Swan asked when it would happen, and Trump said it was in process.

No one is actually working on it, because everybody knows it won't go anywhere. But it's a convenient dogwhistle for anti-immigrants right before an election, and the media is only happy to oblige with breathless discussions and piercing analysis.

In short, it was insane. It started with a reporter who thought he was being clever and ended up with the collective might of America’s news media weighing in on a topic with less actual substance than Kim Kardashian. Is the entire industry embarrassed by how they handled this yesterday? I guess there’s no telling. But they should be.
Click to expand...

Link
Click to expand...

When the POTUS thinks he has the power to sweep away Constitutional law with an executive order, it's news. Yeah, it's a dog whistle, but it's also a weather balloon. Whether Trump intended to send it up is another matter. His brain reflexively vomits up ejecta like infants do sometimes after a bottle of formula. Then his mouth spits it out. However, his brain puke on this particular matter really fired up his base and outraged all non-morons.

IIRC, President Obama said that what a President says, matters. And he was right.

So whether Trump heard some bullshit about this idea an hour before the interview and then involuntarily shat it out his bullshitter's mouth doesn't matter. He's president, so what he says affects things.
 
This feels like it falls in the same category as his "Can't we just nuke 'em?" question last year. Just a random thought by someone with little to no political experience. I notice that no one has actually been nuked in the last year or two.

When asked, "When's it gonna happen?" the easiest and lowest-risk thing to say is "Soon. We're working on it." It can't be disproved, and "soon" can mean "in an hour" or "after the 2020 election." If he said, "No, we're not working on that--it'll never happen," then people will scream "Well you oughta be!" So it's easier to just say, "It's pending" and wait for the interest to dissolve. It makes one seem like a man of action without actually doing anything.
 
James Brown said:
This feels like it falls in the same category as his "Can't we just nuke 'em?" question last year. Just a random thought by someone with little to no political experience. I notice that no one has actually been nuked in the last year or two.

When asked, "When's it gonna happen?" the easiest and lowest-risk thing to say is "Soon. We're working on it." It can't be disproved, and "soon" can mean "in an hour" or "after the 2020 election." If he said, "No, we're not working on that--it'll never happen," then people will scream "Well you oughta be!" So it's easier to just say, "It's pending" and wait for the interest to dissolve. It makes one seem like a man of action without actually doing anything.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this a sign of how far we have fallen? That we need to come up with a justification as to his lies and how they won’t matter in the end?
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
James Brown said:
This feels like it falls in the same category as his "Can't we just nuke 'em?" question last year. Just a random thought by someone with little to no political experience. I notice that no one has actually been nuked in the last year or two.

When asked, "When's it gonna happen?" the easiest and lowest-risk thing to say is "Soon. We're working on it." It can't be disproved, and "soon" can mean "in an hour" or "after the 2020 election." If he said, "No, we're not working on that--it'll never happen," then people will scream "Well you oughta be!" So it's easier to just say, "It's pending" and wait for the interest to dissolve. It makes one seem like a man of action without actually doing anything.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this a sign of how far we have fallen? That we need to come up with a justification as to his lies and how they won’t matter in the end?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it a justification; it's an explanation of how Trump operates. Say Whatever about Whatever in order to fire up the retards and then never bother with it again.

The danger is it being said in the first place and the fervent support it's received from conservatives. Now they've been able to gauge the kind of support they would have for such a thing and can go to work on making it happen down the road (possibly).
 
James Brown said:
Bear in mind: The entire discussion about birthright citizenship is because a single reporter--Jonathan Swan of Axios--was interviewing President Trump and brought up the issue. Nobody knows why he mentioned it, but when asked about it, Trump said a few things about it off the cuff. Swan asked when it would happen, and Trump said it was in process.

No one is actually working on it, because everybody knows it won't go anywhere. But it's a convenient dogwhistle for anti-immigrants right before an election, and the media is only happy to oblige with breathless discussions and piercing analysis.

In short, it was insane. It started with a reporter who thought he was being clever and ended up with the collective might of America’s news media weighing in on a topic with less actual substance than Kim Kardashian. Is the entire industry embarrassed by how they handled this yesterday? I guess there’s no telling. But they should be.
Click to expand...

Link
Click to expand...

A president needs to have an air of authority about him, which means that his words need to carry weight. If he keeps talking shit, he's undermining the very thing that's the basis for his own existence.
 
I can actually see a conversation happening in the WH which leads to Trump believing he can.

Trump: We need to do something about these anchor babies, can't I just do it through an executive order?
Counsel: Well you can do anything through an executive order, as long as the Supreme Court doesn't invalidate it
Trump: ...
Click to expand...
 
President Ellipses said:
Now I don’t know if they’ll say this is nepotism, but the truth is she’s a very, very — you’re not allowed to use the word ‘beautiful’ anymore when you talk about women, you’re not allowed, no, no, it’s politically incorrect.
Click to expand...
link

Trump just doesn't seem to get it, on a few levels.
 
How often does the dominant party lose standing after a mid-term election during a booming economy?
 
This was a day in last April.

Trump cancels US cemetery visit amid diplomatic embarrassment | US news | The Guardian

The Le Monde report concerned events in Washington in early April this year, when the leaders of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia visited the White House for a meeting and a joint press conference. At the press conference, Trump praised his visitors and their countries for being good members of Nato and for not producing “fake news”.

But Le Monde perhaps risked provoking a presidential tweet on the latter subject when it reported that at the private meeting, “Trump opened by attributing to [the Baltic leaders] the responsibility for the war in Yugoslavia”.
Click to expand...

Today he also cancelled a visit to the American military cemetery in Belleau. Because it was raining.
 
Max Rockatansky said:
James Brown said:
How often does the dominant party lose standing after a mid-term election during a booming economy?
Click to expand...

Every time? What happened in 1996?
Click to expand...

You're right (sort of). This happened (Wiki):
"the Republicans lost 3 seats, 1 of them included an Independent who would caucus with them and switch to the Republicans. This resulted in a 227 Republican majority to the Democrat's 208 minority which also included an Independent caucusing with them.
The election is similar to the 1952 elections, although, in terms of the total vote this result remains one of the closest in U.S. history."

It was nothing like the shellacking that Trump's party took in these midterms. I applaud Trump's declarations of victory, and hope he can enjoy many more such triumphs.
 
blastula said:
This was a day in last April.

Trump cancels US cemetery visit amid diplomatic embarrassment | US news | The Guardian

The Le Monde report concerned events in Washington in early April this year, when the leaders of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia visited the White House for a meeting and a joint press conference. At the press conference, Trump praised his visitors and their countries for being good members of Nato and for not producing “fake news”.

But Le Monde perhaps risked provoking a presidential tweet on the latter subject when it reported that at the private meeting, “Trump opened by attributing to [the Baltic leaders] the responsibility for the war in Yugoslavia”.
Click to expand...

Today he also cancelled a visit to the American military cemetery in Belleau. Because it was raining.
Click to expand...
Thus proving Trump is what he grabs.
 
Elixir said:
Max Rockatansky said:
James Brown said:
How often does the dominant party lose standing after a mid-term election during a booming economy?
Click to expand...

Every time? What happened in 1996?
Click to expand...

You're right (sort of). This happened (Wiki):
"the Republicans lost 3 seats, 1 of them included an Independent who would caucus with them and switch to the Republicans. This resulted in a 227 Republican majority to the Democrat's 208 minority which also included an Independent caucusing with them.
The election is similar to the 1952 elections, although, in terms of the total vote this result remains one of the closest in U.S. history."

It was nothing like the shellacking that Trump's party took in these midterms. I applaud Trump's declarations of victory, and hope he can enjoy many more such triumphs.
Click to expand...
The question was about losing seats in a booming economy, but agreed that the RNC took a shellacking this year. As time goes on, I think more and more Americans will have less enthusiasm for the Trump WH. Same goes for Republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom