USA Today op-ed: will Trump ever hit rock bottom

[starwater]

A lot was misiniterpreted in the article, and any making up is still obviously yet to do.

Then identify what was misinterpreted.

It would probably be easier to list what wasn't.

So list it.

The point is the current occupant does not comport himself with dignity or respect to fellow humans. Everything he tweets or says is beneath the dignity of the office. Therefore if the parenthetical did not mean sexual favors, then it meant something else just as demeaning. It's all open to interpretation because anything that comes out of 45's mouth is a lie.

 

[sharon45]

It would probably be easier to list what wasn't.

So list it.

The point is the current occupant does not comport himself with dignity or respect to fellow humans. Everything he tweets or says is beneath the dignity of the office. Therefore if the parenthetical did not mean sexual favors, then it meant something else just as demeaning. It's all open to interpretation because anything that comes out of 45's mouth is a lie.

Not quite that far, but I have said that Trump is a habitual liar.

 

[sharon45]

Evasion noted.

If you think that what I said equates some sort of evasion, you are not helping your case. See, I obviously didn't write the article. It's supposed to be the author's job first to properly cite and back up said assertions.

 

[blastula]

You evaded defending your own claim. The editorial did provide back up, including links, for their claims. So now, you're not only evading, but you're the one misrepresenting them.

 

[sharon45]

You evaded defending your own claim. The editorial did provide back up, including links, for their claims. So now, you're not only evading, but you're the one misrepresenting them.

I said properly, as in what the article did not do. This "A president who'd all but call a senator a whore is unfit to clean toilets in Obama's presidential library or to shine George W. Bush's shoes" line about says it all. How could anyone possibly be able to properly back it up?

 

[blastula]

Are you griping about fitness to clean toilets? lol Forget it, I should have known better than to tread into your tired act of obfuscation and incoherence.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Let's hope the trumpster fire hits bottom. Preferably the bottom of a deep body of water, with lots of rocks...to umm....keep him company.

 

[sharon45]

Are you griping about fitness to clean toilets? lol Forget it, I should have known better than to tread into your tired act of obfuscation and incoherence.

See, exactly, if you honestly feel that way about me, then why did you ask? I don't mind going through this article piece by piece, but I'm not too keen on doing it in vain, if viewers already have an acute prejudice right at the start, as clearly shown from the above quote tweet of Trump.

 

[sharon45]

Let's hope the trumpster fire hits bottom. Preferably the bottom of a deep body of water, with lots of rocks...to umm....keep him company.

Hope is much of the problem now days. Moore voters were willing to give up on thinking and relied mainly on hope.

 

[Underseer]

So what in your estimation would have been the Fair And Balanced^TM way to report this story?

By quoting the tweet and taking it for what it actually says, that she's a flunky, a lightweight, begs for campaign contributions and would do anything for them. Is that not enough to malign him with? He actually said all that.

What he did not say is that she's a whore.

You may assume he wouldn't say the same witth he same wording about a male senator, but I would not make that assumption. "He comes 'begging' for contributions and would do anything for them, the lightweight flunky" is something I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear from Trump. Not even a little.

He didn't call anybody a whore. That's bad reporting and misrepresentation.And you are doing the same by declaring plain English reading of what Trump said is him calling her a whore.

I don't like having to defend Trump.... but there you have it.

No, he didn't actually use the word whore. He clearly implied it. We both read the same Tweet.

I'm sorry that people are criticizing Trump, even though he's a Republican. This must be so traumatic for you.

 

[sharon45]

So what in your estimation would have been the Fair And Balanced^TM way to report this story?

By quoting the tweet and taking it for what it actually says, that she's a flunky, a lightweight, begs for campaign contributions and would do anything for them. Is that not enough to malign him with? He actually said all that.

What he did not say is that she's a whore.

You may assume he wouldn't say the same witth he same wording about a male senator, but I would not make that assumption. "He comes 'begging' for contributions and would do anything for them, the lightweight flunky" is something I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear from Trump. Not even a little.

He didn't call anybody a whore. That's bad reporting and misrepresentation.And you are doing the same by declaring plain English reading of what Trump said is him calling her a whore.

I don't like having to defend Trump.... but there you have it.

No, he didn't actually use the word whore. He clearly implied it. We both read the same Tweet.

I'm sorry that people are criticizing Trump, even though he's a Republican. This must be so traumatic for you.

I'm certainly fine with people criticizing Trump, I just think the criticism would be far more valuable if it was about what he really said than what some folks simply imagined was implied.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The point is the current occupant does not comport himself with dignity or respect to fellow humans. Everything he tweets or says is beneath the dignity of the office. Therefore if the parenthetical did not mean sexual favors, then it meant something else just as demeaning. It's all open to interpretation because anything that comes out of 45's mouth is a lie.

That is a much better point. That is not the claim made in the article. The claim made in the article is that Trump called this senator somebody who has sex for money. He didn't. He did not comport himself with dignity or respect to fellow humans as you say, and that could be fairly said in the article and is damning enough without making shit up. And making shit up only makes trump correct w hen he calls out the "fake news".

 

[Juma]

No, he didn't actually use the word whore. He clearly implied it. We both read the same Tweet.

I'm sorry that people are criticizing Trump, even though he's a Republican. This must be so traumatic for you.

I'm certainly fine with people criticizing Trump, I just think the criticism would be far more valuable if it was about what he really said than what some folks simply imagined was implied.

Every thing you read is implied. You ALWAYS makes an interpretation of the text: that is what we call understanding the text.
Now you and the jollering penguin may be raised on another planet... but for us others that been on the earth for the last something years there are actually no discussion about what it means when Trump selects to use the phrase about a women would do anything for the money.

 

[Ford]

Even if we were to leave aside the interpretation of that one tweet, the editorial is still mostly on point.

Trump is a pathological liar.

He's a virulent racist.

He's a terrible executive, leaving more than half of the jobs in his department unfilled.

He has contempt for all the norms of his office such as putting his businesses aside while acting as President.

He praised white supremacists.

He fired the head of the FBI over the Russia investigation.

He has refused to enact sanctions on Russia that came about as a result of their interference in our election.

He endorsed an accused child molester for a Senate seat.



So let's give him a pass on his tweet about Gillibrand. He's still a shit-stain on the Presidency.

 

[sharon45]

No, he didn't actually use the word whore. He clearly implied it. We both read the same Tweet.

I'm sorry that people are criticizing Trump, even though he's a Republican. This must be so traumatic for you.

I'm certainly fine with people criticizing Trump, I just think the criticism would be far more valuable if it was about what he really said than what some folks simply imagined was implied.

Every thing you read is implied. You ALWAYS makes an interpretation of the text: that is what we call understanding the text.

Sure, but as I've said, this connection is merely imagined.

Now you and the jollering penguin may be raised on another planet... but for us others that been on the earth for the last something years there are actually no discussion about what it means when Trump selects to use the phrase about a women would do anything for the money.

Yes, I understand, yet I am not forwarding any pretenses against people here. During the Republican primary, I read Trump's Twitter page every day for nearly a year, so I am quite familiar with how he conducts himself there. He obviously belittles people of both sexes, but he does it much more to men than women, and you are certainly free to read for yourself.

 

[sharon45]

Even if we were to leave aside the interpretation of that one tweet, the editorial is still mostly on point.

Trump is a pathological liar.

He's a virulent racist.

He's a terrible executive, leaving more than half of the jobs in his department unfilled.

He has contempt for all the norms of his office such as putting his businesses aside while acting as President.

He praised white supremacists.

He fired the head of the FBI over the Russia investigation.

He has refused to enact sanctions on Russia that came about as a result of their interference in our election.

He endorsed an accused child molester for a Senate seat.



So let's give him a pass on his tweet about Gillibrand. He's still a shit-stain on the Presidency.

I definitely agree with some of this.

 

[Philos]

Folks,

Trump is a master of innuendo.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/innuendo

A.

 

[ZiprHead]

Even if we were to leave aside the interpretation of that one tweet, the editorial is still mostly on point.

Trump is a pathological liar.

He's a virulent racist.

He's a terrible executive, leaving more than half of the jobs in his department unfilled.

He has contempt for all the norms of his office such as putting his businesses aside while acting as President.

He praised white supremacists.

He fired the head of the FBI over the Russia investigation.

He has refused to enact sanctions on Russia that came about as a result of their interference in our election.

He endorsed an accused child molester for a Senate seat.



So let's give him a pass on his tweet about Gillibrand. He's still a shit-stain on the Presidency.

I definitely agree with some of this.

Interesting. Which parts do you not agree with?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The point is the current occupant does not comport himself with dignity or respect to fellow humans. Everything he tweets or says is beneath the dignity of the office. Therefore if the parenthetical did not mean sexual favors, then it meant something else just as demeaning. It's all open to interpretation because anything that comes out of 45's mouth is a lie.

That is a much better point. That is not the claim made in the article. The claim made in the article is that Trump called this senator somebody who has sex for money. He didn't. He did not comport himself with dignity or respect to fellow humans as you say, and that could be fairly said in the article and is damning enough without making shit up. And making shit up only makes trump correct w hen he calls out the "fake news".

I love it when some people will bend over backwards to give this crass asshole the benefit of the doubt.

She was begging for campaign contributions (she'd do anything). As in paint my house! HAW!!!

 

[ideologyhunter]

Trump is unbearably juvenile, coarse, abnormal, abusive, and unfit for office. A dangerous man. All of that. Yet, on this one, I find myself siding with Jolly Penguin. This tweet at least leaves his Trumpanzees the out of claiming that we are reading into it only what we wish to see. But you cannot say that about any number of unbelievably horrible and distasteful things he has said -- about Megyn Kelly, about Mika of NSNBC, on the sexual pig side; about Mexicans and 'that Mexican judge' on the racist side; about 'I'll pay your legal bills' to his supporters, should they pummel a protester; about his support for torture, for strike attacks on the relatives of terrorists, for plundering Iraq's oil, on the war crimes side; for taunting a nuclear foe with schoolyard taunts at the U.N., on the I'm-so-dumb-I-should-be-deported side; for his discussing the use of nukes as a viable strategy instead of what they've been since '45, a deterrent. Who needs this latest tweet? Trump has shown us exactly who he is for decades. The sheer amount of demonstrable lies he has told tell us that his every utterance is untrustworthy and that he is delusional in his narcissism. This man is one of the worst tragedies to befall this country, and the language of the USA Today piece applies richly to the squalid character he has shown himself to be.