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

[Malintent]

With his latest tweet, clearly implying that a United States senator would trade sexual favors for campaign cash

Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!

Doesn't seem so clear to me. The article loses integrity from me from that point forward. Trump has a point when he calls the media out for being bad and twisting his words. He says plenty of dumb shit and the media gives him an out by overplaying it. What he actually says is often enough to make him look bad. They should leave it at the truth.

I agree in concept that hyperbole only works against you.

I'd like to point out, though, that his "defense" of making that implication in the tweet is that he used the word "begging" before in tweets, referring to other people wanting things.. including men (mostly men, actually). However, I reject that defense on the grounds that he chose to put the word in quotes, explicitly assigning it a different meaning.. and then in juxtaposition to the word "anything" in quotes makes it absolutely clear, with not a shade of doubt, that it was intended exactly as it was received....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Doesn't seem so clear to me. The article loses integrity from me from that point forward. Trump has a point when he calls the media out for being bad and twisting his words. He says plenty of dumb shit and the media gives him an out by overplaying it. What he actually says is often enough to make him look bad. They should leave it at the truth.

I agree in concept that hyperbole only works against you.

I'd like to point out, though, that his "defense" of making that implication in the tweet is that he used the word "begging" before in tweets, referring to other people wanting things.. including men (mostly men, actually). However, I reject that defense on the grounds that he chose to put the word in quotes, explicitly assigning it a different meaning.. and then in juxtaposition to the word "anything" in quotes makes it absolutely clear, with not a shade of doubt, that it was intended exactly as it was received....

She was willing to do anything, like sponsor legislation to allow for the modernization of the AMT. HAW!!!

 

[Treedbear]

With his latest tweet, clearly implying that a United States senator would trade sexual favors for campaign cash

Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!

Doesn't seem so clear to me. The article loses integrity from me from that point forward. ...

I agree. Actually there of plenty of worse things politicians do for campaign contributions then sell their bodies. If I was a prostitiute I'd be offended by the article.

 

[Elixir]

Actually there of plenty of worse things politicians do for campaign contributions then sell their bodies.

Yes, they sell their souls and other people's bodies!

 

[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.

Interesting. Which parts do you not agree with?

I agree that he is a habitual liar and endorsed an accused molester for a Senate seat.

 

[sharon45]

Doesn't seem so clear to me. The article loses integrity from me from that point forward. Trump has a point when he calls the media out for being bad and twisting his words. He says plenty of dumb shit and the media gives him an out by overplaying it. What he actually says is often enough to make him look bad. They should leave it at the truth.

I agree in concept that hyperbole only works against you.

I'd like to point out, though, that his "defense" of making that implication in the tweet is that he used the word "begging" before in tweets, referring to other people wanting things.. including men (mostly men, actually). However, I reject that defense on the grounds that he chose to put the word in quotes, explicitly assigning it a different meaning.. and then in juxtaposition to the word "anything" in quotes makes it absolutely clear, with not a shade of doubt, that it was intended exactly as it was received....

Yeah, that people constantly want to paint women as victims and sexual objects.

 

[ZiprHead]

Interesting. Which parts do you not agree with?

I agree that he is a habitual liar and endorsed an accused molester for a Senate seat.

Nice dodge. But the question was "which parts do you not agree with?"

 

[sharon45]

Interesting. Which parts do you not agree with?

I agree that he is a habitual liar and endorsed an accused molester for a Senate seat.

Nice dodge. But the question was "which parts do you not agree with?"

No, not a dodge, I just took the other rout to shorten my list, hence starting with "I agree that..." Leaving the rest of Ford's items, which then answers your original question of what parts I don't agree with.

 

[Ford]

Leaving the rest of Ford's items, which then answers your original question of what parts I don't agree with.

So then you figure that Trump didn't fire Comey over the Russia investigation, despite the fact that he said that was exactly why he fired him?

 

[Playball40]

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.

So when he said bleeding from her "wherever" - to what was he implying? When he said "she'd do anything for it" - to what was he implying. When he ostracized a disabled man's speech - to what was he implying? When he said he didn't grope the woman that accused him because "well look at them" - to what was he implying? When he said some of the white supremacists were "fine people" - to what was he implying? You continue to make excuses for the scumbag and I guess I really just want to know WHY? Sometimes an asshole is just that.....an asshole. And he is one of the lowest.

 

[Elixir]

Leaving the rest of Ford's items, which then answers your original question of what parts I don't agree with.

So then you figure that Trump didn't fire Comey over the Russia investigation, despite the fact that he said that was exactly why he fired him?

Don't you just love all the straightforward responses coming from rightist weasels?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Playball,

I agree he is an asshole. But I see him as so without having to make assumptions or put words in his wherever. Doing so only makes the reporter look less credible and Trump look misunderstood, even when Trump is what they say he is.

Media reporting that Trump said something he didn't are not the media's best. They're partisan hacks, some are just sloppy, and some I assume are fine people. Some anti-Tump click bait will do anything for clicks.

Just look at them. It's blatant. It's fake news. And as it drowns out legitimate criticism it makes people question if Trump is really as bad as he is. It helps him keep his supporters from turning on him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Playball,

I agree he is an asshole. But I see him as so without having to make assumptions or put words in his wherever.

Yeah, who needs to extrapolate from the very obvious, based on his personal history. That'd be silly.

Doing so only makes the reporter look less credible and Trump look misunderstood, even when Trump is what they say he is.

For a person that thinks Trump is an asshole, you do offer a good deal of cover.

Media reporting that Trump said something he didn't are not the media's best.

The media isn't, they are reporting on what other people thought it meant. I know you don't seem to understand the distinction, but it is quite notable.

They're partisan hacks, some are just sloppy, and some I assume are fine people.

Some nice Trump speak there.

Just look at them. It's blatant. It's fake news.

Click bait
Find out what Jolly Penguin does with cous cous, it isn't what you'd think...

Fake News
Jolly Penguin's death more tragic than you think

News
Sen. Gillibrand says President Trump won't silence her after Tweet

Please, learn the damn difference.

 

[Treedbear]

...

Media reporting that Trump said something he didn't are not the media's best.

The media isn't, they are reporting on what other people thought it meant. I know you don't seem to understand the distinction, but it is quite notable. ...

I don't think so. It seems more like they were giving their opinion on what people should think it meant:

Editorial Board, USA Today
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: Our view
With his latest tweet, clearly implying that a United States senator would trade sexual favors for campaign cash, President Trump has shown he is not fit for office.

Note the lack of quotation marks.

 

[RavenSky]

I don't think so. It seems more like they were giving their opinion on what people should think it meant:

Editorial Board, USA Today
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: Our view
With his latest tweet, clearly implying that a United States senator would trade sexual favors for campaign cash, President Trump has shown he is not fit for office.

Note the lack of quotation marks.

Note the word "editorial"

 

[sharon45]

Leaving the rest of Ford's items, which then answers your original question of what parts I don't agree with.

So then you figure that Trump didn't fire Comey over the Russia investigation, despite the fact that he said that was exactly why he fired him?

That's behind the scenes speculation, which a lot of your list figures in, and while I don't say that these can't possibly be true, I also can't outright agree with them that they are true either.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think so. It seems more like they were giving their opinion on what people should think it meant:

Editorial Board, USA Today
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: Our view
With his latest tweet, clearly implying that a United States senator would trade sexual favors for campaign cash, President Trump has shown he is not fit for office.

Note the lack of quotation marks.

I'm getting an Emperor's New Clothes vibe here.

 

[Ford]

Leaving the rest of Ford's items, which then answers your original question of what parts I don't agree with.

So then you figure that Trump didn't fire Comey over the Russia investigation, despite the fact that he said that was exactly why he fired him?

That's behind the scenes speculation, which a lot of your list figures in, and while I don't say that these can't possibly be true, I also can't outright agree with them that they are true either.

Did you miss the part where he bragged to the Russians the day after he fired Comey? The quote from the New York Times:

"I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump said, according to The Times. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

The next day he told NBC (about the firing):

"When I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story,"

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nut-job-james-comey-russia-2017-5

That's not "behind the scenes speculation," that's Trump's own words.

 

[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.

So when he said bleeding from her "wherever" - to what was he implying?

What I've heard him say several times in interviews before that sound bite, that she was bleeding from her eyes and areas around her face and head. Of course not literally, but he imagined hatred on her face, which is his impression. I saw the exchange between the two, as millions did, and while she clearly doesn't have a poker face, she wasn't displaying seething hate either. So, it remains Trump's personal opinion or story, which I think was obviously an overreaction, but not nearly to what extent many others are later grossly assuming.

When he said "she'd do anything for it" - to what was he implying.

It's another cliché, yet if he had said that about a man, I don't think people would have added the extra victimizing tense.

When he ostracized a disabled man's speech - to what was he implying?

Yet another cliché. Listen to the words he is using along with the actions. Now, the other parts of the issue of whether Trump has met him or knows him, that's more behind the scenes stuff that I think still needs to be hammered out between the two.

When he said he didn't grope the woman that accused him because "well look at them" - to what was he implying?

These are coarse but cliché jokes, and IIRC, mostly said at rallys, with speech heavy in crass references and jokes at the expense of outsiders, catered for throwing raw meat to his supporters.

When he said some of the white supremacists were "fine people" - to what was he implying?

I've already talked about this being a simple politician. Yes, he could well be a racist, but I'm not going to actually know his heart.

You continue to make excuses for the scumbag and I guess I really just want to know WHY?

I don't make excuses, I just tell what I honestly think on these issues, yet since I haven't said that what I say is an absolute fact, I want others to show me why or where I am wrong.

Sometimes an asshole is just that.....an asshole. And he is one of the lowest.

Look, people may not believe this, but I haven't liked Trump ever since I first heard about him in the early 80s, except I also harbor a great interest in correctly analyzing politics, so to more accurately do that, I need to be able to set my personal feelings aside, and try to see things objectively.

 

[sharon45]

Leaving the rest of Ford's items, which then answers your original question of what parts I don't agree with.

So then you figure that Trump didn't fire Comey over the Russia investigation, despite the fact that he said that was exactly why he fired him?

Don't you just love all the straightforward responses coming from rightist weasels?

Well, that kinda goes without saying.