Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Trump's Cabinet of Deplorables: Now with 33% fewer memes!

Trump's Cabinet of Deplorables: Now with 33% fewer memes! (Page 11)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
There is a case to be made that someone else saying "he knew what he signed on for" would have done better, more sympathetically, or with the sense of "and he did it anyway because he loved his country, was a great hero, etc etc. " I can see someone else saying it and having a different meaning than "he knew what he signed up for, tough s***."

But with Trump, he doesn't have the nuance to say something sympathetically.
Do his poor communication skills erase his intent?

For me, intent is the most important metric by which I judge people's behavior, whereas mistaken impressions about a person's intent is one of the least.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do his poor communication skills erase his intent?

For me, intent is the most important metric by which I judge people's behavior, whereas mistaken impressions about a person's intent is one of the least.
Has the White House used this logic?

**** NO
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do his poor communication skills erase his intent?

For me, intent is the most important metric by which I judge people's behavior, whereas mistaken impressions about a person's intent is one of the least.
Unless you have an inside line on his intent, all we have to go on is what he said, and his past statements and actions.

If he was as thoughtful and sympathetic in his statements to the widow as he was to Puerto Rico, everyone and their mom has the right to criticise him.

As for the Kelly thing? Wow. What an arrogant douche.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 02:32 PM
 
White House is now implying that questioning Kelly or disputing his statements is bad form because he [was] a four star general.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
White House is now implying that questioning Kelly or disputing his statements is bad form because he [was] a four star general.
By 'Whitehouse' do you mean Sarah Huckabee Sanders? It makes me want to vomit a bit, but I miss Spicey. I don't share Subego's view that he was one of the good guys, but at least he was comical. Sanders seems to relish the lies.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Has the White House used this logic?

**** NO
Why does that matter?

Trump quite obviously didn't mean "tough shit". Am I being asked to pretend he meant something else because he's a dick?

Want to slap Trump here?

"I like solders who weren't killed."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why does that matter?
I posted why last page. Maybe you didn't see it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
By 'Whitehouse' do you mean Sarah Huckabee Sanders? It makes me want to vomit a bit, but I miss Spicey. I don't share Subego's view that he was one of the good guys, but at least he was comical. Sanders seems to relish the lies.
She's more of a true believer where Spicer came off as an establishment mercenary
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why does that matter?

Trump quite obviously didn't mean "tough shit". Am I being asked to pretend he meant something else because he's a dick?

Want to slap Trump here?

"I like solders who weren't killed."
Let's assume Trump did not intend to be a dick. Evidence and past history lends credence to the theory that regardless of intent, he came across as a dick. He was, therefore, called out for being insensitive to a grieving widow.

He had, as I see it, three realistic choices:

1. Release a statement along the lines of 'these types of phone calls are confidential, and my heart, thoughts, prayers, etc go out to the grieving family of a fallen hero in these difficult times.'

2. Apologise 'If my message and thoughts did not come across as intended, I apologise. He was a hero, and my heart, thoughts, prayers, etc go out to the grieving family of a fallen hero in these difficult times.'

3. Say 'She's lying and I can prove it.' (but he can't)

Two of those responses are more than respectable, and most of the fair minded public walk away with the impression that the congresswoman was trying to score partisan points.

One of those absolutely supports the notion that he is an insensitive dick, exactly what he is being criticised for.

So what's the problem?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Unless you have an inside line on his intent, all we have to go on is what he said, and his past statements and actions.

If he was as thoughtful and sympathetic in his statements to the widow as he was to Puerto Rico, everyone and their mom has the right to criticise him.
I have no inside line. I am analyzing the same sets of statements and actions as everyone else.

Trump is cripplingly flawed, but not in the manner he calls up a widow and intentionally shits on her.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why does that matter?

Trump quite obviously didn't mean "tough shit". Am I being asked to pretend he meant something else because he's a dick?
to Dakar's point, if Trump didn't want to be a dick, his first move after this first happened would have been to say, "I meant to say it takes a brave person to sign up for that job, knowing what they are getting into, and doing it anyway. That soldier is a hero and we thank him." And then a good speaker would say more about the soldier who passed, his family, etc.

Instead Trump makes the dick move of attacking the senator, implying the widow was lying, rambling on about his favorite subject, how people mistreat Trump, pushing Gen. Kelly into it. He makes it more about him than the fallen soldier.

We're saying he's a dick because he's acted like a dick.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I have no inside line. I am analyzing the same sets of statements and actions as everyone else.

Trump is cripplingly flawed, but not in the manner he calls up a widow and intentionally shits on her.
No one (reasonable) is claiming that- they are saying he's an insensitive ass. Evidence says they're right.

insensitive != malicious
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 03:17 PM
 
He's shitting on her by saying what happened didn't happen.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I posted why last page. Maybe you didn't see it.
I did see it.

The starting conditions of the scenario will have a substantive effect on analysis of later events.

If Trump is being unfairly shit on, it will put later events in a different context.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I did see it.

The starting conditions of the scenario will have a substantive effect on analysis of later events.

If Trump is being unfairly shit on, it will put later events in a different context.
Lying and unfairly slandering a congresswoman are 'put in a different context' because his intent was misinterpreted?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
He's shitting on her by saying what happened didn't happen.
Precisely. Because let Trump tell it he never even said anything of the sort. The man simply LIES instinctively when faced with criticism. Remember the first thing out of Trump's mouth was that the Congresswoman fabricated the entire thing. Which means that not only the Congresswoman, but also the soldier's mother who heard the conversation on speakerphone, and Trump's own Chief of Staff who corroborated that he said it and couldn't fathom how it was being "misinterpreted", were all just making sh*t up.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
No one (reasonable) is claiming that- they are saying he's an insensitive ass. Evidence says they're right.

insensitive != malicious
Wilson's claim was he said it sarcastically.

That's not malicious?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Lying and unfairly slandering a congresswoman are 'put in a different context' because his intent was misinterpreted?
Actually, yes.

If his intent was misinterpreted, his lying and unfair slander is lashing out. If his intent was not misinterpreted, his lying and unfair slander are a cover up.

Is there fair slander?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Actually, yes.

If his intent was misinterpreted, his lying and unfair slander is lashing out. If his intent was not misinterpreted, his lying and unfair slander are a cover up.

Is there fair slander?
Yes, you're arguing fair slander.

You realize I'm talking about Kelly, right? He gets to do that because his boss is pissed?

Edit: you're literally arguing they deserved it. Stop grading Trump on a curve.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Wilson's claim was he said it sarcastically.

That's not malicious?
I'm not doubting you, I've just never seen that statement from her, and trying to find anything about her on Google now, it's mostly moved on to the Kelly nonsense.

But even if that is what she said, everything I'm reading from all other sources is criticism that he was insensitive and tactless. I see nothing even a little bit wrong for criticising him for that, especially given his and his administrations responses to the accusations.

You're defence of him seems to be 'he's a dick, but he didn't mean it.' And we're saying, 'yeah, he's a dick, and we're criticising him for it.'
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yes, you're arguing fair slander.

You realize I'm talking about Kelly, right? He gets to do that because his boss is pissed?

Edit: you're literally arguing they deserved it. Stop grading Trump on a curve.
I thought you were talking about Trump. I'm not arguing anybody deserved anything yet. I feel I'm being pretty clear I'm still talking about the phone call itself.

I'll be thrilled to move forward in the timeline, and I'm not even going to demand agreement on what Trump actually meant during the call, but I don't even know your opinion yet on what he meant.

Was it a sarcastic comment, like Wilson claims?
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 04:34 PM
 
We weren't there, nor were you. Whether he meant it to be sarcastic or not is up to Trump to refute, which he hasn't, because he's busy pretending it's fake news. Which is yet another reason why he's a dick.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I thought you were talking about Trump. I'm not arguing anybody deserved anything yet. I feel I'm being pretty clear I'm still talking about the phone call itself.

I'll be thrilled to move forward in the timeline, and I'm not even going to demand agreement on what Trump actually meant during the call, but I don't even know your opinion yet on what he meant.

Was it a sarcastic comment, like Wilson claims?
No. I covered this in the Trump thread if you'd like a deeper take. I'd do you the courtesy of linking, but you know, phone
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I'm not doubting you, I've just never seen that statement from her, and trying to find anything about her on Google now, it's mostly moved on to the Kelly nonsense.
No need to dig it up!

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/...451368163.html

She says it in the video. About 1:25 in.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
We weren't there, nor were you. Whether he meant it to be sarcastic or not is up to Trump to refute, which he hasn't, because he's busy pretending it's fake news. Which is yet another reason why he's a dick.
Not arguing whether he's a dick, I'm arguing whether he's a big enough one to say that sarcastically to a widow.

I haven't seen evidence he's that big of a dick... or criminally insane, which I consider a better characterization of the behavior being complained.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
No. I covered this in the Trump thread if you'd like a deeper take. I'd do you the courtesy of linking, but you know, phone
I shall! Thank you!

Is it understandable I'd want something like that before moving forward, or am I being a dick?
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No need to dig it up!

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/...451368163.html

She says it in the video. About 1:25 in.
Thanks. If we take her at her word that she knew the soldier since he was a boy and was close to the family, and the call came while she was riding with the family in a funeral limo, I'm willing to let her slide on saying he was 'sarcastic' rather than he 'sounded sarcastic.'
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 05:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not arguing whether he's a dick, I'm arguing whether he's a big enough one to say that sarcastically to a widow.

I haven't seen evidence he's that big of a dick... or criminally insane, which I consider a better characterization of the behavior being complained.
A "sarcastic" tone is not something we can definitively determine absent a recording. That being said, Trump has a track record of being woefully lacking in "empathy" whenever he's speaking off script ... as a conversation like this naturally was. Add to that the fact that he never once referred to the soldier or the widow by name and it's easy to see why the family and the congresswoman were offended by his disrespectful and tactless manner. And the fact that he hasn't even afforded the congresswoman the respect to refer to her by name or even her office ... but certainly saw fit to accuse her of "fabricating" the entire thing and calling her "whacky" ... well suffice it to say that when you start looking at Trump's behavior over time he has simply forfeited the benefit of the doubt AFAIC.

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I shall! Thank you!

Is it understandable I'd want something like that before moving forward, or am I being a dick?
I think it's neither here nor there in regard to Kelly's actions and speech. Even if Trump were completely justified, parts of what Kelly yesterday should worry everyone.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why does that matter?

Trump quite obviously didn't mean "tough shit". Am I being asked to pretend he meant something else because he's a dick?

Want to slap Trump here?

"I like solders who weren't killed."
You can't see that in isolation as all of the points below can be true:
(1) Trump lied about other Presidents not calling families of soldiers to express their condolences.
(2) Trump effed up when trying to console the family of the fallen.
(3) Trump calling out others that they are supposedly lying about what he said, putting himself in the center and calling others “wacky” [sic] and asking for proof. Instead of shutting his trap or even apologizing to the family in private.

You seem to focus on point (2), more specifically the question of intent, exclusively. I don't think Trump's intent was to insult anyone, but I don't think offering solace was Trump's motivation either. He got caught like a school boy who didn't do his homework when asked about the four fallen soldiers, and instead of doing things quietly in private, he couldn't resist “boasting” by lying about the previous two or three Presidents (point (1)). He just can't handle criticism. See also point (3) for that.

Even if his insensitive remark were blown out of proportion, he should have just taken it on the chin and left a grieving family of out silly day-to-day political spats. That's how you show respect to the military.

Most of the criticism of Trump I see are independent of intent, namely that he makes everything about him, him, him, without regard for the truth or other. And his utter lack of empathy, of course. In the grand scheme of things, this is but a small scandal, but since it is not a partisan issue, it also serves as a reminder how spineless the GOP in Congress is.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 09:36 PM
 
Didn't he put off making these calls for quite a while? Is there some chance he only made them at all because the media asked if he'd done it yet? Like with the guy he promised $25k?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You seem to focus on point (2), more specifically the question of intent, exclusively.
My interpretation of the phone call is he did nothing wrong.

Lacking outside input, this will be the context under which I interpret later events.

My perception is people don't agree with my interpretation.

I feel obligated to respect this difference of opinion when making an analysis of later events, and thus feel obligated to understand the position of others before I proceed.

I feel I'm being penalized for it. Is this somehow the incorrect course of action? Should I instead use my interpretation under the assumption it will go unquestioned?

That assumption is and should be enormously unsafe for me to make, and I shouldn't be pressured into making it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think it's neither here nor there in regard to Kelly's actions and speech. Even if Trump were completely justified, parts of what Kelly yesterday should worry everyone.
That is the impression I get, and when I get to those events, if I agree, I shall say so.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Thanks. If we take her at her word that she knew the soldier since he was a boy and was close to the family, and the call came while she was riding with the family in a funeral limo, I'm willing to let her slide on saying he was 'sarcastic' rather than he 'sounded sarcastic.'
This is absolutely fair.

My only addition is if she had said it about me, and it was untrue, I may be less inclined towards a fair assessment.

In fact, were I to let my emotions get the best of me, I might even get really pissed-off about it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 11:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My interpretation of the phone call is he did nothing wrong.

Lacking outside input, this will be the context under which I interpret later events.

My perception is people don't agree with my interpretation.
Yes, your perception is correct. As I said, I don't think people are criticizing Trump for intentionally wanting to hurt or insult the widow, and perhaps there was no good thing he could have said. For most people the bit you focus on, the phone call, is the least important part of the story, it's what led to the phone call and how Trump chose to deal with the criticism afterwards. If you are talking to someone who has lost someone close, and that person lashes out at you as you are, at least symbolically, responsible, that's a very natural reaction. If Trump said what was claimed he said, and I am inclined to believe that, I do think it was insensitive, but not malicious. Again, a simple “I had no intention of insulting your husband's memory, and I am sorry if you felt I did.” would have changed how I feel about this — although not completely given how this whole ball got rolling.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I feel obligated to respect this difference of opinion when making an analysis of later events, and thus feel obligated to understand the position of others before I proceed.

I feel I'm being penalized for it. Is this somehow the incorrect course of action? Should I instead use my interpretation under the assumption it will go unquestioned?

That assumption is and should be enormously unsafe for me to make, and I shouldn't be pressured into making it.
I think you are overthinking this.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 11:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
A "sarcastic" tone is not something we can definitively determine absent a recording. That being said, Trump has a track record of being woefully lacking in "empathy" whenever he's speaking off script ... as a conversation like this naturally was. Add to that the fact that he never once referred to the soldier or the widow by name and it's easy to see why the family and the congresswoman were offended by his disrespectful and tactless manner. And the fact that he hasn't even afforded the congresswoman the respect to refer to her by name or even her office ... but certainly saw fit to accuse her of "fabricating" the entire thing and calling her "whacky" ... well suffice it to say that when you start looking at Trump's behavior over time he has simply forfeited the benefit of the doubt AFAIC.

OAW
I'm arguing whatever crimes he's guilty of, one isn't meaning that comment sarcastically.

I actually think it's fair to accuse me of being someone who gives Trump too much benefit of the doubt, because I very well may be guilty of it.

This isn't one of those times. His pathology doesn't manifest that way.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2017, 01:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, your perception is correct. As I said, I don't think people are criticizing Trump for intentionally wanting to hurt or insult the widow, and perhaps there was no good thing he could have said. For most people the bit you focus on, the phone call, is the least important part of the story, it's what led to the phone call and how Trump chose to deal with the criticism afterwards. If you are talking to someone who has lost someone close, and that person lashes out at you as you are, at least symbolically, responsible, that's a very natural reaction. If Trump said what was claimed he said, and I am inclined to believe that, I do think it was insensitive, but not malicious. Again, a simple “I had no intention of insulting your husband's memory, and I am sorry if you felt I did.” would have changed how I feel about this — although not completely given how this whole ball got rolling.

I think you are overthinking this.
Welcome to my life.

I'm having trouble responding to this because it makes no mention of Congresswoman Wilson's involvement. Has not the majority of criticism and response been between Trump and Wilson?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2017, 11:28 AM
 
I read the NYT write-up on Kelly's speech. Why am I supposed to hate him for it?

My hot take: I think Kelly blames Wilson for turning this into a political football, and he's really, really, really pissed.

To be clear, there's obviously an argument Trump deserves the blame for turning it into a political football. I'm saying Kelly doesn't see it that way. At this point, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Kelly.

I hope my failure to continue focusing exclusively on the phone call isn't disappointing anyone.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2017, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

I actually think it's fair to accuse me of being someone who gives Trump too much benefit of the doubt, because I very well may be guilty of it.
I think you are.

I might be guilty of being too quick to believe every bad thing I hear about him, but there are two ways to look at that. One is that when you hear something bad about someone you already didn't like, its easy to believe it. The other is that if that person has already done enough to justify your dislike and in this case to justify him not holding the office he holds, then every accusation of wrongdoing, correct or not is just another nail in the coffin. Objectivity is pointless in Trump's case. He already deserves what he deserves, he did before he was elected.

I cannot find anything likeable about the man at all. I can't even find anything respectable about him. Even when he's doing the right thing it seems to be because some outside pressure made him do it and he typically seems to **** it up anyway. I can usually forgive someone being bad at certain things, but when you spend all your time telling everyone who great you are at everything, like the best at every single thing, you deprive yourself of that benefit. Anything less than spectacular invited mockery so total ineptitude invites spectacular ridicule and condemnation.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2017, 03:20 AM
 
Banging nonexistent nails into Trump's coffin undermines the real ones, no?
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2017, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I read the NYT write-up on Kelly's speech. Why am I supposed to hate him for it?

My hot take: I think Kelly blames Wilson for turning this into a political football, and he's really, really, really pissed.

To be clear, there's obviously an argument Trump deserves the blame for turning it into a political football. I'm saying Kelly doesn't see it that way. At this point, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Kelly.

I hope my failure to continue focusing exclusively on the phone call isn't disappointing anyone.
1. As you said, he's angry at Wilson for politicising a situation he boss politicised.
2. He made an attack/accusation against Wilson that is contradicted by video and common sense evidence.
3. He did the above while supposedly being the stabilising figure in the White House.

#2 is the big deal.

It's exceedingly disappointing that Trump is clearly rubbing off on him rather than the other way around.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2017, 12:28 PM
 
I think there's an argument his boss politicized the situation, but I also think there's an argument Wilson did.

I shall do an analysis of Wilson's speech and Kelly's characterization.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2017, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think there's an argument his boss politicized the situation, but I also think there's an argument Wilson did.

I shall do an analysis of Wilson's speech and Kelly's characterization.
You're not addressing the reality that the White House Chief of Staff flagrantly mischaracterised and insulted a member of congress based on either false information or lies and has refused to apologise.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2017, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
You're not addressing the reality that the White House Chief of Staff flagrantly mischaracterised and insulted a member of congress based on either false information or lies and has refused to apologise.
I'm addressing the part I have familiarity with.

I'm not going to comment on the speech until I've watched it. Which I just did.

Proof:



Holy manspread, Jim.

I'm formulating a response now. What have I done here to deserve the accusation of "not addressing the reality"?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2017, 01:12 PM
 
Wilson is a manufactured distraction to take attention off the Uranium One revelations.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2017, 01:15 PM
 
Trump is slamming her to provide cover for the Clintons?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2017, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Trump is slamming her to provide cover for the Clintons?
The media.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2017, 02:32 PM
 
So, I watched Wilson's speech.

As claimed, what Kelly says took place has almost zero resemblance to what happened.

I can put on my cynical hat and be irritated by part of her speech, and memories can be imperfect, so I'm willing to cut a certain amount of slack when it comes to people recalling emotions rather than actual events, however even accounting for this still leaves an enormous gap between what Wilson was accused of and what really happened.

The only thing I can say in his defense, and it's not much, is my perhaps incorrect instincts tell me Kelly didn't deliberately misrepresent the situation, but rather has a massive, unchecked bias against Wilson.

This is a bad thing, not the least reason being he slandered someone because of it.


Bonus irony from the speech... Wilson talks about how FBI agents know they may not come home at the end of the day.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2017, 02:33 PM
 
To clarify some of my thoughts:
Originally Posted by Kelly
It stuns me that a member of Congress would have listened in on that conversation. Absolutely stuns me. And I thought at least that was sacred.
Couple things here. First, its not like the member of congress eavesdropped. He misportrays what happened. Second, I think it's the mournings rights to share their grief as they see fit that should be sacred, not the president's communication to them. I guess anyone who shared letters Lincoln sent soldiers families was violating Kelly's perceived sacredness?

To quote part of a New Yorker piece:
Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs. A day earlier, the Washington Post had quoted a White House official saying, “The president’s conversations with the families of American heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice are private.” The statement contained a classic Trumpian reversal: the President was claiming for himself the right to privacy that belonged to his interlocutor. But Myeshia Johnson had apparently voluntarily shared her conversation with her mother-in-law and Congresswoman Frederica Wilson by putting the President on speakerphone.

Now Kelly took it up a notch. Not only was he claiming that the President, communicating with a citizen in his official capacity, had a right to confidentiality—he was claiming that this right was “sacred.” Indeed, Kelly seemed to say, it was the last sacred thing in this country. He rattled off a litany of things that had lost their sanctity: women, life, religion, Gold Star families. The last of which had been profaned “in the convention over the summer,” said Kelly, although the debacle with a Gold Star family had been Trump’s doing. Now, Kelly seemed to say, we had descended into utter profanity, because the secrecy of the President’s phone call had been violated.
You know, when I was a kid growing up, a lot of things were sacred in our country. Women were sacred, looked upon with great honor. That’s obviously not the case anymore as we see from recent cases. Life — the dignity of life — is sacred. That’s gone. Religion, that seems to be gone as well.
This tells us a lot more about Kelly than we know. It paints the picture of someone who misses the idealized America of the 50s. Women not as equals but on a pedestal. Abortion a dirty secret to be hidden rather than practiced safely and openly, and, of course, a lament for the fictional morality that existed in decades past.


Even for someone that is that empty a barrel, we were stunned.

But, you know, none of us went to the press and criticized. None of us stood up and were appalled. We just said, O.K., fine.
This is a strange comment. He seems to be indicating that not speaking out comments he thought were inappropriate is commendable. In a country where we value free speech so highly, that strikes me as lamentable. I imagine his view is colored by some sense of military decorum, which is fine unless he thinks all citizens should be guided by it.

Alternatively he could also have stayed silent because he doesn't care for the press. That too might be colored by his military background, but again, this is one of the pillars of our democracy.

Also, what he said didn't happen. For a man perceived as an adult in the room, for him to make such a baseless accusation is disheartening. From what I've read of the congresswoman's speech, not only was it not grandstanding, it was pleasingly non-partisan, thanking not one but three republicans for their help. To me that projects a message of unity at that site's dedication.

Now a pull from The Atlantic:
He pointedly discriminated among those asking questions, suggesting that only those who were Gold Star relatives or knew a stricken family had the right to ask him questions. Indeed, the White House press secretary later declared that it is improper for anyone to question a Marine four-star—a statement worthy of Wilhelmine Germany at its worst.

To some extent it was all an exercise in projection, as the psychologists would say. The remark about women, from the chief of staff of a man who has celebrated groping them; the castigation of a politician for falsely taking credit for a building, from a man who works for a builder who does nothing but take credit that he does not deserve; the empty barrel that makes the most noise, when every day he works for a man without a moral center but with a loud mouth; the disgust at the treatment of bereaved fathers, referencing the Khan family but omitting candidate Trump’s sneer at them—in a way, the speech was all about Trump, and probably unconsciously so.

The real sting came at the end. He told those in the audience that he did not look down on them for not having served; rather people like him—again, the 1 percent—merely feel sorry for civilians. But his final shot—“So just think of that”—undercut the previous sentence. The contempt was unmistakable.
Back to the New Yorker:
Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. Kelly’s last argument was his most striking. At the end of the briefing, he said that he would take questions only from those members of the press who had a personal connection to a fallen soldier, followed by those who knew a Gold Star family. Considering that, a few minutes earlier, Kelly had said most Americans didn’t even know anyone who knew anyone who belonged to the “one per cent,” he was now explicitly denying a majority of Americans—or the journalists representing them—the right to ask questions. This was a new twist on the Trump Administration’s technique of shunning and shaming unfriendly members of the news media, except this time, it was framed explicitly in terms of national loyalty. As if on cue, the first reporter allowed to speak inserted the phrase “Semper Fi”—a literal loyalty oath—into his question.
...and back again to The Atlantic
The real matter goes deeper. John Kelly opened a dark divide, painting an idealized picture of all veterans, and implicitly disparaging not merely the great mass of citizens, but all those who display courage and selflessness in the normal course of life. The rawness of his own grief put on display by his boss, who dragged that pain into public sight without Kelly’s permission, may explain his disdain, his anger, his contempt. In delivering those remarks, however, he painted a dark America, in which an undeserving 99 percent live off the selflessness of others whom they cannot understand and can never sufficiently appreciate.

These are the links I used:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/u...gold-star.html
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...-military-coup
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...rriors/543612/
I do not endorse the totality of any of those articles.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2017, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The only thing I can say in his defense, and it's not much, is my perhaps incorrect instincts tell me Kelly didn't deliberately misrepresent the situation, but rather has a massive, unchecked bias against Wilson.
My read from his address is he has no regard for politicians of the media in general. The former is now ironic as having become a press-facing CoS he is exactly that – a politician. Right down to having misrepresented someone's actions just to look down on them.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:11 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,