• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wolf: I bet you'd be on my side if I killed a journalist.

Lutherf said:
She doubled down on stupid and, frankly, comes off as being an absolutely horrible human being.
Click to expand...

An absolutely horrible human being?
You voted for one...THE one as a matter of fact, and you like him because of it, am I wrong?
All of a sudden, being an absolutely horrible human being has gone, in the blink of an eye, from being a campaign asset to being a yardstick to measure one's worth in society, and I am convinced it is only because she's not on Trump's side for you.
 
PleasantValley said:
They also have a tendency to jump out of buildings in Putin's Russia too.
Yet none of them say much about that either.
It is because it is not a way to bash Trump.
That is the one goal that overrides all others.
Click to expand...

I wager twenty bucks that there's a half dozen threads in the last year alone on DP that carry mention of Putin's treatment of journalists.
 
Mycroft said:
The best burn will be when she is not at the dinner...and Trump is.
Click to expand...

A dinner featuring an author speaking on the value of the 1A?
You're on, ten bucks says he either doesn't show or fires off at least one vile and bitter tweet about it afterward, specifically targeting Chernow or his speech.
 
Lutherf said:
Regarding the bomber guy, I believe Trump's comment was something to the effect of "We're going to use the full force of the government to find and punish the person that's doing this".

When the media tried to blame his rhetoric for the bombings I believe he said something to the effect of "Don't blame me. We need to be unified."

Trump's position is that the media's penchant for finding a way to blame him for everything that happens isn't helping things at all. His position is that a hyperventilating, agenda driven, fear mongering media preys on the basic political fears of the American people and tends to drive them apart rather than encourage them to come together.
Click to expand...

"His position is that a media that isn't subservient to his demands and whims is a threat to his ability to manipulate the American people."

There, fixed it for you.
 
Harshaw said:
It IS pretty difficult to take someone seriously when they harangue constantly about Trump's tweets, yet think that was pretty funny.

Discourse in this country is at a low point for a reason: enough people want it there.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that if Trump's tweets went wholly uncontested by anyone and accepted as gospel, the level of discourse in this country would rise to a higher level?
 
JC Callender said:
A lot of people don't like her because her comedic material comes from a place of bitterness and hatred. It doesn't come off as her kidding with someone, more like her trying to destroy a sitting target, and when you have the bully pulpit and your target isn't supposed to respond, it looks petty and vindictive.
Click to expand...

Destroying a sitting target...hmmm, that has a familiar ring to it.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Are you saying that if Trump's tweets went wholly uncontested by anyone and accepted as gospel, the level of discourse in this country would rise to a higher level?
Click to expand...

No, but I'm not surprised you want to read it that way, i.e., ascribe a terrible interpretation to what someone you disagree with says. It's generally how you tend to look at the world.
 
Lutherf said:
She doubled down on stupid and, frankly, comes off as being an absolutely horrible human being.
Click to expand...

Lutherf said:
Suggesting that Trump would enjoy it if she shot someone isn't "busting his chops". It's vile hate mongering.
Click to expand...

I am so glad to see this kind of commentary, because it reminds me of yet another form of conservative hypocrisy:

You know how the Right loves to claim that the Left "is intolerant," "has no sense of humor," etc.? Well, here comes a comedian--a woman comedian at that--using her First Amendment rights to make fun of a bunch of people, including tRump, and the Right goes absolutely ballistic over her! :lol: They are all-give-and-no-take. Every. Single. Time.
 
Harshaw said:
No, but I'm not surprised you want to read it that way, i.e., ascribe a terrible interpretation to what someone you disagree with says. It's generally how you tend to look at the world.
Click to expand...

I was asking if you feel that way.
If you don't want to answer, don't answer.

Do you think that if NO ONE in the media contested Trump's tweets, the level of discourse would rise to a higher level?
 
Phys251 said:
I am so glad to see this kind of commentary, because it reminds me of yet another form of conservative hypocrisy:

You know how the Right loves to claim that the Left "is intolerant," "has no sense of humor," etc.? Well, here comes a comedian--a woman comedian at that--using her First Amendment rights to make fun of a bunch of people, including tRump, and the Right goes absolutely ballistic over her! :lol: They are all-give-and-no-take. Every. Single. Time.
Click to expand...

We're witnessing the Right wing form of "political correctness" writ large.
It's downright textbook.
 
Harshaw said:
It IS pretty difficult to take someone seriously when they harangue constantly about Trump's tweets, yet think that was pretty funny.

Discourse in this country is at a low point for a reason: enough people want it there.
Click to expand...


Okay, never mind, you started off your nonsensical deflection with the WORD "No".
I'll take that as you saying "NO".
So you do not believe that leaving Trump's tweets alone would help the level of discourse rise. Okay.

Harshaw said:
Discourse in this country is at a low point for a reason: enough people want it there.
Click to expand...

So, leaving the attacks on Trump's tweets aside, the meat of your statement is something akin to "Mean people suck", or
"We can't talk at a higher level because too many people are mean-spirited and don't wish to have a civilized discussion."**
(**My attempt to assign a more civilized assessment to what I believe is the meaning of your statement)

You know, perhaps electing a particularly mean-spirited person as President of the United States *might* just have a little something to do with it.
Just a thought.

Of course, there are those who think that Donald Trump was NEVER particularly mean-spirited before he became President.
Of course, if they read Chapter Six of Trump's 2007 book "Think Big and Kick Ass" they'll encounter an ENTIRE CHAPTER devoted to REVENGE.

View attachment 67244831

That's not the only time Donald Trump has written significantly about being mean-spirited and attacking people. Revenge is but one side of a many-faceted personal philosophy that Trump lives by. He's not just interested in simple revenge, he also believes that many of the same tactics are valuable in day to day business and these tactics also form a large part of the way he approaches even the most basic personal relationships.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Okay, never mind, you started off your nonsensical deflection with the WORD "No".
I'll take that as you saying "NO".
So you do not believe that leaving Trump's tweets alone would help the level of discourse rise. Okay.



So, leaving the attacks on Trump's tweets aside, the meat of your statement is something akin to "Mean people suck", or
"We can't talk at a higher level because too many people are mean-spirited and don't wish to have a civilized discussion."**
(**My attempt to assign a more civilized assessment to what I believe is the meaning of your statement)

You know, perhaps electing a particularly mean-spirited person as President of the United States *might* just have a little something to do with it.
Just a thought.

Of course, there are those who think that Donald Trump was NEVER particularly mean-spirited before he became President.
Of course, if they read Chapter Six of Trump's 2007 book "Think Big and Kick Ass" they'll encounter an ENTIRE CHAPTER devoted to REVENGE.

View attachment 67244831

That's not the only time Donald Trump has written significantly about being mean-spirited and attacking people. Revenge is but one side of a many-faceted personal philosophy that Trump lives by. He's not just interested in simple revenge, he also believes that many of the same tactics are valuable in day to day business and these tactics also form a large part of the way he approaches even the most basic personal relationships.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you seem to feel that Donald Trump either has so much control over how you conduct yourself, or that you use him as an excuse to behave the way you wanted to anyway. But it's one or both of those.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm sorry you seem to feel that Donald Trump either has so much control over how you conduct yourself, or that you use him as an excuse to behave the way you wanted to anyway. But it's one or both of those.
Click to expand...

That's not going to work, this wasn't about me, it was about your assertion that the level of discourse is due to too many people who preferred it the way it is now. Most people are just "mirroring" what they see in Trump's Twitter feed.

But thanks for thinking about me.
 
Mycroft said:
The best burn will be when she is not at the dinner...and Trump is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it won't be THE dinner...you know the one where the president is actually able to stand being poked a little. Current POTUS needs nice things said about him at all times or goes and pouts. Extra calls to Hannity for pillow talk.

Wonder how many will tune in?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
That's not going to work, this wasn't about me, it was about your assertion that the level of discourse is due to too many people who preferred it the way it is now. Most people are just "mirroring" what they see in Trump's Twitter feed.

But thanks for thinking about me.
Click to expand...

You chose to focus on Trump, and only Trump, for multiple posts, after your own behavior was called into question.

Everyone's 100% responsible for their own behavior, regardless of what Trump or anyone else does. If they behave poorly, it's because they choose to. And they choose to because they want to.

As do you.
 
Lutherf said:
Regarding the bomber guy, I believe Trump's comment was something to the effect of "We're going to use the full force of the government to find and punish the person that's doing this".

When the media tried to blame his rhetoric for the bombings I believe he said something to the effect of "Don't blame me. We need to be unified."

Trump's position is that the media's penchant for finding a way to blame him for everything that happens isn't helping things at all. His position is that a hyperventilating, agenda driven, fear mongering media preys on the basic political fears of the American people and tends to drive them apart rather than encourage them to come together.
Click to expand...

Your unwavering devotion is actually sad. It used to be amusing. Now it is sad. JMO
 
Harshaw said:
You chose to focus on Trump, and only Trump, for multiple posts, after your own behavior was called into question.
Click to expand...

The article is about him, so it would not be surprising that anyone in this thread is focusing on him.

Harshaw said:
Everyone's 100% responsible for their own behavior, regardless of what Trump or anyone else does. If they behave poorly, it's because they choose to. And they choose to because they want to.

As do you.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, Trump still would most likely be on Michelle Wolf's side if she'd killed a journalist, or even joked about doing so, irregardless of MY behavior.
 
JC Callender said:
A lot of people don't like her because her comedic material comes from a place of bitterness and hatred. It doesn't come off as her kidding with someone, more like her trying to destroy a sitting target, and when you have the bully pulpit and your target isn't supposed to respond, it looks petty and vindictive.
Click to expand...

Normal course of the Correspondent's Dinner is that President gets to speak last. Of course, when the president is not capable of speaking, that might change.
 
Acadia said:
I'll bet that if a journalist was beheaded Wolf would go golfing. Oh, wait...that was Obama. My bad.
Oh, and the obligatory misogynistic cheap shot at Melania just goes to show what a loser Wolf is.
Click to expand...

If you are speaking of Jihadi John, responsible for the beheading of journalist Foley, you might mention he was killed in a drone strike. Obama was not golfing. That is crap you make up to liven up your posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom