The Push to 2020 Has Begun!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1823

I’d also like to go ON RECORD has having been joking about Donald Trump tweets and their absurdity for years. I’ll even explain this particular joke for any humorless fucks who might be reading.

image
image879×625 62.4 KB

@cryptonite was somewhat of a hapless bystander in the 600 lb deadlift thread, but he set up such a good joke I had to tee it off. I’m sorry about that, if you’re still around.

The joke had several levels. The first is that Donald Trump is petty enough to take offense to what someone on an anonymous lifting forum said about deadlifting, of all things. Even more absurd, he’s petty enough to both call him out and insult him publicly on Twitter.

The next level to the joke is that Donald Trump is obviously ignorant about deadlifting, because deadlifts from weak to strong are in the range of “hundreds of pounds”. Despite this, he is simultaneously supremely confident about sharing his vapid, perspective-less thoughts on deadlifting, as he does on many other topics. I also wrapped it up in a little bit of #MAGA for good effect, all in 140 characters or less.

I can dig up more bona fides, if necessary. I’m beginning to like the penance game. This election is already silly, why not crank it up to 11?

I can play the same game, after all :slight_smile:

1824

The headline didn’t do that - it said he suggested injection as a possible solution, which he did. He didn’t expressly tell or encourage people to inject, but the headline didn’t claim he did. Swing and a miss. Want to try again?

I’ll do your homework for you, since your consumption of media appears to be limited to sources of people complaining Trump is being picked on:

1825

We’re getting into semantic quibbling, but I think a more accurate headline would have been appropriate. These are the games journalists play, and it is obvious. How can we paint him in the most negative way possible while still maintaining some level of plausible deniability and/or rhetorical wiggle room.

You seem to be okay with this. I’d prefer more straight-forward reporting.

“Trump asks doctor if injecting disinfectant might be helpful.”

1826

He made the suggestion, and it was stupid as Hell to suggest it. It’s the journalist’s job to be professionally objective, it’s not a journalist’s job to rescue an otherwise clearly dumb statement and spin it in favor of the speaker. That’s what the headline did.

It’s funny - y’all want the media to save Trump from himself. Not their job.

Here’s is the actual headline:

  • Trump suggests ‘injection’ of disinfectant to beat coronavirus and ‘clean’ the lungs*

Barely any difference between the two. And nothing inaccurate in the headline.

1827

Exactly. Yet somehow, someway, within 24 hours or so a bunch of people had the idea that Trump was pushing this as a serious treatment option.

1828

Ok, so you agree that the headline wasn’t unfair, despite you presenting it as evidence.

Because of context - Trump had only recently peddled a sham medicine in hydroychloroquine over media, and based on his suggestion that injection of bleach or whatever may work, there’s was a fair inference that this was hydro all over again. And with that risk - after all, Trump is President and people will follow his suggestions, especially his blind followers - it was wise to treat it as Trump offering it as a serious option and warn against it (ask Lysol).

1829

lol, Twitter just threw a warning on a POTUS tweet saying that viewers should fact check it: Twitter fact-checks Trump tweet for the first time - YouTube

1 Like
1830

Are you really suggesting that the Trump-era media has done a good job of keeping the public informed? Had they simply reported his words directly, do you think anyone would have thought it was being suggested as a serious option?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.

Do you read that and walk away with the impression that injecting disinfectant is something you or anyone else should be doing?

Out of everything covered in that massive transcript, this is what the public would be best-served by hearing about?

If you think it needed attention drawn to it, do you think it might have been informative to cover exactly what the disinfectant he was referring to was? It was discussed earlier in the transcript, and it might have helped people understand that he was clearly NOT talking about Lysol.

Or perhaps more attention might have been drawn to a later part of the transcript, where this was clarified. But nah, that would be carrying Trump’s water, or something.

Q But I — just, can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there? I mean —

ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: No, I’m here to talk about the findings that we had in the study. We won’t do that within that lab and our lab. So —

THE PRESIDENT: It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.

On second thought, you’re right. NBC had great coverage of this transcript.

1 Like
1831

I actually agree with this part. I think it is still every individual’s responsibility to verify things for themselves. However I do 100% believe that the line is so blurred as to render many blue collar folks (and quite a variety of white collars too) confused and therefore apathetic towards figuring things out.

I actually agree with twojarslave here. I am not on Twitter. I do not follow the POTUS’s tweets. I spend my screen time elsewhere for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I find it irritating beyond measure. I think it’s every person’s decision as to how much screen time they want and what they want to spend it on (for the record Harry Potter >>> Trump tweets lol)

1 Like
1832

Yes. If Elected Leader says something interests him, I take that to mean I should not only use the thing of interest but use it in any manner I choose. EL says that bird interests him? I capture the bird and use it as a hearing aid. EL says that gravel may improve drainage problems? I eat gravel for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Trump, why you can’t make people no be stupid? I hate you.

1833

Then he wouldn’t have anyone vote for him.

1834

I don’t have an abiding hatred of him I simply don’t dismiss his behaviors as no big deal like his fans do. Because it isn’t no big deal. That’s an apology because people voted and support someone who isn’t an adult and instead of saying yeah I don’t want this in office they are tied to it.

I don’t see how one can think a politician who lies 10,000 times a month to people is the same as one who lied once or spun something once. Trump will talk about how great someone is on Monday and then Tuesday tell you he never met the person and probably berate the reporter who suggested he did.

But his in public speaking lies are one thing. His Twitter is far more concerning where he will often retweet far right conspiracy theory type shit giving credence to it. Instead of it being in the crazy corners of the internet the President is bringing attention to it.

From what we know from sources Trump doesn’t listen to experts, doesn’t read intelligence briefings, and behaves the same way he does in front of people. Do you honestly believe he’s a patient pragmatic listener who carefully weighs things behind closed doors and it’s just in public he’s nuts?

I’m not pretending as if the other side cares about anything other than my vote. What I’m saying is as long as I’ve been alive we’ve expected leaders at the national level to act a certain way. Consider the words they use, treat people with decency and respect, etc. Sure people can find examples of all national leaders not doing that all the time, but on the whole they have.

I’m not sure how we would prefer an adult leader is actually something people are debating.

2 Likes
1835

A thought (just a thought) would be to let the actual medical experts near you speak about these things. Then he wouldn’t have to be corrected by his own medical doctors after speaking. Is it too much to ask that during a pandemic Trump doesn’t repeatedly have to be corrected right after he speaks?

The thing about telling everyone no one knows more about wind or viruses or whatever is that when that actually isn’t true and you speak about it you look like a fucking moron. And then your team has to correct you. To have access to some of the smartest people in the world and choose to not listen to them and let them speak about items you don’t understand doesn’t make sense. But this also requires one realizing they aren’t the smartest person in the world and you’d have to give up some attention. Two things Trump can’t do. That’s adult shit right there. I can do it at my job. The bosses I’ve worked for before I was a boss could do it.

Instead of thinking that only morons would take the President seriously when he says outlandish medical shit during a pandemic how about just have the expectation that he stops doing that? Some people aren’t intelligent enough to recognize that he has no idea what he’s talking about. I suppose instead of thinking he shouldn’t be an idiot we should make fun of people who aren’t the President who might listen to him.

1836

Understood, but my original point wasn’t that one should follow the POTUS on Twitter, but that his stream-of-conciousness thoughts are available every hour to 80+ million people, unedited and unfiltered.

@twojarslave made it seem as POTUS’ statements are regularly twisted, taken out of context and spun by biased media, and not reported on factually.

Trump Twitter posts refute a fairly common GOP talking point - “He simply cannot get his message across, every word he says is taken out of context”.

2 Likes
1837

Good. My choice of words conveyed my ideas.

I don’t see why I should need to cross-check NBC news with Twitter or read through hundreds of pages of transcripts to determine if they are reporting accurately, yet here we are.

Some people don’t see any problem with the state of political media coverage in the Trump era. I can understand why people would be deeply concerned if an agent of Vladimir Putin was occupying the White House, nominating gang rapists to the Supreme Court and using Presidential influence to protect racist high school boys from being exposed in the national media spotlight.

I can also understand why so many wish such things were true. Such stories certainly sell well. Good for business, no doubt.

1838

Oh, c’mon. You’re intentionally exaggerating for comedic effect. If a person hires as their campaign manager an individual on Putin’s payroll (Manafort) and as a NS advisor a person who happened to somehow found a way to a dinner table with Putin (Flynn), has a short attention span, is weak to flattery and has an almost pathological need to be liked by strongmen, is that so far fetched that this man was prone to being influenced by Putin on an one-to-one meeting?

Stories about the feindish and neverending conspiracies of the Deep State, liberals and Soros against the POTUS and 'Murica sell much better.

1 Like
1839

Me? No. Could an impressionable or scared person? Sure. You seem to miss that this is the POTUS saying this. And not only that, there are tons of followers that think God put him in the Oval Office. Yes, there’s a risk someone would walk away with that impression.

POTUS spoke - that’s newsworthy. And It’s no one’s fault but Trump’s - he insisted on being the star of the show. He said something stupid and mildly dangerous, that’s news.

The rest of that exchange makes Trump look even worse. You should probably be glad they didn’t spend time on it.

Bottom line is what Trump said was newsworthy and the reaction predictable - at first, several people and companies feeling compelled to make sure no one tried it, and then commenting how incredibly stupid the suggestion was in the first place. Nothing in that is foul play on the media’s or companies’ part.

The real issue is your Dear Leader screwed up - why can’t the answer simply be “damn, that was a stupid thing to say on his part.” Admit it and move on?

1840

Have I not said exactly that? Did I not use that exact choice of words, even? I clearly called it a “stupid question”.

These conversations are hilarious to go back and read through. I try to make a simple point and find myself having to jump around all manner of rhetorical obstacles to point out the very obvious notion that much of the mainstream media is playing activist right now. I’ve been reading the news for over 30 years, yet you and others are trying to tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

Right…

Of course you believe this. If the Democrats have any principles at all besides promising one group the fruits of another group’s labor, it is the notion that people are too stupid to think for themselves. The soft bigotry of low expectations, I believe it is called.

Some certainly are too dumb to think for themselves, but that’s no reason to cater all of news coverage, policy and rhetoric towards that small minority.

1841

You can’t. These are lies people tell themselves to continue to support someone who is so much worse than the stereotype of a politician. They try to normalize his actions by claiming what he’s doing is just politician stuff. It’s an embarrassment.

To these folks: look vote for Trump if you want, free country and all. You have your reasons - judges, lower taxes, whatever. Just stop trying to convince everyone Trump is good at his job, normal, smart, ethical, or patriotic, or that his behavior isn’t all that unusual and is pretty much just like Bush, Clinton, and Obama. When you try, you discredit yourself.

1842

Good - then you shouldn’t have any problem with media pointing out that it was stupid and even dangerous. How did the media fail to do their jobs by printing that?

You’ll have to take that up with Democrats, but as for your broader point - you can’t be serious. The entire Trump phenomenon exists on a platform that there is a sea of “marks” out there waiting to be sold snake oil, and that’s what he’s done in politics. He thinks his supporters are easily fooled suckers, and they fell for it.

Add on top of that the effectiveness of the tools used by the Right to get these people to believe all manner of untrue things - think about the bots and humans producing (false) articles and memes and on and on, and how they are being gobbled up by MAGA nation, uncritically, loyally, and they follow this along with other propaganda along like lemmings.

No, it’s not the Democrats who have a political model based on the idea that people are too stupid to think for themselves. It’s the Trumpian model, and the direct evidence is all around you. Exhibit A is the President’s own Twitter feed - if he didn’t think all of his followers were idiots, why would be try to make them belief such insanely untrue things when speaking directly to them?