President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

I still prefer the Mojave over the Basque Cake, but to each their own.

 

Black Jack was a strong leader who knew how to deal with radical Islamic terrorists!

 

Trump in the AM: We must never forget history!

Trump in the PM: Ehhh, history, shmistory!

 

Here's the money quote. Every time he defends people in the alt-right group, he distinguishes them from the white nationalist and supremacists:

REPORTER: I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?

TRUMP: No, no. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call ‘em. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know, I don't know if you know, but they had a permit. The other group didn't have a permit. So I only tell you this: there are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country, a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country. Does anybody have a final – does anybody have a final question? You have an infrastructure question.

 

As @Dick Whitman pointed out before, it's actually you guys who are speculating on "what is in the asshole's heart" with the increasingly embellished characterizations of his words. The point Dick and I were trying to make was rooted in his actual words.

In your prior post you characterized his statement as saying there are "good Nazis." Well, you know, that's not what he actually said. And he added a statement that seemed to be a (very poor) attempt to distinguish Nazis from whom he meant. I thought that worth pointing out.

 

The recent turn of this thread is reminding me of Alan Dershowitz instructing Claus von Bülow in "Reversal of Fortune" that the more he tells him, the more he limits the ways in which Dershowitz can defend him.

It feels like a perverse hyper-micro focus on language by a newspaper while employing an inversely proportionate hyper-macro analysis on the language used by the person it's writing about, and a complete abdication of the responsibility to pay attention to context, and what wasn't said, and when, and why, and how. In other words, to pay attention to everything that's going on and form a reasonable conclusion instead of parsing the sub-atomic particles in each letter of a transcript of what Trump said. And it feels like the argument of someone who's trained in how to get a guilty person off.

 

Senator Bob Corker, what say you?

"The president has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability, nor some of the competence, that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful," Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, told reporters after an event in Tennessee.

Republican senator says Trump yet to demonstrate needed stability

 

Prominent posters....blah, blah, blah....

I see your overall argument, but this tactic is bullshit.

 

More scoops of ice cream for Trump!

 

Are you serious with this?

It is what he explicitly, unequivocally said. "I'm not defending white supremacists." Repeatedly. I'm not the one parsing.

Stick to the debate or take another long hike. This tactic is some boooooooll shit.

 

Earlier I should have said debate-camp boooooooll shit.

Johnny Dangerously regrets the error.