Trump's Black History Month Remarks

[silverscreenselect]

I hesitate to use the words, "new low," but this just might be.

His "discussion" of Martin Luther King consisted of one sentence mentioning that his "incredible example is unique in American history" and immediately seguing into a diatribe against the "fake news" report about the bust. He did manage to praise Frederick Douglass with the following stirring oratory: "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job that is being recognized more and more, I notice." However, he spent more time lavishing praise on Ben Carson and Omarosa (as well as Fox News) than on discussing the accomplishments of King, Douglass, Rosa Parks, and Harriett Tubman combined.

The transcript: https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/826822342961745922

[flockofseagulls104]

I hesitate to use the words, "new low," but this just might be.

His "discussion" of Martin Luther King consisted of one sentence mentioning that his "incredible example is unique in American history" and immediately seguing into a diatribe against the "fake news" report about the bust. He did manage to praise Frederick Douglass with the following stirring oratory: "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job that is being recognized more and more, I notice." However, he spent more time lavishing praise on Ben Carson and Omarosa (as well as Fox News) than on discussing the accomplishments of King, Douglass, Rosa Parks, and Harriett Tubman combined.

The transcript: https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/826822342961745922

So, you don't think he praised Dr. Martin Luther King enough? Well, I didn't like his tie. Let's go trash a Starbucks.

[jarnon]

At least he mentioned African-Americans. Here's the Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

[silverscreenselect]

I hesitate to use the words, "new low," but this just might be.

His "discussion" of Martin Luther King consisted of one sentence mentioning that his "incredible example is unique in American history" and immediately seguing into a diatribe against the "fake news" report about the bust. He did manage to praise Frederick Douglass with the following stirring oratory: "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job that is being recognized more and more, I notice." However, he spent more time lavishing praise on Ben Carson and Omarosa (as well as Fox News) than on discussing the accomplishments of King, Douglass, Rosa Parks, and Harriett Tubman combined.

The transcript: https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/826822342961745922

So, you don't think he praised Dr. Martin Luther King enough? Well, I didn't like his tie. Let's go trash a Starbucks.

Well, when you put him behind Ben Carson, Omarosa, and Fox News in a discussion of Black History Month, I think that speaks volumes for his priorities... and you continued I'm-not-really-defending-him-just-defending-everything-he's-said-or-done-so-far defense of him speaks for yours as well.

[silverscreenselect]

At least he mentioned African-Americans. Here's the Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

You're not the only person to notice Trump's statement: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/r ... -holocaust

[flockofseagulls104]

I hesitate to use the words, "new low," but this just might be.

His "discussion" of Martin Luther King consisted of one sentence mentioning that his "incredible example is unique in American history" and immediately seguing into a diatribe against the "fake news" report about the bust. He did manage to praise Frederick Douglass with the following stirring oratory: "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job that is being recognized more and more, I notice." However, he spent more time lavishing praise on Ben Carson and Omarosa (as well as Fox News) than on discussing the accomplishments of King, Douglass, Rosa Parks, and Harriett Tubman combined.

The transcript: https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/826822342961745922

So, you don't think he praised Dr. Martin Luther King enough? Well, I didn't like his tie. Let's go trash a Starbucks.

Well, when you put him behind Ben Carson, Omarosa, and Fox News in a discussion of Black History Month, I think that speaks volumes for his priorities... and you continued I'm-not-really-defending-him-just-defending-everything-he's-said-or-done-so-far defense of him speaks for yours as well.

There are plenty of valid things to criticize Trump for. You and the minions like you keep searching for and 'trumpeting' stupid, petty things like this. It is very difficult to take you seriously. You are doing for real and with malice what I was doing on that other Trump thread. Do some introspection for a change, please.

[jarnon]

At least he mentioned African-Americans. Here's the Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

You're not the only person to notice Trump's statement: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/r ... -holocaust

And LSWE fans were upset there was no recognition of the 106th anniversary of Thomas Crapper's death.

[flockofseagulls104]

At least he mentioned African-Americans. Here's the Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

You're not the only person to notice Trump's statement: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/r ... -holocaust

And LSWE fans were upset there was no recognition of the 106th anniversary of Thomas Crapper's death.

He did not specifically say that he was against the Holocaust, so he must be a nazi sympathizer, right? And since I don't hate him, I must be too.

[silverscreenselect]

He did not specifically say that he was against the Holocaust, so he must be a nazi sympathizer, right? And since I don't hate him, I must be too.

The point you miss in all this is that the President speaks for the country, not just himself or his cronies or his political party, so he should choose his words carefully for that reason. Those idiotic comments he gave today are a disgrace. And let's not forget that Republicans spent the last eight years going over everything Obama said or did for supposed or real slights or insults or degrading of America.

[flockofseagulls104]

He did not specifically say that he was against the Holocaust, so he must be a nazi sympathizer, right? And since I don't hate him, I must be too.

The point you miss in all this is that the President speaks for the country, not just himself or his cronies or his political party, so he should choose his words carefully for that reason. Those idiotic comments he gave today are a disgrace. And let's not forget that Republicans spent the last eight years going over everything Obama said or did for supposed or real slights or insults or degrading of America.

One point you keep missing is that I am not a republican. I think it's a disgrace when anyone goes parsing word for word what someone says to denigrate what they mean. I am sure President Trump honors the victims and survivors of the Holocaust and honors the legacy of Martin Luther King as much as you or anybody else. Just because he used or didn't use words that you would have liked him to is petty, stupid and insulting. But that's what you and your fellow minions are admittedly committed to doing. And most of us are aware of it and sick of it. Please do some introspection.

[elwoodblues]

I just read some of his speech. If your ten-year-old wrote that for a school assignment you would make him do it over.

Forget about sounding presidential. I just want Trump to start sounding like an adult.

[jarnon]

At least he mentioned African-Americans. Here's the Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Pres. Trump had two more opportunities this week to condemn antisemitism. On Wednesday, he answered a question about antisemitism awkwardly, but Bibi rescued him by saying "there is no greater supporter of the Jewish people and the Jewish state than President Donald Trump." On Thursday, he did say "I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life," but then he berated the pro-Trump Orthodox Jewish reporter for being insulting. As on many other subjects, his combative style is obscuring his message.

He'll have another chance to address the issue on April 24, Yom HaShoah.

[flockofseagulls104]

At least he mentioned African-Americans. Here's the Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Pres. Trump had two more opportunities this week to condemn antisemitism. On Wednesday, he answered a question about antisemitism awkwardly, but Bibi rescued him by saying "there is no greater supporter of the Jewish people and the Jewish state than President Donald Trump." On Thursday, he did say "I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life," but then he berated the pro-Trump Orthodox Jewish reporter for being insulting. As on many other subjects, his combative style is obscuring his message.

He'll have another chance to address the issue on April 24, Yom HaShoah.

Political correctness gone wild.
His son in law is an Orthodox Jew. His daughter converted to Judaism. The leader of the Jewish state of Israel publicly acknowledged him as a great friend. What do you want? What is your limit? I would ask when is the left going to stop the lunacy and come back to reality, but I know they won't. They didn't learn anything from their total defeat in the last election, they are now showing who and what they are for everyone to see. The hatred coming from the left is frightening. I thank God Hillary lost.

[jarnon]

At least he mentioned African-Americans. Here's the Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Pres. Trump had two more opportunities this week to condemn antisemitism. On Wednesday, he answered a question about antisemitism awkwardly, but Bibi rescued him by saying "there is no greater supporter of the Jewish people and the Jewish state than President Donald Trump." On Thursday, he did say "I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life," but then he berated the pro-Trump Orthodox Jewish reporter for being insulting. As on many other subjects, his combative style is obscuring his message.

He'll have another chance to address the issue on April 24, Yom HaShoah.

Political correctness gone wild.
His son in law is an Orthodox Jew. His daughter converted to Judaism. The leader of the Jewish state of Israel publicly acknowledged him as a great friend. What do you want? What is your limit? I would ask when is the left going to stop the lunacy and come back to reality, but I know they won't. They didn't learn anything from their total defeat in the last election, they are now showing who and what they are for everyone to see. The hatred coming from the left is frightening. I thank God Hillary lost.

I don't hate Trump. I know he likes Jews. But sometimes the way he communicates doesn't get his point across.

[flockofseagulls104]

Pres. Trump had two more opportunities this week to condemn antisemitism. On Wednesday, he answered a question about antisemitism awkwardly, but Bibi rescued him by saying "there is no greater supporter of the Jewish people and the Jewish state than President Donald Trump." On Thursday, he did say "I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life," but then he berated the pro-Trump Orthodox Jewish reporter for being insulting. As on many other subjects, his combative style is obscuring his message.

He'll have another chance to address the issue on April 24, Yom HaShoah.

Political correctness gone wild.
His son in law is an Orthodox Jew. His daughter converted to Judaism. The leader of the Jewish state of Israel publicly acknowledged him as a great friend. What do you want? What is your limit? I would ask when is the left going to stop the lunacy and come back to reality, but I know they won't. They didn't learn anything from their total defeat in the last election, they are now showing who and what they are for everyone to see. The hatred coming from the left is frightening. I thank God Hillary lost.

I don't hate Trump. I know he likes Jews. But sometimes the way he communicates doesn't get his point across.

Well, perhaps the press needs to adjust and focus on what he means rather than to minutely analyze every single word he says to advance their narrative. It's not that hard. Every time they do something like this (ie, he didn't specifically say he condemns anti-semitism), it further diminishes their credibility. President Trump is right about this, and the press needs to adjust to him. Right now, venues such as the NYT and CNN have credibility only to the left. The rest of us see through them. After I watched the infamous news conference, I turned to CNN, and they did EXACTLY what the President predicted they would, with absolutely no introspection.

[silverscreenselect]

Well, perhaps the press needs to adjust and focus on what he means rather than to minutely analyze every single word he says to advance their narrative.

This coming from the same mindset that got all over Obama for his "apology tour."

But you know who does focus on every word that Trump says... foreign countries. Because to them the U.S. President is the voice of the United States and they need to act accordingly. Foreign leaders won't just shake their heads and say "that's Trump being Trump."

And the more he acts like an idiot, the more he diminishes his own stature and the stature of the United States. I doubt there's a single country in the world that holds us in as high a regard today as they did a month ago.

[silverscreenselect]

Right now, venues such as the NYT and CNN have credibility only to the left. The rest of us see through them. After I watched the infamous news conference, I turned to CNN, and they did EXACTLY what the President predicted they would, with absolutely no introspection.

Flock, your life must be so much easier now that you've got Donald Trump doing all your thinking for you.

[flockofseagulls104]

Right now, venues such as the NYT and CNN have credibility only to the left. The rest of us see through them. After I watched the infamous news conference, I turned to CNN, and they did EXACTLY what the President predicted they would, with absolutely no introspection.

Flock, your life must be so much easier now that you've got Donald Trump doing all your thinking for you.

Brilliant response. I admire all the painstaking research you did to come up with that counter-argument. And phrased so elegantly! It totally blows my analysis out of the water! I bow to you, SSS. You certainly are a master of debate, among all your other talents.

[silverscreenselect]

The leader of the Jewish state of Israel publicly acknowledged him as a great friend.

You're right about that. It hasn't taken the other world leaders one month to take the measure of Trump and learn how to play him. Pay him a compliment, like Netanyahu did, or give him a personal goody, like the Chinese did, and you can get some valuable diplomatic concessions in return.

[silverscreenselect]

Right now, venues such as the NYT and CNN have credibility only to the left. The rest of us see through them. After I watched the infamous news conference, I turned to CNN, and they did EXACTLY what the President predicted they would, with absolutely no introspection.

Flock, your life must be so much easier now that you've got Donald Trump doing all your thinking for you.

Brilliant response. I admire all the painstaking research you did to come up with that counter-argument. And phrased so elegantly! It totally blows my analysis out of the water! I bow to you, SSS. You certainly are a master of debate, among all your other talents.

Well, you've already pretty much admitted that you don't believe CNN, The New York Times, and others because Donald Trump calls them "fake news." In your words, "the rest of us see through them." I guess, by "rest of us," you mean you and the increasingly shrinking minority of the country who support Trump. And, you never come up with anything that they actually say that's "fake" other than a rare note like the MLK post that's quickly corrected when it's discovered. On the other hand, Trump and his followers regularly and continuously and repeatedly spout easily discredited falsehoods, yet you choose to accept his version of events as the truth.

Look up the term "gaslighting," then look in the mirror.

[flockofseagulls104]

Flock, your life must be so much easier now that you've got Donald Trump doing all your thinking for you.

Brilliant response. I admire all the painstaking research you did to come up with that counter-argument. And phrased so elegantly! It totally blows my analysis out of the water! I bow to you, SSS. You certainly are a master of debate, among all your other talents.

Well, you've already pretty much admitted that you don't believe CNN, The New York Times, and others because Donald Trump calls them "fake news." In your words, "the rest of us see through them." I guess, by "rest of us," you mean you and the increasingly shrinking minority of the country who support Trump. And, you never come up with anything that they actually say that's "fake" other than a rare note like the MLK post that's quickly corrected when it's discovered. On the other hand, Trump and his followers regularly and continuously and repeatedly spout easily discredited falsehoods, yet you choose to accept his version of events as the truth.

Look up the term "gaslighting," then look in the mirror.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13294/fak ... john-nolte

Lookup the term Willful Ignorance. Or perhaps this will help:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance

[silverscreenselect]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13294/fak ... john-nolte

Lookup the term Willful Ignorance. Or perhaps this will help:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance

I didn't have the time to look up and follow links to 40 different claims of "fake news," but I did note a few things.

-- There were by my count about a dozen different news organizations listed and doubtless lots more in those references simply to "journalists" or "the media." And, in the couple that I looked up, they seemed to be more than willing to correct mistakes when they realize them. It's not surprising that out of the hundreds, or probably thousands, of articles they write each week, there are some inaccuracies, some stories that aren't sourced as thoroughly as they should be, but that's the nature of the business now. The key thing is that when the mainstream media realize they've made a mistake, they correct or retract. Trump doesn't.

-- Some of the "fake news" goes back to old canards like Trump's NATO stance (which can charitably be described as all over the map from time to time) or global warming in which the "thorough debunking" comes from a handful of sources that themselves have pretty much been debunked by the reliable scientific community.

My guess is that if you look at any news organization and their reporting on any topic, you'll find more inaccuracies now than you did forty years ago, for the simple reason that deadline pressure is greater. The Washington Post had the luxury of more thoroughly sourcing Watergate stories because there weren't 50 different news and pseudo-news organizations willing to run with any little tidbit they got.

Trump is the target of a lot of news stories because he's the President. So was Obama; so was Bush; so was Clinton. That's the nature of the office and with the increasing volume of press outlets that trend will continue in the future regardless of whoever is President.

But to take what mistakes are made, which, in looking at the percentage they are in comparison to the enormous volume of material that goes out is very small and use that as an excuse to completely ignore the mainstream press plays right into Donald Trump's hands.

If you choose to ignore every bit of information from the mainstream press, who will you believe? Breitbart? Fox? Trump?

Do you really think that's an intelligent thing to do?

[Jeemie]

At least he mentioned African-Americans. Here's the Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Pres. Trump had two more opportunities this week to condemn antisemitism. On Wednesday, he answered a question about antisemitism awkwardly, but Bibi rescued him by saying "there is no greater supporter of the Jewish people and the Jewish state than President Donald Trump." On Thursday, he did say "I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life," but then he berated the pro-Trump Orthodox Jewish reporter for being insulting. As on many other subjects, his combative style is obscuring his message.

He'll have another chance to address the issue on April 24, Yom HaShoah.

And the reporter on Thursday didn't even say anything about Trump personally or Trump's tone, nor link the rise in anti-Semitism to Trump in any way...just asked what, if anything, did Trump have planned to help address it...a question any President would get.

That earned him the derisive "sit down!" comment.

[Jeemie]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13294/fak ... john-nolte

Lookup the term Willful Ignorance. Or perhaps this will help:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance

I didn't have the time to look up and follow links to 40 different claims of "fake news," but I did note a few things.

-- There were by my count about a dozen different news organizations listed and doubtless lots more in those references simply to "journalists" or "the media." And, in the couple that I looked up, they seemed to be more than willing to correct mistakes when they realize them. It's not surprising that out of the hundreds, or probably thousands, of articles they write each week, there are some inaccuracies, some stories that aren't sourced as thoroughly as they should be, but that's the nature of the business now. The key thing is that when the mainstream media realize they've made a mistake, they correct or retract. Trump doesn't.

-- Some of the "fake news" goes back to old canards like Trump's NATO stance (which can charitably be described as all over the map from time to time) or global warming in which the "thorough debunking" comes from a handful of sources that themselves have pretty much been debunked by the reliable scientific community.

My guess is that if you look at any news organization and their reporting on any topic, you'll find more inaccuracies now than you did forty years ago, for the simple reason that deadline pressure is greater. The Washington Post had the luxury of more thoroughly sourcing Watergate stories because there weren't 50 different news and pseudo-news organizations willing to run with any little tidbit they got.

Trump is the target of a lot of news stories because he's the President. So was Obama; so was Bush; so was Clinton. That's the nature of the office and with the increasing volume of press outlets that trend will continue in the future regardless of whoever is President.

But to take what mistakes are made, which, in looking at the percentage they are in comparison to the enormous volume of material that goes out is very small and use that as an excuse to completely ignore the mainstream press plays right into Donald Trump's hands.

If you choose to ignore every bit of information from the mainstream press, who will you believe? Breitbart? Fox? Trump?

Do you really think that's an intelligent thing to do?

No...the Gateway Pundit, to whom Trump has given White House press credentials.

I urge anyone, of any political bent, to research both the Pundit and its WH correspondent, Lucian Wintrich, and tell me you honestly believe they, or he, deserve to be in the WH press room.

If you say "yes", you have lost whatever credibility as being objective you ever had.

[flockofseagulls104]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13294/fak ... john-nolte

Lookup the term Willful Ignorance. Or perhaps this will help:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance

I didn't have the time to look up and follow links to 40 different claims of "fake news," but I did note a few things.

-- There were by my count about a dozen different news organizations listed and doubtless lots more in those references simply to "journalists" or "the media." And, in the couple that I looked up, they seemed to be more than willing to correct mistakes when they realize them. It's not surprising that out of the hundreds, or probably thousands, of articles they write each week, there are some inaccuracies, some stories that aren't sourced as thoroughly as they should be, but that's the nature of the business now. The key thing is that when the mainstream media realize they've made a mistake, they correct or retract. Trump doesn't.

-- Some of the "fake news" goes back to old canards like Trump's NATO stance (which can charitably be described as all over the map from time to time) or global warming in which the "thorough debunking" comes from a handful of sources that themselves have pretty much been debunked by the reliable scientific community.

My guess is that if you look at any news organization and their reporting on any topic, you'll find more inaccuracies now than you did forty years ago, for the simple reason that deadline pressure is greater. The Washington Post had the luxury of more thoroughly sourcing Watergate stories because there weren't 50 different news and pseudo-news organizations willing to run with any little tidbit they got.

Trump is the target of a lot of news stories because he's the President. So was Obama; so was Bush; so was Clinton. That's the nature of the office and with the increasing volume of press outlets that trend will continue in the future regardless of whoever is President.

But to take what mistakes are made, which, in looking at the percentage they are in comparison to the enormous volume of material that goes out is very small and use that as an excuse to completely ignore the mainstream press plays right into Donald Trump's hands.

If you choose to ignore every bit of information from the mainstream press, who will you believe? Breitbart? Fox? Trump?

Do you really think that's an intelligent thing to do?

Despite your reliance on your stereotype that you've assigned to me, I spend as much time absorbing the MSM as I do the alternative media, and I contrast and compare them. You, obviously, discount and disbelieve anything that comes from the sources you always accuse me of parroting. I try to hear all sides, and the bias, subtle and non-subtle, that the 'establishment' news sources show on a daily basis is pretty obvious to me, and the 'hatred' that the non-establishment news sources are accused of is non-existant. [I also try to get information from the source, rather than relying on the media filter.] I can't speak for Breitbart, (which I've heard of, but never visited, except to read or share results of searches I've done), or many of the other sources you claim that I 'parrot' that I have never heard of, but I doubt that they are as hateful as people like you accuse them of being, because I know you do that to every messenger that imparts information you don't agree with.

There is a definite narrative that the establishment media has embraced, and anything that corresponds with that narrative is treated positively, anything that conflicts with that narrative is treated negatively. That is my opinion. And I see examples of it every day.