Kaitlin Collins didn't even get to ask a question or do you mean the one where he answered ask China

It was a pretty dumb question and at the same time one which could've been easily and appropriately answered by someone who wasn't a complete dipshit.

CalvinBall wrote:Kaitlin Collins didn't even get to ask a question or do you mean the one where he answered ask China

The question that prompted the ask China question.

I'm no Bobby Knight fan but I am reminded of this exchange:



Honestly that reporter's question was better than the one given to Trump. Wait for 37:40.

It's not that dumb a question. People are asking why isn't he being challenged more in these press conferences, and when he is, he's racist and storms off and people say that's a dumb question.

The Dude wrote:It's not that dumb a question. People are asking why isn't he being challenged more in these press conferences, and when he is, he's racist and storms off and people say that's a dumb question.

Well I am not "people" and I'm afraid it is kind of a dumb question. It has no apparent point but is framed like it has some great insight that will embarass him.

It doesn't and it won't, but great question!

It doesn't matter what the question was. The result was he was racist and stormed off because he was challenged by the press. Focusing on the question is stupid.

The Dude wrote:It doesn't matter what the question was. The result was he was racist and stormed off because he was challenged by the press. Focusing on the question is stupid.

Yes, his response was racist and then he acted like a petulant child. Right out of his typical playbook.

Since he is that way literally all the time, I was more drawn in this instance to what prompted the response this time. And this time it was a question that was trying hard to be combative without having a strong underlying premise for being combative. Which I find aggravating.

Is he worse than her? Of course. Maybe it's just being cooped up inside or whatever but that question just strikes me as really vapid, aggressive with almost nothing to back it, and it smacks therefore of someone trying to score a point rather than get actual information. He handled it as we might expect, but then I might expect better of a reporter covering the White House during the most important ongoing story of my lifetime.

I dunno, I guess I am being a prick but I don't see any winners in that exchange. it was like she was fishing for a fight with a known racist prick and got it, which would be one thing if she did it with a question worth a damn, but it wasn't, it was attack for the sake of it.

The American people won. Reduced his airtime to spew bullshit. If that's all the primer needed I hope the first question every time is just as "stupid".

Uncle Milty wrote:The American people won. Reduce his airtime to spew bullshit. If that all the primer needed I hope the first question every time is just as "stupid".

Maybe so.

Hasn't he said the ask China line before? I felt that the question was more of an attack, but there's no excuse his behavior.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

The Dude wrote:It doesn't matter what the question was. The result was he was racist and stormed off because he was challenged by the press. Focusing on the question is stupid.

Yes, his response was racist and then he acted like a petulant child. Right out of his typical playbook.

Since he is that way literally all the time, I was more drawn in this instance to what prompted the response this time. And this time it was a question that was trying hard to be combative without having a strong underlying premise for being combative. Which I find aggravating.

Is he worse than her? Of course. Maybe it's just being cooped up inside or whatever but that question just strikes me as really vapid, aggressive with almost nothing to back it, and it smacks therefore of someone trying to score a point rather than get actual information. He handled it as we might expect, but then I might expect better of a reporter covering the White House during the most important ongoing story of my lifetime.

I dunno, I guess I am being a prick but I don't see any winners in that exchange. it was like she was fishing for a fight with a known racist prick and got it, which would be one thing if she did it with a question worth a damn, but it wasn't, it was attack for the sake of it.

I never said there were winners, and that's a weird way to go into it. I don't know why you're comparing her behavior to his. I think she was trying to do the thing many are asking for and hold him accountable. And someone else after him tried to and he left. That's what should be happening. But, no, we accept he acts like this and focus on what did it "this time"

Since you can't get thoughtful, informative answers from him I'm okay with baiting him into a reaction to reveal the reality of the situation.

06hawkalum wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Augustus wrote:Yeah can’t see it, he seems sick of playing president anyway. Him and his dirtbag kids will move onto some other grift (tv station?) and he’ll be normalized in a few years by centrists when the next psycho comes along

What about those charges hanging over him in NY? Nothing has been filed because they know they can't touch him when he's POTUS. Those charges are coming and I can't see him risking it. Maybe he'll be unsuccessful, but he will try to do something awful. To think otherwise seems crazy to me given his actions so far. Allowing Flynn off the hook is just the water getting another degree hotter. It's not going to stop there, if for no other reason that this strain of the GOP is hungry for complete power.

I agree he is sick of being president. He wants to be king.

The guy is old and his team of lawyers will keep him out of prison until he dies. Also, I am sure faced with the alternative New York will drop all charges if he goes peacefully. Really though, the guy cannot continue serving as POTUS past 1/2021 without being validly re-elected. Also, he is capped at two terms, so those charges will be waiting for him in 2025 even if he wins. It would be better for his attorneys to hammer out a deal now, while he still has leverage, than when he is lame duck.

I am sure that you recognize that you are a pessimistic person. Your posts often reflect a fairly cynical/negative outlook on life.

Nah, those are just the things I post. I'm in a pretty consistently good mood at home. It's very rare for me to wake up not in a good mood and I'm not even a morning person.

But when it comes to Trump, I do see the worse. It has the advantage of being right most of the time. We'll see what happens, but he always run to the lowest common denominator. I don't know why he would stop now.

The Dude wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

The Dude wrote:It doesn't matter what the question was. The result was he was racist and stormed off because he was challenged by the press. Focusing on the question is stupid.

Yes, his response was racist and then he acted like a petulant child. Right out of his typical playbook.

Since he is that way literally all the time, I was more drawn in this instance to what prompted the response this time. And this time it was a question that was trying hard to be combative without having a strong underlying premise for being combative. Which I find aggravating.

Is he worse than her? Of course. Maybe it's just being cooped up inside or whatever but that question just strikes me as really vapid, aggressive with almost nothing to back it, and it smacks therefore of someone trying to score a point rather than get actual information. He handled it as we might expect, but then I might expect better of a reporter covering the White House during the most important ongoing story of my lifetime.

I dunno, I guess I am being a prick but I don't see any winners in that exchange. it was like she was fishing for a fight with a known racist prick and got it, which would be one thing if she did it with a question worth a damn, but it wasn't, it was attack for the sake of it.

I never said there were winners, and that's a weird way to go into it. I don't know why you're comparing her behavior to his. I think she was trying to do the thing many are asking for and hold him accountable. And someone else after him tried to and he left. That's what should be happening. But, no, we accept he acts like this and focus on what did it "this time"

What frustrates me is the "let's hold him accountable" being seen as a knee-jerk sort of "let's question everything he says and does aggressively." If you have an "accountability" question, it should be premised on the notion that action A was taken (or not taken), when action B was available, and taking action A had these consequences, and you want to know why therefore action A was taken (or not taken) when there was a viable alternative. Or something like that. Point to facts, point to moments of indecision where a decision would have made a difference, point to a decision that was made in defiance of known facts that suggested a better or different decision, etc.

Even if she had replaced his remarks about testing with any of the other dumb things he suggests he cares about on a daily basis - as in, "how can you be worried about X when Americans are dying?" - would have been better, although too much an appeal to emotion for my tastes, something we are in desperate need of less of in this country.

Tying his remarks about the quantity of testing to "Americans are dying" as if by being less competitive about one would give him the mental space to somehow do something to prevent the other is right up there with "won't somebody please think of the children?"

Wolfgang622 wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

The Dude wrote:It doesn't matter what the question was. The result was he was racist and stormed off because he was challenged by the press. Focusing on the question is stupid.

Yes, his response was racist and then he acted like a petulant child. Right out of his typical playbook.

Since he is that way literally all the time, I was more drawn in this instance to what prompted the response this time. And this time it was a question that was trying hard to be combative without having a strong underlying premise for being combative. Which I find aggravating.

Is he worse than her? Of course. Maybe it's just being cooped up inside or whatever but that question just strikes me as really vapid, aggressive with almost nothing to back it, and it smacks therefore of someone trying to score a point rather than get actual information. He handled it as we might expect, but then I might expect better of a reporter covering the White House during the most important ongoing story of my lifetime.

I dunno, I guess I am being a prick but I don't see any winners in that exchange. it was like she was fishing for a fight with a known racist prick and got it, which would be one thing if she did it with a question worth a damn, but it wasn't, it was attack for the sake of it.

I never said there were winners, and that's a weird way to go into it. I don't know why you're comparing her behavior to his. I think she was trying to do the thing many are asking for and hold him accountable. And someone else after him tried to and he left. That's what should be happening. But, no, we accept he acts like this and focus on what did it "this time"

What frustrates me is the "let's hold him accountable" being seen as a knee-jerk sort of "let's question everything he says and does aggressively." If you have an "accountability" question, it should be premised on the notion that action A was taken (or not taken), when action B was available, and taking action A had these consequences, and you want to know why therefore action A was taken (or not taken) when there was a viable alternative. Or something like that. Point to facts, point to moments of indecision where a decision would have made a difference, point to a decision that was made in defiance of known facts that suggested a better or different decision, etc.

Even if she had replaced his remarks about testing with any of the other dumb things he suggests he cares about on a daily basis - as in, "how can you be worried about X when Americans are dying?" - would have been better, although too much an appeal to emotion for my tastes, something we are in desperate need of less of in this country.

Tying his remarks about the quantity of testing to "Americans are dying" as if by being less competitive about one would give him the mental space to somehow do something to prevent the other is right up there with "won't somebody please think of the children?"

She has like 5 seconds. You're acting like he's doing an interview with only her and she can explore all the nuances of it with him. He's competitive as fuck, bc of his insecurities, so she asked him a question about that.

Uncle Milty wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:I think the Dems are caught in a disastrous cycle now. The social distancing has worked well enough that the most catastrophic death toll numbers will never come to pass. So from the moment the lockdown ends, until the election, the death toll will grow slowly. The longer that period is, the more people will convince themselves not that the lockdown saved lives, but was in fact totally unnecessary.

Its success is its failure.

States rights... We should be allowing states to react given changes in their risk profile. The system is working!

Which states have actually reacted to changes in their risk?

Haven't most? Everything is state and local decisions, right? Wolf issues stay at home, assigns counties based on risk, etc. I'm just making a similar point that others are in this thread, which is that Republicans should be happy these determinations are local since states' rights is pretty popular among those folks. Personally, if it takes a bunch of numbskulls in Georgia to prove the wisdom of these stay at home orders, I'd rather they provide this counter example ("control group") in someone else's community.

The Dude wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

The Dude wrote:It doesn't matter what the question was. The result was he was racist and stormed off because he was challenged by the press. Focusing on the question is stupid.

Yes, his response was racist and then he acted like a petulant child. Right out of his typical playbook.

Since he is that way literally all the time, I was more drawn in this instance to what prompted the response this time. And this time it was a question that was trying hard to be combative without having a strong underlying premise for being combative. Which I find aggravating.

Is he worse than her? Of course. Maybe it's just being cooped up inside or whatever but that question just strikes me as really vapid, aggressive with almost nothing to back it, and it smacks therefore of someone trying to score a point rather than get actual information. He handled it as we might expect, but then I might expect better of a reporter covering the White House during the most important ongoing story of my lifetime.

I dunno, I guess I am being a prick but I don't see any winners in that exchange. it was like she was fishing for a fight with a known racist prick and got it, which would be one thing if she did it with a question worth a damn, but it wasn't, it was attack for the sake of it.

I never said there were winners, and that's a weird way to go into it. I don't know why you're comparing her behavior to his. I think she was trying to do the thing many are asking for and hold him accountable. And someone else after him tried to and he left. That's what should be happening. But, no, we accept he acts like this and focus on what did it "this time"

What frustrates me is the "let's hold him accountable" being seen as a knee-jerk sort of "let's question everything he says and does aggressively." If you have an "accountability" question, it should be premised on the notion that action A was taken (or not taken), when action B was available, and taking action A had these consequences, and you want to know why therefore action A was taken (or not taken) when there was a viable alternative. Or something like that. Point to facts, point to moments of indecision where a decision would have made a difference, point to a decision that was made in defiance of known facts that suggested a better or different decision, etc.

Even if she had replaced his remarks about testing with any of the other dumb things he suggests he cares about on a daily basis - as in, "how can you be worried about X when Americans are dying?" - would have been better, although too much an appeal to emotion for my tastes, something we are in desperate need of less of in this country.

Tying his remarks about the quantity of testing to "Americans are dying" as if by being less competitive about one would give him the mental space to somehow do something to prevent the other is right up there with "won't somebody please think of the children?"

She has like 5 seconds. You're acting like he's doing an interview with only her and she can explore all the nuances of it with him. He's competitive as fuck, bc of his insecurities, so she asked him a question about that.

Also, they have stupid fucking banners hanging there about how we're "#1 in the World", and the "we're testing more people than anybody" is their go to defense of their inept response. Asking him why he's making testing a competition while his citizens are dying at this clip is completely reasonable. It points out the ineptitude, the inability to address real issues, and the crassness of Trump and his enablers.

"It was a dumb question" is a bad take.

Barr is going to draw up charges or suggest thst he’s doing so on Obama isn’t he? I mean, that’s coming right? Trump campaign going after him now as is McConnell. This shit is becoming Russia.

Werthless wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:Which states have actually reacted to changes in their risk?

Haven't most? Everything is state and local decisions, right? Wolf issues stay at home, assigns counties based on risk, etc. I'm just making a similar point that others are in this thread, which is that Republicans should be happy these determinations are local since states' rights is pretty popular among those folks. Personally, if it takes a bunch of numbskulls in Georgia to prove the wisdom of these stay at home orders, I'd rather they provide this counter example ("control group") in someone else's community.

Guess I see local governments defying States/Governors at the urging of a Federal branch is counter to State right/authority.

IMO most openings were/are motivated by politics/partisanship far more than virus data and risk.

The Savior wrote:Barr is going to draw up charges or suggest thst he’s doing so on Obama isn’t he? I mean, that’s coming right? Trump campaign going after him now as is McConnell. This shit is becoming Russia.

Not just Obama.