3 ms·

Benefit of the doubt for Trump: He is actually just trying to maintain a positive attitude about there being a solution. Cynical response to Trump: He only hal

Benefit of the doubt for Trump: He is actually just trying to maintain a positive attitude about there being a solution. Cynical response to Trump: He only half listens to the people around him, and genuinely believes he knows better than everyone in the world. Not sure which of those it actually is, but I'm sure it's one of the two.

paulcole 7y ago
He’s never once faced any consequences of his words or actions. In fact, he’s only ever been rewarded for behaving the way he does. Why wouldn’t he just say whatever pops into his head, regardless of whether it’s remotely plausible at all? I think there’s almost no forethought given to a lot of his words/actions. Nobody could set up a long game like this for 70+ years to become President.
twomoretime 7y ago
This is a good take. I'm genuinely sorry you're being downvoted. Anything remotely positive about Trump is just destroyed and it's absolutely ridiculous. There's no objectivity - people online interpret everything he does in the absolutely worst way.
- Loughla 7y ago
  Honestly. Maybe I should've put the line in there that I deleted calling him an idiot. Because apparently I need to be clear, I think this is complete idiocy. But there are always 2 sides to every coin.
  - BitwiseFool 7y ago
    Heck, I got downvoted for talking about a pattern I noticed. I never even gave an opinion good or bad about him.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  He habitually demonizes and belittles others for political gain, often in the crudest terms, and then whines about how unfairly he is treated. Objectivity does not require blinding oneself to context.
  - twomoretime 7y ago
    >Objectivity does not require blinding oneself to context. That's not context. The fact that he acts like a child does not justify exaggeration or sensationalism. And the press has undeniably been antagonistic going back to election season - he just seems to be the first president to fight back, however crudely. And objectivity requires normalizing context for emotional influence. That means not being blind to context, but inhibiting your hatred momentarily to examine whether the media is also behaving unbecomingly.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      The record of his public behavior is most certainly context. I didn't say he was childish, but that he was aggressive; and to the extent that the press has been antagonistic, maybe because that's because he began his campaign that way. Here's an excerpt from his announcement speech: When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. People like you have have lots of problems. You're bringing drugs. You're bringing crime. You're rapists. And some of you, I assume, are good people. How do you feel to find yourself as the subject of such rhetoric? I'm guessing, not very good. You're probably feeling something along the lines of 'what did I do to you, I'm just living my life and you come along and start saying these things about me.' And before he announced his entry to the political field on that occasion, he had many times solicited attention online by making unilateral aggressive personal attacks on other public figures. What he's 'fighting back' against appears to the plain reports of his own behavior. At press conferences, when he's asked how his rhetoric comports with previous and recent statements of his that appear contradictory, he frequently complains about 'nasty questions' and engages in direct personal attacks. And objectivity requires normalizing context for emotional influence. That means not being blind to context, but inhibiting your hatred momentarily to examine whether the media is also behaving unbecomingly. What hatred? And which unbecoming media behavior are we talking about? I formed my negative opinion of Trump's remarks at his press conference yesterday based upon listening to them on the White house's youtube channel. I don't have a cable TV subscription so I don't rely on second-hand interpretations by news anchors or pundits. Seems like you might be experiencing a little cognitive bias of your own.

paulcole 7y ago

He’s never once faced any consequences of his words or actions. In fact, he’s only ever been rewarded for behaving the way he does. Why wouldn’t he just say whatever pops into his head, regardless of whether it’s remotely plausible at all? I think there’s almost no forethought given to a lot of his words/actions. Nobody could set up a long game like this for 70+ years to become President.

twomoretime 7y ago

This is a good take. I'm genuinely sorry you're being downvoted. Anything remotely positive about Trump is just destroyed and it's absolutely ridiculous. There's no objectivity - people online interpret everything he does in the absolutely worst way.

Loughla 7y ago
Honestly. Maybe I should've put the line in there that I deleted calling him an idiot. Because apparently I need to be clear, I think this is complete idiocy. But there are always 2 sides to every coin.
- BitwiseFool 7y ago
  Heck, I got downvoted for talking about a pattern I noticed. I never even gave an opinion good or bad about him.
anigbrowl 7y ago
He habitually demonizes and belittles others for political gain, often in the crudest terms, and then whines about how unfairly he is treated. Objectivity does not require blinding oneself to context.
- twomoretime 7y ago
  >Objectivity does not require blinding oneself to context. That's not context. The fact that he acts like a child does not justify exaggeration or sensationalism. And the press has undeniably been antagonistic going back to election season - he just seems to be the first president to fight back, however crudely. And objectivity requires normalizing context for emotional influence. That means not being blind to context, but inhibiting your hatred momentarily to examine whether the media is also behaving unbecomingly.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    The record of his public behavior is most certainly context. I didn't say he was childish, but that he was aggressive; and to the extent that the press has been antagonistic, maybe because that's because he began his campaign that way. Here's an excerpt from his announcement speech: When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. People like you have have lots of problems. You're bringing drugs. You're bringing crime. You're rapists. And some of you, I assume, are good people. How do you feel to find yourself as the subject of such rhetoric? I'm guessing, not very good. You're probably feeling something along the lines of 'what did I do to you, I'm just living my life and you come along and start saying these things about me.' And before he announced his entry to the political field on that occasion, he had many times solicited attention online by making unilateral aggressive personal attacks on other public figures. What he's 'fighting back' against appears to the plain reports of his own behavior. At press conferences, when he's asked how his rhetoric comports with previous and recent statements of his that appear contradictory, he frequently complains about 'nasty questions' and engages in direct personal attacks. And objectivity requires normalizing context for emotional influence. That means not being blind to context, but inhibiting your hatred momentarily to examine whether the media is also behaving unbecomingly. What hatred? And which unbecoming media behavior are we talking about? I formed my negative opinion of Trump's remarks at his press conference yesterday based upon listening to them on the White house's youtube channel. I don't have a cable TV subscription so I don't rely on second-hand interpretations by news anchors or pundits. Seems like you might be experiencing a little cognitive bias of your own.