US ambassador resigns, saying he can no longer work with Trump

[mark kennedy]

Well people wanted change and their certainly getting that. This isn't the only incidence of someone quitting or getting fired. The exodus of Republicans from Congess are also a symptom of the effect of Trumps effect on his own party. So this is what it's like to be great again, sure looking forward to the interim elections, it should be epic.Thanks Donald, the DNC couldn't have done it without you.

 

[whatbogsends]

The fascinating thing about this is that Trump opponents talk as though they are shocked--"shocked, I tell you!"--to hear such words. And they, of course, have never ever uttered such words themselves. Isn't that correct?

But I walked through a bookstore yesterday and the same word (the first part of it, that is to say) shouted out to me from several book and magazine covers. The TV and movies use them all the time. And I just looked at my home town newspaper and saw, on the front page, another word that would have been similarly unmentionable in public only a few years ago.

Is the outrage over Donald Trump saying something like this in a private meeting really as unthinkable, offensive, and unusual as people like yourself are trying to make out? I really doubt it.

No one is shocked that Trump used a particular word. They are appalled by the context in which that word was used by Trump.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No one is shocked that Trump used a particular word. They are appalled by the context in which that word was used by Trump.

The context being: "We don't want these people because they come from poor countries."

Donald clearly has no clue how immigration works.

 

[AirPo]

That's possible with some that think he's the second coming, which he obviously isn't. Just like he's not the worst thing that's ever been elected to fill that office either.

So, who was worse?

 

[Albion]

If that is the case, 1) they should stop talking as though they are shocked at the mere use of such a word, especially since the outrage is so bogus, and 2) shame on them for using it as a way to charge him with being a racist. I say this because the one has nothing to do with the other, so it's a contrived accusation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If that is the case, 1) they should stop talking as though they are shocked at the mere use of such a word, especially since the outrage is so bogus, and 2) shame on them for using it as a way to charge him with being a racist. I say this because the one has nothing to do with the other, so it's a contrived accusation.

And you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[DaisyDay]

If that is the case, 1) they should stop talking as though they are shocked at the mere use of such a word, especially since the outrage is so bogus, and 2) shame on them for using it as a way to charge him with being a racist. I say this because the one has nothing to do with the other, so it's a contrived accusation.

Open your eyes.

 

[AirPo]

If that is the case, 1) they should stop talking as though they are shocked at the mere use of such a word, especially since the outrage is so bogus, and 2) shame on them for using it as a way to charge him with being a racist. I say this because the one has nothing to do with the other, so it's a contrived accusation.

The projection in the quoted post is strong. The stress of being a Trump supporter must be awful.

 

[Gigimo]

So, who was worse?

There have been only 2 decent presidents the last 60 years, one was killed off and an attempt was made on the other. The rest were only wanting to get rich at taxpayer expense and were patsies for their big donors.

 

[AirPo]

There have been only 2 decent presidents the last 60 years, one was killed off and an attempt was made on the other. The rest were only wanting to get rich at taxpayer expense and were patsies for their big donors.

That's nice. Care to answer the question?

 

[whatbogsends]

If that is the case, 1) they should stop talking as though they are shocked at the mere use of such a word, especially since the outrage is so bogus, and 2) shame on them for using it as a way to charge him with being a racist. I say this because the one has nothing to do with the other, so it's a contrived accusation.

Who is "they" and where are "they" talking "as though they are shocked at the mere use of such a word"? I've seen none of that. I've seen many media outlets lamenting the disastrous impact language like this directed at other nations has on foreign policy. I've seen no outrage that the president simply used a cuss word.

 

[AirPo]

Who is "they" and where are "they" talking "as though they are shocked at the mere use of such a word"? I've seen none of that. I've seen many media outlets lamenting the disastrous impact language like this directed at other nations has on foreign policy. I've seen no outrage that the president simply used a cuss word.

The outrage is from Trump supporters who cannot handle the fact that there are so many uppity people who have no problem calling Trump out on his racist rhetoric.

 

[Albion]

Who is "they" and where are "they" talking "as though they are shocked at the mere use of such a word"? .

There's no need to be coy about this. The Democratic Senators, Party officials, Democrat-oriented newsmen, TV anchors, columnists, self-appointed experts in Hollywood who are the front men for the Democrat Party, and others were very public in saying what I described for you.

 

[DaisyDay]

There's no need to be coy about this. The Democratic Senators, Party officials, Democrat-oriented newsmen, TV anchors, columnists, self-appointed experts in Hollywood who are the front men for the Democrat Party, and others were very public in saying what I described for you.

I think you misunderstood. Some of the problem the media had was how to report the story itself. Many, if not most, outlets have standards and practices guidelines that prohibit the use of profanity on the air or in print so the reporters had their editors telling them that they could describe the word but not say it, especially during "family hour" time, in effect, Bowdlerizing the news. This quandary is a minor story in itself. I think most newscasters overcame fear of the FCC and reported the word itself.

We have that same problem here, not being able to say what this president says all too often.

It's not "shock" at the word; it's being in a quandary on how to report it without being able to say it.

 

[Albion]

I think you misunderstood. Some of the problem the media had was how to report the story itself. Many, if not most, outlets have standards and practices guidelines that prohibit the use of profanity on the air or in print so the reporters had their editors telling them that they could describe the word but not say it, especially during "family hour" time, in effect, Bowdlerizing the news.

Oh, please. Every news outlet was screaming the word at the public and doing so with impunity. All they needed to do was add a couple of asterisks in place of letters, and they were golden. But in fact, CNN simply used the word without any camouflage--over 30 times--and they still are on the air, last I looked.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There's no need to be coy about this. The Democratic Senators, Party officials, Democrat-oriented newsmen, TV anchors, columnists, self-appointed experts in Hollywood who are the front men for the Democrat Party, and others were very public in saying what I described for you.

And did "they" tell you that it was only the crude language that was the problem?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh, please. Every news outlet was screaming the word at the public and doing so with impunity. All they needed to do was add a couple of asterisks in place of letters, and they were golden. But in fact, CNN simply used the word without any camouflage--over 30 times--and they still are on the air, last I looked.

And why not? It's presidential now.

Someone should petition the mods for a new exception to the vulgarity rule.

 

[whatbogsends]

There's no need to be coy about this. The Democratic Senators, Party officials, Democrat-oriented newsmen, TV anchors, columnists, self-appointed experts in Hollywood who are the front men for the Democrat Party, and others were very public in saying what I described for you.

What you described was not reflective of reality. No one was aghast that Trump used the s-word. They were appalled by the context in which he used the particular word, and the ramifications it had for foreign policy.

Your argument is the strawiest of strawmen, put forth without evidence of your claim.

 

[Albion]

What you described was not reflective of reality. No one was aghast that Trump used the s-word. .

Do you expect me to believe this, when any one of us can go to any search engine and find numerous examples -- as I did myself a few minutes ago -- of that which you say didn't happen?

 

[AirPo]

Do you expect me to believe this, when any one of us can go to any search engine and find numerous examples -- as I did myself a few minutes ago -- of that which you say didn't happen?

Yet did not link an example.