Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

hotmail.com wrote: »

Large parts of the world opposed the Obama presidency as large parts of the world regularly oppose US foreign policy.

Of course, but they didn't think he was a joke.

Frankly, I think if he'd have been followed by someone other than Trump, history wouldn't have been particularly kind to Obama, but he was recognisable as a functioning head of state.

Not this sham we've been subjected to for the past 3 years.

hotmail.com wrote: »

Trump is the legacy of Obama.

And for most Irish people, it hasn't been a sham. It's been funny and amusing a lot of the time.

How is Trump the legacy of Obama?

I don't think it's been funny and amusing.
Trump is a danger to the world, to the environment and to decency.

Gbear wrote: »

I think it's how to spot the most pathetic of people - being incapable of receiving criticism or taking a joke at their expense.

For one thing, Obama wouldn't generally, I'd imagine, have had the piss taken out of him, because he had pretty unanimous respect internationally, but if he did, he would've easily taken it in his stride, with self-deprecation, or turned the tables with a zinger of his own.

That Trump can't do that is clear evidence that he's fundamentally broken. Forget about being a good president. He only qualifies as human on a technicality.

I mean even George W Bush at the White House correspondent dinner(that trump doesn't go to) when he was president had the comedian busting his balls and him and his wife can be seen laughing at jokes at their expense. The second inauguration of Ronald Regan involved Don Rickles roasting the president and Regan was pissing himself laughing when the jokes where directed at him.

Clinton had the same happen as did bush 41 when Dana carvey did his Bush impression at the White House in front of Bush 41. My point is in the last 35 years US presidents have had the mick taken out of them and if they didn't like it, they at least didn't get the hump. Trump (and the people around him) seems utterly incapable of doing what his five predecessors could all do, which was take a bloody joke. There's was the late comedian foster brooks who's act was a drunk joking with the former VP Hubert Humphrey and he was laughing even though he'd lost to Nixon.

pixelburp wrote: »

Heck there's the running rumour that it was ( I want to say) Seth Meyers mocking Trump at one of Obama's dinners that spurred him towards making a bid. Actually no sorry, wasn't it Obama himself doing his own skit? That'd make the rumour more credible. I remember the cuts to the audience, Trump looking utterly, utttterly ticked off. The room is laughing but he's sitting there with a flat, unmoving smile while his eyes burn. I also recall reading that at a "roast" held by Comedy Central, there was a laundry list of no-go areas comedians were told they couldn't go re. mocking Trump. The man's skin is paper thin, he must be a deeply insecure individual.

Yeah Obama made fun of the entire birther nonsense. Pretended to release a video of his birth and the start of the Lion King came on screen. He did clarify that this was a joke for the benefit of Fox News.

Trump was not happy to have his racist campaign shown to be so idiotic.

@hotmail. The dinner hasn't ended. The president just stopped showing up and they aren't allowed be mean about the president in case he cancels the press passes. Not quite holding the man to account or a celebration of free press when they are far more restricted in what they can say!!

StringerBell wrote: »

The dinner hasn't ended.

And is it not funny to you from an Irish perspective the same way the Trump presidency is?

Bunch of journalists, having dinner and getting made fun of, and making fun of politicians?

Sure it's not as hilarious as deregulation of the energy sector, the damage done environmentally by the administration but surely it gives you a little giggle?

The White House correspondents dinner is actually a very good part of a free press. It also aides on showing that even though people often say things others don't like at the end of the day they are all working toward a common goal.

Journalists and politicians are not working towards a common goal.

Journalists are there to hold institutions of power to account, nothing else.

If Trump was offended by Boris and others at NATO, wait until he sees this

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1202401954644865024?s=19

Whilst Bidrn wouldn't be my preferred choice, I can't argue with his advert. It's all true

StringerBell wrote: »

So not as hilarious as the environmental rollbacks or the public, rampant corruption. Cool.

They would all tell you they are working for the American people, that they are working toward the goal of making the country a better place, one through action and the other through holding that action to clear eyed scrutiny.

But yeah, not as much fun as sympathising with neo Nazis, I get it.

So I'm a Neo Nazi now for pointing out that many Irish people find Trump and his craziness funny?

And no, journalism is about holding institutions of power to account, it is not their duty to improve society.

mcmoustache wrote: »

I was assured that the Durham report would blow the Russia hoax open and show that the Russia Investigations were part of a coup against future-President Trump. An insurance policy if you will. I wasn't sure if I was remembering this correctly so I searched this thread for the word "Durham", and sure enough, I wasn't imagining things.

So, what does Barr do now? Try again but this time, appoint John Solomon or Sean Hannity as the lead investigator?

Launch an investigation into Durham!

It's the only play left.

pixelburp wrote: »

Who said it had to be either-or, rather than both? Surely journalism, in highlighting (say) abuses or discrimination down the years against minorities or individuals, has improved society in their own way, through the decision to call attention to wrongs being committed in society? Simply journaliing the marginalised, humanises them, and in humanising them improving their lives bit by bit. Homosexuality (for instance) wasn't decriminalised in total because of campaigners, but also because the press reported these campaigns, or stories of inhumanity, and chose to highlight these folk as normal individuals suffering needlessly. A free press should be lock-step with pushing society forward, being our better angels when it can.

Journalists can and do highlight issues affecting the marginalised but it is up to politicians to change their lives by changes in law.

Journalists are not campaigners. In fact, a good journalist could expose something affecting the gay community but privately hold homophobic beliefs.

As for the better angels thing - as this is an American thread, CNN's excuse for journalism is having a panel of 8 or 9 people discussing the daily Trump drama.

everlast75 wrote: »

I think the most egregious damage to US journalism is caused by the President repeatedly calling the press "the enemy of the people", or the WH refusing to hold press conferences for months now, or the WH's belief that lies are perfectly acceptable for a Press Secretary to utter, even when the people can see what is before their eyes but hey, that's just my opinion.

But these CNN enlarged panels and exaggerated graphics does it no favours for credibility.

Fox and the others the same. No wonder they get such tiny ratings.

There aren't many defenders of the press in America the last 20 years or so. It's dire.

hotmail.com wrote: »

But these CNN enlarged panels and exaggerated graphics does it no favours for credibility.

Fox and the others the same. No wonder they get such tiny ratings.

There aren't many defenders of the press in America the last 20 years or so. It's dire.

Everything in the US is hyperbolic - sports, politics, even f'n game shows.

The issue of ratings is a matter for them.

You complained about the state of the press. I'm saying that the bigger picture here is how the WH is dealing with them.

A headline from 22.05.18 - CNBC

"President Trump told Lesley Stahl he bashes press ‘to demean you and discredit you so ... no one will believe’ negative stories about him"

link - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/trump-told-lesley-stahl-he-bashes-press-to-discredit-negative-stories.html

weisses wrote: »

Meanwhile .... Giuliani working on his own reality soap in Ukraine



https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/04/politics/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-visit-interviews-documentary/index.html

There are reports Rudy, after commenting twice that he had "insurance" if Trump threw him under the bus, was told by Trump to stay off Fox when Rudy called to apologise for the remarks.

He seems to have migrated a little further right on the TV spectrum

hotmail.com wrote: »

Issues with the media in America pre date Trump. In fact it's part of the reason for the rise of Trump. CNN legitimised Trump in the campaign.

All for ratings and for advertising revenue.

I don't understand how Irish can defend the media in America. It's completely farcical for us. As bad as RTE is, I think it's far superior to the stuff Americans have to listen to.

Do you agree that the US media are not enemies of the people?