Trump's inability to restrain himself (Attacks on Greta Thunberg) (2 Viewers)

[coldseat]

I realize the title is inflammatory (to some), but in this instance it's well warranted. His attacks and mocking of Greta Thunberg are disgusting and unacceptable. I know we're just supposed to ignore him because he does this with everybody, but we shouldn't. There is no time and place where we should accept a US President mocking a 16 year old minor. NEVER! For any reason. If you don't have a problem with this, there's a problem with you.

Her activism for climate change and the fact that it irks Trump is irrelevant to how she should be treated, especially publicly by a US President.

This is what Trump represents to the world. This is the face they see when they think of America now, a 70-year old man attacking a 16-year old girl concerned about her future and the future of the planet she lives on. This is one of the main reasons he needs to go.

Trump again mocks teen climate activist Greta Thunberg - CNN Politics

President Donald Trump on Thursday again publicly mocked teen climate crisis activist Greta Thunberg, tweeting that the 16-year-old Swede who has inspired protesters worldwide has "anger management" issues.

www.cnn.com

 

[coldseat]

@coldseat p.s., as a brother in arms here, I do think your title is inflammatory, even if in the right wheelhouse. I think the mental illness stuff is better suited to the liberal page or mudpit. I think you can make a sharp rebuke without resorting to those terms.

Could be as simple as Trump cant help himself, and attacks/criticizes 16yr old girl because she was named time person of the year.

His inability to restrain himself is just an observable fact. He likes to push.

Fair enough. I understand where you coming from and new it would be inflammatory when I posted it. I understand if the staff here decides to change it.

But I do think it's important not to side step this discussion when it presents itself so clearly. To me, his inability to control his response, especially in an obvious situation when dealing with a minor, is a serous issue. It points to something much deeper than, "just not being able to control himself", and likely to a mental defect that hasn't gone properly diagnosed. And I believe it's really dangerous, because as we see just in this tread, his behavior is copied and accepted by many who follow him.

Not pushing back on it and labeling it what it actually is, indicates that we should just ignore it and move on. Or that we have to discuss it on terms that are politically acceptable to the right. Which is another way of saying that we should just brush it off and not be mean to the president because he's Trump (This is what he does, This is who he is, He has FU money and can do these things (yes, I had a Trump voting friend actually tell me that)).

 

[coldseat]

Then change it.

See my response above.

 

[Dadsdream]

I was going to back away from the thread simply because I have a lot of posts here, but as a courtesy to you I will address your questions.

First, there is the obvious difference that Barron has not traveled around the world to scold people with his righteous indignation.

Having said that, I wasn't particularly upset at the Professor's comments, although I do hope that they don't result in bullying from his peers.

IMO, the professor's remark was a huge win for the GOP. It demonstrated (as if there was not enough evidence already) that she is a partisan who hates the POTUS. Moreover, I suspect that she conspired on that bit with Sheila Jackson Lee, who provided the set up. Hence, it was a second blow to her credibility if the democrats thought they could pass her off as a non partisan expert who came down from on high to share here learned opinions. That particular professor was so bad that her bias controlled the news for the day (at least with conservative circles) and people were suspect of the other two Democratic witnesses, who had issues of their own.

What does he gain? At this point, regardless of what you think about Trump, I think his political instincts about retaining and even expanding his base have proven to be correct. So, just because you think it's a misstep doesn't mean it is. Greta is extremely unpopular with conservatives and he knows that.

So, you are going to let a deliberate inflammatory taunt stand. Good luck with that.

 

[dtc]

I was going to back away from the thread simply because I have a lot of posts here, but as a courtesy to you I will address your questions.

First, there is the obvious difference that Barron has not traveled around the world to scold people with his righteous indignation.

Having said that, I wasn't particularly upset at the Professor's comments, although I do hope that they don't result in bullying from his peers.

IMO, the professor's remark was a huge win for the GOP. It demonstrated (as if there was not enough evidence already) that she is a partisan who hates the POTUS. Moreover, I suspect that she conspired on that bit with Sheila Jackson Lee, who provided the set up. Hence, it was a second blow to her credibility if the democrats thought they could pass her off as a non partisan expert who came down from on high to share here learned opinions. That particular professor was so bad that her bias controlled the news for the day (at least with conservative circles) and people were suspect of the other two Democratic witnesses, who had issues of their own.

What does he gain? At this point, regardless of what you think about Trump, I think his political instincts about retaining and even expanding his base have proven to be correct. So, just because you think it's a misstep doesn't mean it is. Greta is extremely unpopular with conservatives and he knows that.

Being an immoral person who criticizes everyone while crying about how everyone is mean to him is wrong. Convincing people to vote for you by slinging racist, xenophobic and caustic remarks surrounded by incessant and unnecessary lying is wrong. Winning votes because part of our country approves of belligerence and lies doesn't make it right or ok.

 

[Beach Friends]

Being an immoral person who criticizes everyone while crying about how everyone is mean to him is wrong. Convincing people to vote for you by slinging racist, xenophobic and caustic remarks surrounded by incessant and unnecessary lying is wrong. Winning votes because part of our country approves of belligerence and lies doesn't make it right or ok.

Hey, I wish the man didn't have a twitter account, but that wasn't the question I was asked.

 

[coldseat]

We should all be appalled by Donald Trump’s tweet about Greta Thunberg | CNN Politics

On Thursday morning, the President of the United States sent a tweet to his 60+ million followers blasting a 16-year-old girl with Asperger’s syndrome who has rallied efforts at fighting climate change around the globe.

www.cnn.com

What's truly troubling -- and what makes me genuinely mad -- about all of this is that we won't hear condemnation from supporters of Trump (in elected office and out) for this absolutely appalling behavior.

Why? Because, at this moment in American political history, the party you identify with trumps -- ahem -- everything else including common decency.
Because common decency would dictate is that, as a society, we don't condone an adult bullying a 16-year-old girl online. Because we know it's wrong. Because we know if we had a daughter, we wouldn't want her to be bullied by an adult. Much less an adult man. Much less one who is the President of the United States.

That is not a partisan position. It is a moral one. It is a common sense one. Don't believe me? Listen to first lady Melania Trump:

"In today's global society, social media is an inevitable part of our children's daily lives. It can be used in many positive ways, but can also be destructive and harmful when used incorrectly. This is why 'Be Best' chooses to focus on the importance of teaching our next generation how to conduct themselves safely and in a positive manner in an online setting."

 

[wardorican]

Hey, I wish the man didn't have a twitter account, but that wasn't the question I was asked.

I believe he's inferring based on you saying his gain was expanding his base by taunting, yelling at, tweeting at, or whatever you want to call it, at a 16 yr old girl.

You know, that big manly stuff many of those on the further right try to emulate or claim to be like.

I'm going to a high school event tonight, maybe I should go yell at all of the kids for daring to try to do something impactful with their lives.

 

[FullMonte]

IMO, the professor's remark was a huge win for the GOP. It demonstrated (as if there was not enough evidence already) that she is a partisan who hates the POTUS.

While I agree that it was a bad look, and the GOP got some great PR out of it. I would disagree with the rest of your statement. It did not demonstrate that she is partisan or that she hates POTUS.

What she said was "It's ok for the president to name his son Baron, but he can't make him a Baron." That was a poor choice of words, as she attempted to be cute, but it was in no way defamatory or insulting to anyone. It was a simple play on words.

 

[bdb13]

While I agree that it was a bad look, and the GOP got some great PR out of it. I would disagree with the rest of your statement. It did not demonstrate that she is partisan or that she hates POTUS.

What she said was "It's ok for the president to name his son Baron, but he can't make him a Baron." That was a poor choice of words, as she attempted to be cute, but it was in no way defamatory or insulting to anyone. It was a simple play on words.

Is that really all she said? Figured it was worse than that.

 

[coldseat]

Is that really all she said? Figured it was worse than that.

That's all she said. And she released a statement immediately afterwards apologizing for it.

 

[samiam5211]

Is that really all she said? Figured it was worse than that.

It's not her place to tell Barron he can never be a barron. His parents should be able to decide when he is ready for that information.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Classy
========================
President Trump's reelection campaign on Thursday tweeted an edited cover of Time magazine's "Person of the Year" issue that depicted the president's head on the shoulders of Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old climate change activist...….

Campaign edits Time 'Person of the Year' cover to show Trump's face on Thunberg's body

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I was going to back away from the thread simply because I have a lot of posts here, but as a courtesy to you I will address your questions.

First, there is the obvious difference that Barron has not traveled around the world to scold people with his righteous indignation.

Having said that, I wasn't particularly upset at the Professor's comments, although I do hope that they don't result in bullying from his peers.

IMO, the professor's remark was a huge win for the GOP. It demonstrated (as if there was not enough evidence already) that she is a partisan who hates the POTUS. Moreover, I suspect that she conspired on that bit with Sheila Jackson Lee, who provided the set up. Hence, it was a second blow to her credibility if the democrats thought they could pass her off as a non partisan expert who came down from on high to share here learned opinions. That particular professor was so bad that her bias controlled the news for the day (at least with conservative circles) and people were suspect of the other two Democratic witnesses, who had issues of their own.

What does he gain? At this point, regardless of what you think about Trump, I think his political instincts about retaining and even expanding his base have proven to be correct. So, just because you think it's a misstep doesn't mean it is. Greta is extremely unpopular with conservatives and he knows that.

That's a cop out, dude. You engaged, people engaged back, and now you selectively address posts that let you push your talking points while ignoring questions that might actually promote discussion.

 

[bdb13]

That's all she said. And she released a statement immediately afterwards apologizing for it.

So the controversy was essentially that she evoked Trump's son's name during an impeachment hearing?

Evoking my best Chappelle: "Sorry officer... I didn't know I couldn't do that."

 

[Beach Friends]

While I agree that it was a bad look, and the GOP got some great PR out of it. I would disagree with the rest of your statement. It did not demonstrate that she is partisan or that she hates POTUS.

What she said was "It's ok for the president to name his son Baron, but he can't make him a Baron." That was a poor choice of words, as she attempted to be cute, but it was in no way defamatory or insulting to anyone. It was a simple play on words.

If it was standing alone I would tend to agree with you. Well, perhaps for the fact that Sheila Jackson Lee felt secure enough in the prof's partisanship that she would throw out such a bizzare question.

But, that's not the only evidence of bias that surfaced. Keep in mind there were videos of her saying things like she crossed the street in order to avoid walking in close proximity with Trump Tower.

 

[Beach Friends]

I'm going to a high school event tonight, maybe I should go yell at all of the kids for daring to try to do something impactful with their lives.

Be sure to have someone film that.

 

[dtc]

Hey, I wish the man didn't have a twitter account, but that wasn't the question I was asked.

Wishing he didn't have a platform for his racism, xenophobia and blatant disregard for the truth is not the same as condemning him for being an immoral and unfit person to hold the office of POTUS. And, it surely doesn't absolve you for cheerleading him by pretending winning is equivalent to morality.

 

[not2rich]

Classy
========================
President Trump's reelection campaign on Thursday tweeted an edited cover of Time magazine's "Person of the Year" issue that depicted the president's head on the shoulders of Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old climate change activist...….

Campaign edits Time 'Person of the Year' cover to show Trump's face on Thunberg's body

My theory is that Trump was triggered by Greta - of all people! - being named person of the year instead of him. His NPD just can't tolerate such an insult.

My back up theory is that the man is simply a jack arse.