Trump declines to attend White House Correspondents' Dinner!

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: SBMcG

A president unafraid of the press wouldn't feel such need to go to war with them.

Really? When you're attacked do you just "take it"?

I don't. I fight back with whatever means I have available.

Trump isn't a total wimp like Obama.

If someone says a mean name about me, I rise above it and laugh it off. I don't cry my eyes out on twitter constantly. Why would I waste my valuable time worrying about such inconsequential stuff? And I'm not even running a country. Obama didnt feel the need to argue back with all the kids, like the laughable birther movement.

Defensiveness is not at all a sign of strength - it shows an alarming level of weakness and thin skin. He is a very insecure man and it shows more and more each day.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Hi, well, first of all it was not a 'rant'. It was a perfectly reasonably written post with a sincere question at the end of it. Simply labeling it a rant though serves the function of allowing you to dismiss the whole post out of hand rather than thinking about it and formulating a reasonable argument as to why you disagree. I would say that's a pretty unreasonable route to take when you're posting on a discussion forum.

Secondly, you weren't the 'target' of anything (i clearly stated that in the post in fact). Again, using the word 'target' allows you to frame yourself as a victim of some kind of unreasonable attack, further lending weight to your assertion that what i wrote was a 'rant' and undermining what i had written, all without actually addressing the content of the post.

In addition, both of the above frame me as an unreasonable person, unworthy of being taken seriously and thus, in your mind, legitimising your unwillingness to actually engage with the post.

Lastly, perhaps it would be helpful, in order to facilitate discussion as opposed to closing it down, if you could provide a reasonable assessment of why you feel the comparison I made is 'ridiculous' (there's another one of those loaded words again, that's three in a two line post! Four if you count that you opened with 'lol').

I fail to see why it is a 'ridiculous comparison':

A group of individuals spend a great deal of time and energy spreading highly unfavourable and damaging stories, rumours and lies about an individual. Said individual is maligned in every way, their family suffers personal attacks, they attempt to refute the various allegations and misreporting of things, they are further maligned for doing so. Said group then invite said individual round for dinner and the individual declines.
That seems like a perfectly reasonable assessment of the situation to me.

I then followed that up by asking if you had experienced sustained hostility and defamation from a particular group, would you happily sit down with them for dinner. A question which you avoided answering by dismissing everything i had written out of hand.

None of the above seems like a rant to me, nor ridiculous, nor laughable.

Ok, I'll try having part of this discussion with myself to see how this might have gone if you'd perhaps tried to see things from someone else's point of view and engaged in a reasonable discourse. I'll take a point that someone else made so you don't feel like you're the target here:

On page 14 fencesitter85 makes the assertion that, essentially, as the president of the US he should expect to receive a lot of criticism and probably a lot of outright grief, simply by virtue of his position. That he is required to rise above things that a normal person doesn't have to by virtue of his position and that, he should have been aware of this prior to running. The upshot of which is that should be prepared to "suck it up".

So, this statement is basically saying that the office of president is expected to have a higher tolerance of abuse and criticism, and is held to a higher standard, than a regular citizen.

Ok, so, I would have to say that this is a reasonable point. I acknowledge what he is saying. Though he provides no objective standard, specific parameters or evidence to support his point if view I fully understand his sentiment, I can take his point as intended and can see how this could be a reasonable response to what i had originally posted. So, in acknowledging this I am forced to re-evaluate my position, explore the issue further and this advances the dialogue.

So then, in response: I feel it is reasonable to press him further on this point, in the hope that, through continued reasonable discourse we might come to a consensus.

My reply then is; if we are to accept that the president is held to a different standard, that he should have a higher threshold for criticism (i use that term loosely in this context), how much is too much? Where do we draw the line? What is the standard? Are we saying that there is no limit? That nothing is unreasonable or out of bounds? That he should suffer ANY and all abuse, no matter how slanderous, untrue and offensive it may be, and continue to smile and take it all on the chin? If yes, how do you justify this (bearing in mind that, despite what some would like to believe, a president is still a human being). If no, then where is the line? What do we feel, as a society, is unreasonable behaviour, at what point is it ok for a president to say enough is enough? Are we there yet? Are we getting near that point yet? And so forth.... These questions advance the discussion, are valuable and help us to learn and develop, both as individuals and a society. I sincerely hope that there will be more of this kind of discussion in the future and less "lol, ridiculous"

originally posted by: ugmold

originally posted by: SBMcG
a reply to: ugmold

How so? He's beaten the weak pathetic Left and their lapdog -- the MSM, like a drum.

He lacks a backbone. He is bowing out because he can't take a joke or criticism. He only likes Praise and Loyalty like the Little Rich Spoiled Boy he is.

Answer this.

Is there a difference between criticism and fake news? Please explain your answer in detail.

Your first reply to this OP in my opinion was very much a mud pit type of reply and probably should have been removed but it's whatever, I'll let that one slide.

I want to see if you can handle a real on-topic out-of-the-mud-pit debate. All you have to do is answer my question and I'll take it from there.

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Hi, well, first of all it was not a 'rant'. It was a perfectly reasonably written post with a sincere question at the end of it. Simply labeling it a rant though serves the function of allowing you to dismiss the whole post out of hand rather than thinking about it and formulating a reasonable argument as to why you disagree. I would say that's a pretty unreasonable route to take when you're posting on a discussion forum.

Secondly, you weren't the 'target' of anything (i clearly stated that in the post in fact). Again, using the word 'target' allows you to frame yourself as a victim of some kind of unreasonable attack, further lending weight to your assertion that what i wrote was a 'rant' and undermining what i had written, all without actually addressing the content of the post.

In addition, both of the above frame me as an unreasonable person, unworthy of being taken seriously and thus, in your mind, legitimising your unwillingness to actually engage with the post.

Lastly, perhaps it would be helpful, in order to facilitate discussion as opposed to closing it down, if you could provide a reasonable assessment of why you feel the comparison I made is 'ridiculous' (there's another one of those loaded words again, that's three in a two line post! Four if you count that you opened with 'lol').

I fail to see why it is a 'ridiculous comparison':

A group of individuals spend a great deal of time and energy spreading highly unfavourable and damaging stories, rumours and lies about an individual. Said individual is maligned in every way, their family suffers personal attacks, they attempt to refute the various allegations and misreporting of things, they are further maligned for doing so. Said group then invite said individual round for dinner and the individual declines.
That seems like a perfectly reasonable assessment of the situation to me.

I then followed that up by asking if you had experienced sustained hostility and defamation from a particular group, would you happily sit down with them for dinner. A question which you avoided answering by dismissing everything i had written out of hand.

None of the above seems like a rant to me, nor ridiculous, nor laughable.

Ok, I'll try having part of this discussion with myself to see how this might have gone if you'd perhaps tried to see things from someone else's point of view and engaged in a reasonable discourse. I'll take a point that someone else made so you don't feel like you're the target here:

On page 14 fencesitter85 makes the assertion that, essentially, as the president of the US he should expect to receive a lot of criticism and probably a lot of outright grief, simply by virtue of his position. That he is required to rise above things that a normal person doesn't have to by virtue of his position and that, he should have been aware of this prior to running. The upshot of which is that should be prepared to "suck it up".

So, this statement is basically saying that the office of president is expected to have a higher tolerance of abuse and criticism, and is held to a higher standard, than a regular citizen.

Ok, so, I would have to say that this is a reasonable point. I acknowledge what he is saying. Though he provides no objective standard, specific parameters or evidence to support his point if view I fully understand his sentiment, I can take his point as intended and can see how this could be a reasonable response to what i had originally posted. So, in acknowledging this I am forced to re-evaluate my position, explore the issue further and this advances the dialogue.

So then, in response: I feel it is reasonable to press him further on this point, in the hope that, through continued reasonable discourse we might come to a consensus.

My reply then is; if we are to accept that the president is held to a different standard, that he should have a higher threshold for criticism (i use that term loosely in this context), how much is too much? Where do we draw the line? What is the standard? Are we saying that there is no limit? That nothing is unreasonable or out of bounds? That he should suffer ANY and all abuse, no matter how slanderous, untrue and offensive it may be, and continue to smile and take it all on the chin? If yes, how do you justify this (bearing in mind that, despite what some would like to believe, a president is still a human being). If no, then where is the line? What do we feel, as a society, is unreasonable behaviour, at what point is it ok for a president to say enough is enough? Are we there yet? Are we getting near that point yet? And so forth.... These questions advance the discussion, are valuable and help us to learn and develop, both as individuals and a society. I sincerely hope that there will be more of this kind of discussion in the future and less "lol, ridiculous"

I just wanted to quote your post here so that I it may be reiterated from me.

a reply to: ugmold

He lacks a backbone. He is bowing out because he can't take a joke or criticism. He only likes Praise and Loyalty like the Little Rich Spoiled Boy he is.

I guess someone forgot about The Roast of Donald Trump. Like a previous poster said. Your not credible.
fmovies.se...

Edited to add..Saying Trump can't take criticism, with the amount that he takes everyday is not to bright. You should swap Trump with the Left and your sentence would make complete sense.

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: mkultra11

He's the biggest snowflake this country has ever seen. The reason he's not going is because he doesn't like being criticized. He can't take it because he's thin skinned. He's proven this time and time again. Even his former staffers admit it.

He's not going because he's standing up to the elites. He's a snaowflake and that's why he's not going but I would never expect a Kool Aid drinking Trump supporting to acknowledge any of the above.

If that's true, then you snowflakes lost to a snowflake.

That makes you snowflakes the snoflakier snowflakes.

Are you kidding me with this response?!?

Seriously.

I teach propaganda as part of my class, and as part of that, we study logical fallacies. Your response is not only an ad hominem attack, but it is also a false dilemma.

Argue your point logically. Make a refutation that makes sense. Stop playing games.

disagreements on land issue. they want to see Trump in the land, Trump their

a reply to: SBMcG

Because he hasn't got the guts. Coward. He'd rather hide behind his Twitter account, like the sniveling 7th grader he really is. No doubt he'll be watching from the safety of his comfy robe, Tweeting up a storm about how 'sad' everything/one is. What a freakin' loooserrrr...

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: SBMcG
a reply to: ugmold

How so? He's beaten the weak pathetic Left and their lapdog -- the MSM, like a drum.

Oh please they have exposed him to be the idiot he really is many times over that is why he is acting like a petulant child as usual. They need to run some medical tests on Donnie because it looks like the GOP did the impossible!! They got a woman into the White House because no real man whines and cries as much as Donnie.

You have any idea how you sound here ? And we're all supposed to believe how sincere you are on "women's" topics ? Sexism, stereo-types and belittle women ingeneral is ok, if you're also slandering a Republican ?

Sincerity goes right out the window from now on...

originally posted by: ugmold

originally posted by: SBMcG
a reply to: ugmold

How so? He's beaten the weak pathetic Left and their lapdog -- the MSM, like a drum.

He lacks a backbone. He is bowing out because he can't take a joke or criticism. He only likes Praise and Loyalty like the Little Rich Spoiled Boy he is.

No, he's just smarter than them. I like him tremendously. He doesn't play by the "rules" of politics....that right there gets my "atta boy". Oh, and I'm a woman saying that.

April 5, 2019

President Trump is not attending again this year...2019. Says it's boring.

bigleaguepolitics.com...

Why does the Anti-Trump U.S. media bother to attend. Why not protest?

For that matter, why doesn't the White House just serve them Hamburgers?