Trump MAGAThread XI: Button, Button, Who's Got The Button?

[Petrasylvania]

Shootings should be relegated to weather or traffic reports. *nod*

I think Pret makes a good point about how the media seems to enjoy going in circles on gun control, giving no clear solutions and devolving into polemics faster than butter can melt in a microwave. So maybe that was answer you were looking to write, but you didn’t know how to write it? Or do you simply not care enough to make a serious comment on the issue? The world may never know, as you write another sarcastic answer to this comment.

So easily triggered by sarcasm and you have to let the world know you were triggered. But it's simpler than trying to find the subtle messages in sarcastic comments eh? And they say liberal SJWs make it a profession to be offended.

With the Republicans determined to simultaneously block gun regulation enforcement and slash mental health spending no matter what despite reciting the tired old line about mental health being the key to reduce shootings, future school shootings well as might be relegated to being reported alongside weather or traffic.

[Gravlen]

The stress of his seven hour work day (11am to 6pm) must be taking a toll.

source

Trump's days in the Oval Office are relatively short – from around 11am to 6pm, then he's back to the residence.

https://www.axios.com/scoop-trumps-secret-shrinking-schedule-1515364904-ab76374a-6252-4570-a804-942b3f851840.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-working-day-start-time-11am-us-president-beginning-george-w-bush-barack-obama-a8147366.html

[Kramanica]

That's a stupid criticism.

Nope. If you're going to meet victims and display empathy and care, you don't just run by them.

I really don't see how he didn't display empathy. I guess it's because he didn't break down in tears? That is really a baseless statement.

...I don't see how that follows.

My point is that your comparison with W. at Ground Zero is a false equivalency.

There is no equivalency. You asked what he should have done, and I gave an example, and a historical reference for context. Then you decided to state the obvious for no reason, apparently, and here we are.

And I explain to you why that reference doesn't follow.

No, it's more like pushing policy proposals at the site where people were massacred might be a bit tone deaf.

Yeah, that idea is downright stupid. Again, "How dare you suggest changes to policy which will keep us safer and help make sure something similar to this situation doesn't happen again"

No, it's more like "Why are you politicizing this tragedy in order to advance certain policies?"

Some might see it as exploiting the tragedy, something Obama took flack for which Trump wants to avoid.

Actually, the truth of the matter is that he had no policy to offer, and didn't know where he would stand on the issue before he had checked with friends - something he later did while at Mar-a-Lago:

The president also surveyed Mar-a-Lago Club members about whether he ought to champion gun control measures in the wake of last week’s school massacre in nearby Parkland, telling them that he was closely monitoring the media appearances by some of the surviving students, according to people who spoke with him there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-lashes-out-over-russia-probe-in-angry-and-error-laden-tweetstorm/2018/02/18/8224b7de-14ce-11e8-8b08-027a6ccb38eb_story.html?utm_term=.758a179e1f8a

He asked whether he should champion gun control proposals. It didn't say that he didn't have any. Ffs.

Do you expect him to break down weeping or something? He's trying to lift people's spirits, not tear at the nation's heart.

I expect him to be able to say a few consoling words off the cuff. He's unable to do that.

He's not trying to lift anyone's spirit, he's just devoid of empathy. But even if he wasn't, why shouldn't he be mourning with the rest of the nation? Or to put it differently, the guy trying to "lift people's spirits" at a funeral is often an ass with no social skills. ... oh, right.

He gave a speech, met with survivors, and that was that. This is really the stupidest criticism I've ever seen. And that's saying something, considering I've also seen people criticize him for getting two scoops of ice cream.

[Gravlen]

No, it's more like...

"Do something!"
"Uh, what?"
"Increase background checks, and-"
"NU-UH, MUH SECUND AMENDUMBZ!"

"Increase background checks"

Wow. Doesn't get more vague than that.

“The president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, wrote in a statement Monday morning.

Sanders being vague? Heavens no!

[Kramanica]

"Increase background checks"

Wow. Doesn't get more vague than that.

“The president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, wrote in a statement Monday morning.

Sanders being vague? Heavens no!

Sarah Sanders is Camicon? Didn't know that.

[Cekoviu]

“The president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, wrote in a statement Monday morning.

Sanders being vague? Heavens no!

Sarah Sanders is Camicon? Didn't know that.

The truth comes out!

[Kramanica]

Sarah Sanders is Camicon? Didn't know that.

The truth comes out!

Guess she really does hate her job.

[Ifreann]

“The president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, wrote in a statement Monday morning.

Sanders being vague? Heavens no!

Sarah Sanders is Camicon? Didn't know that.

I like that you seem to be holding Camicon to a higher standard than the President of the United States.

[Kramanica]

Sarah Sanders is Camicon? Didn't know that.

I like that you seem to be holding Camicon to a higher standard than the President of the United States.

That's... not what I meant.

[Gravlen]

Nope. If you're going to meet victims and display empathy and care, you don't just run by them.

I really don't see how he didn't display empathy.

Yes. We've established that.

I guess it's because he didn't break down in tears? That is really a baseless statement.

Nope, it's a statement based on his tone-deafness (photo-ops), and him not wanting to talk about the victims.

There is no equivalency. You asked what he should have done, and I gave an example, and a historical reference for context. Then you decided to state the obvious for no reason, apparently, and here we are.

And I explain to you why that reference doesn't follow.

Failing to see the forest for trees? The example was the relevant bit, the reference was for context.

Yeah, that idea is downright stupid. Again, "How dare you suggest changes to policy which will keep us safer and help make sure something similar to this situation doesn't happen again"

No, it's more like "Why are you politicizing this tragedy in order to advance certain policies?"

"Because it's an unspeakable tragedy which should never be allowed to happen again, and doing nothing is politicizing the tragedy in its own way. We need to take steps to ensure our children are safe, and my administration will take those necessary steps."

Actually, the truth of the matter is that he had no policy to offer, and didn't know where he would stand on the issue before he had checked with friends - something he later did while at Mar-a-Lago:

The president also surveyed Mar-a-Lago Club members about whether he ought to champion gun control measures in the wake of last week’s school massacre in nearby Parkland, telling them that he was closely monitoring the media appearances by some of the surviving students, according to people who spoke with him there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-lashes-out-over-russia-probe-in-angry-and-error-laden-tweetstorm/2018/02/18/8224b7de-14ce-11e8-8b08-027a6ccb38eb_story.html?utm_term=.758a179e1f8a

He asked whether he should champion gun control proposals. It didn't say that he didn't have any. Ffs.

The clear implication is that he has no values of his own, and needs to be told what to do by other people.

I expect him to be able to say a few consoling words off the cuff. He's unable to do that.

He's not trying to lift anyone's spirit, he's just devoid of empathy. But even if he wasn't, why shouldn't he be mourning with the rest of the nation? Or to put it differently, the guy trying to "lift people's spirits" at a funeral is often an ass with no social skills. ... oh, right.

He gave a speech, met with survivors, and that was that. This is really the stupidest criticism I've ever seen.

Oh no, the bar is sooooo much lower. It's not even close to "Obama wore a tan suit" or "Obama ate fancy mustard". Suck it up and enjoy the brave new world the Republicans and Fox News have given us.

And that's saying something, considering I've also seen people criticize him for getting two scoops of ice cream.

Mocking, maybe. I've never seen him citicized for it.

[Ifreann]

I like that you seem to be holding Camicon to a higher standard than the President of the United States.

That's... not what I meant.

Well I'm sure you'll get around to criticising Trump for being so vague eventually.

[Kramanica]

I really don't see how he didn't display empathy.

Yes. We've established that.

I guess it's because he didn't break down in tears? That is really a baseless statement.

Nope, it's a statement based on his tone-deafness (photo-ops), and him not wanting to talk about the victims.

He did talk to the victims. Holy-fucking-shit.

And I explain to you why that reference doesn't follow.

Failing to see the forest for trees? The example was the relevant bit, the reference was for context.

The example doesn't apply well in this instance. This is fairly simple.

No, it's more like "Why are you politicizing this tragedy in order to advance certain policies?"

"Because it's an unspeakable tragedy which should never be allowed to happen again, and doing nothing is politicizing the tragedy in its own way. We need to take steps to ensure our children are safe, and my administration will take those necessary steps."

Son, I'm explaining to you that he wants to avoid taking the flack Obama did for politicizing these shootings.

He asked whether he should champion gun control proposals. It didn't say that he didn't have any. Ffs.

The clear implication is that he has no values of his own, and needs to be told what to do by other people.

Seeking advice isn't "being told what to do".

He gave a speech, met with survivors, and that was that. This is really the stupidest criticism I've ever seen.

Oh no, the bar is sooooo much lower. It's not even close to "Obama wore a tan suit" or "Obama ate fancy mustard". Suck it up and enjoy the brave new world the Republicans and Fox News have given us.

I like the subtle admission that your criticism is stupid.

And I'm talking about Trump, not Obama.

And that's saying something, considering I've also seen people criticize him for getting two scoops of ice cream.

Mocking, maybe. I've never seen him citicized for it.

Oh, CNN had a whole segment on it. They also gave a second-by-second breakdown of his handshake with Trudeau.

[Kramanica]

That's... not what I meant.

Well I'm sure you'll get around to criticising Trump for being so vague eventually.

He supports a specific law proposal.

A law isn't some vague rhetoric of "better background checks".

[Camicon]

Well I'm sure you'll get around to criticising Trump for being so vague eventually.

He supports a specific law proposal.

A law isn't some vague rhetoric of "better background checks".

A specific law proposal that Huckabee-Sanders specifically doesn't mention in favour of a specifically vague response.

[Kramanica]

He supports a specific law proposal.

A law isn't some vague rhetoric of "better background checks".

A specific law proposal that Huckabee-Sanders specifically doesn't mention in favour of a specifically vague response.

Sanders said the president spoke to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) on Friday to express support for the bill Cornyn has introduced with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). The bill is still being amended, the White House cautioned.

The statement did not address how the president would react to more aggressive gun control measures.

The senators’ bill is narrow in focus, reinforcing the requirement that federal agencies report all criminal infractions to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and creating financial incentives for states to do so, as well.

It's okay. I know reading is hard.

[Jerzylvania]

A specific law proposal that Huckabee-Sanders specifically doesn't mention in favour of a specifically vague response.

Sanders said the president spoke to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) on Friday to express support for the bill Cornyn has introduced with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). The bill is still being amended, the White House cautioned.

The statement did not address how the president would react to more aggressive gun control measures.

The senators’ bill is narrow in focus, reinforcing the requirement that federal agencies report all criminal infractions to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and creating financial incentives for states to do so, as well.

It's okay. I know reading is hard.

*puts on white coat, looks at your chart*
Hmm, let's cut back a bit on your Snarkotic dosing for a few days.

[Ifreann]

Well I'm sure you'll get around to criticising Trump for being so vague eventually.

He supports a specific law proposal.

A law isn't some vague rhetoric of "better background checks".

Signalling support for a bill that is only about improving background checks is vague rhetoric of better background checks.

[Gravlen]

Yes. We've established that.


Nope, it's a statement based on his tone-deafness (photo-ops), and him not wanting to talk about the victims.

He did talk to the victims. Holy-fucking-shit.

Yes. As I've said.

Did you miss the word "about"?

Failing to see the forest for trees? The example was the relevant bit, the reference was for context.

The example doesn't apply well in this instance. This is fairly simple.

The example works perfectly. As in, he could for example have gone to the school and suggested a change in policy. See?

"Because it's an unspeakable tragedy which should never be allowed to happen again, and doing nothing is politicizing the tragedy in its own way. We need to take steps to ensure our children are safe, and my administration will take those necessary steps."

Son, I'm explaining to you that he wants to avoid taking the flack Obama did for politicizing these shootings.

Stepdaughter, I'm explaining to you that he hasn't thought that far ahead, and it's because of his lack of both empathy and values he's not saying anything. If it's not about himself in some way, he doesn't have anything to add.

And call your mother. She worries.

The clear implication is that he has no values of his own, and needs to be told what to do by other people.

Seeking advice isn't "being told what to do".

It can be, and in this case, I believe it is. It's not the first time he's waited to formulate a position until he was given one, and it won't be the last.

Oh no, the bar is sooooo much lower. It's not even close to "Obama wore a tan suit" or "Obama ate fancy mustard". Suck it up and enjoy the brave new world the Republicans and Fox News have given us.

I like the subtle admission that your criticism is stupid.

As I said above, I wouldn't even have been talking about this if it hadn't been the spectacular stupidity at display here, the utter cluelessness and tone-deafness of him smiling and giving thumbs up as well as being angry at the fact that he couldn’t play golf because it would have been unseemly - and then going on to say that he was watching TV out of respect for the victims. That's the center of my criticism, much overlooked by some here.

And I'm talking about Trump, not Obama.

And I'm talking about thresholds. Sure, you may not have paid attention for the last 8 years, but the bar for what's fair criticism has slowly been sunk over that period of time.

Mocking, maybe. I've never seen him citicized for it.

Oh, CNN had a whole segment on it.

Segment doesn't necessarily mean criticism. This CNN segment (in the video) clearly employs a mocking tone.

[Kramanica]

It's okay. I know reading is hard.

*puts on white coat, looks at your chart*
Hmm, let's cut back a bit on your Snarkotic dosing for a few days.

Could probably use that.

[Kramanica]

He did talk to the victims. Holy-fucking-shit.

Yes. As I've said.

Did you miss the word "about"?

Then why are you making it sound as if he didn't?

The example doesn't apply well in this instance. This is fairly simple.

The example works perfectly. As in, he could for example have gone to the school and suggested a change in policy. See?

And he didn't want to do that, which is entirely valid.

Son, I'm explaining to you that he wants to avoid taking the flack Obama did for politicizing these shootings.

Stepdaughter, I'm explaining to you that he hasn't thought that far ahead, and it's because of his lack of both empathy and values he's not saying anything. If it's not about himself in some way, he doesn't have anything to add.

And call your mother. She worries.

I'm a dude so stepson would be better. Please respect my gender and whatnot.

Or maybe you're just wrong. I dunno. There are entirely valid reasons to not want to politicize a massacre.

Seeking advice isn't "being told what to do".

It can be, and in this case, I believe it is. It's not the first time he's waited to formulate a position until he was given one, and it won't be the last.

Or perhaps he's just seeking advice. I'm not really keen on arguing over points of view.

I like the subtle admission that your criticism is stupid.

As I said above, I wouldn't even have been talking about this if it hadn't been the spectacular stupidity at display here, the utter cluelessness and tone-deafness of him smiling and giving thumbs up as well as being angry at the fact that he couldn’t play golf because it would have been unseemly - and then going on to say that he was watching TV out of respect for the victims. That's the center of my criticism, much overlooked by some here.

Then that's fine. I don't take issue with that. More your other suggestions.

And I'm talking about Trump, not Obama.

And I'm talking about thresholds. Sure, you may not have paid attention for the last 8 years, but the bar for what's fair criticism has slowly been sunk over that period of time.

I would tend to agree that criticizing Obama for wearing a tan suit and chewing gum is stupid. But it's not as though the media is doing much to improve it these days.

Oh, CNN had a whole segment on it.

Segment doesn't necessarily mean criticism. This CNN segment (in the video) clearly employs a mocking tone.

On a supposed news network.

Maybe if it was Comedy Central then it would be acceptable.

[Jerzylvania]

*puts on white coat, looks at your chart*
Hmm, let's cut back a bit on your Snarkotic dosing for a few days.

Could probably use that.

*looks at high blood pressure reading*
Yeah. You could.
*hands bill*

[Kramanica]

He supports a specific law proposal.

A law isn't some vague rhetoric of "better background checks".

Signalling support for a bill that is only about improving background checks is vague rhetoric of better background checks.

You really are making no effort to understand anything.

Let me break it down for you: Demanding "better background checks" without any specifics is vague rhetoric.

Supporting an actual law that has specific ideas isn't. That better?

[Kramanica]

Could probably use that.

*looks at high blood pressure reading*
Yeah. You could.
*hands bill*

Thanks, Dr. Jerz.

[Jerzylvania]

*looks at high blood pressure reading*
Yeah. You could.
*hands bill*

Thanks, Dr. Jerz.

Right.

[Ifreann]

Signalling support for a bill that is only about improving background checks is vague rhetoric of better background checks.

You really are making no effort to understand anything.

Let me break it down for you: Demanding "better background checks" without any specifics is vague rhetoric.

Supporting an actual law that has specific ideas isn't. That better?

It is vague rhetoric. The law is entirely about improving background checks. And Trump hasn't even said anything about it except that he supports it. What does he support about it? What amendments might he oppose? Would he support higher incentives?