**** Elections thread *****

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you want the President to not be hateful toward the media, you gotta stop fueling narratives like this.

The link between a forum post to the media is tenuous.

The conclusion does not follow the premise.
The notion that the media could do its job w/o holding politicians accountable for their every action is absurd.

The notion that it's excusable for the President to be hateful toward Americans doing their job as deemed necessary to a free state is not a good sign for democracy.

Sure, in 4 or 8 years, after he's off the clock, then I don't care one bit, but he literally asked for perhaps the most scrutinized job in the world. Bristling at the extent of the scrutiny is OK, but embracing hate toward the scrutinizers is another thing. They are, after all, members of a free press, which is deemed necessary to a well-informed public and thus to democracy.
\
As the figurehead of democracy, you gotta let some annoying side-effect thereof slide.

All he did was confuse his wording somewhat between what he 'saw last night about what's happening in Sweden', and 'what's happening in sweden last night'. That's common for a guy who is bombastic, hyperbolic, and doesn't read the teleprompter. It was a minor slip, he corrected it the next morning. It really shouldn't be a big deal.

"All he did" seems hyperbolic at best. It's a plausible explanation, but he's too smart to write any mistake off as "just a mistake."
Sure, he will make mistakes which were "unscripted." The genius of him is that he can play off the unscripted ones to his advantage after the fact, so they look basically the same as the scripted ones.

He's not an idiot. I think your analysis is oversimplifying the man.
...
but it could have been a simple mistake, with no forethought to it, so maybe you're right that this is a simple case.

Instead, the MSM and others are going bonkers. Did he invent a terrorist attack? Did he deliberately lie to distract from something else? What is he smoking? That's all a symptom of a butt-hurt press that wants to play "gotchya". It's not cool.

The reactions sound dumb.
Why are you watching dumb people get hysterical about stuff that is nothing to bat an eye at?
Why are you seeming to get hysterical about their hysteria?

I mean... it's one thing to disagree with a melodramatic fool, it's another to cite their behavior as representative of your greater opposition.
At the very least, it means that your opposition is a bunch of silly people who are borderline senseless in their fanaticism.
What does it say about you that your opponents are so lame?
Exactly.
Your positions are not lame, and your true opponents are not the lame ones making a fuss on TV.

(Opponent may not be the right word, but I hope you know what I mean.)

The same goes for the business about crowd size, or his claim during last week's press conference that he had the 'largest electoral college victory'. He's an egotistical, stubborn, eccentric old man. Who cares if he thinks his margin of victory was bigger than George W's. What does that matter to anyone?

The bigger question is that since this line of reasoning is obviously childish, why are you spending so much mental energy on it?
Some people are paid to say controversial things. Other people are either playing along or too foolish to know it's a game and are actually caught up in the us/them.

This "style" that Trump has, is not new. He's done it his whole life, he's done it the whole campaign, and he still won the election. That means that the general public doesn't care enough about this stuff. Yet the press seems intent on trolling the president over it at every turn.

What it means vis a vis the general public is decided on an individual by individual basis. Even taken as an agglomerated whole, there was close to a 50/50 split on the vote. Even if it was a 75/25 landslide, I don't see how that matters. What people care about can change on a minute by minute basis. So the fact that he's been elected is no long-term endorsement of his "style." Many self-identified republicans voted for Trump while actively disliking him / his style. They were upset at the greater Republican Party for putting up such a poor choice as their candidate, but they were certainly not voting for anyone else.

The notion that criticism of the President is somehow being rude or trolling is too far. Sure... some people are nothing more than trolls when it comes to political commentary, but, again, if these are your opponents, then you're a self-declared intellectual lightweight (no hate.. that's a fun game, too).

His style is his. Some like it; some don't. The notion that he's above criticism because he asked to be the most criticized employee in America doesn't make sense to me.
The notion that he should care about or listen to people who are obviously embracing their childish entitlement and whiney side is just wrong