Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

[OngBonga]

You're being coy. I'm sure you have some idea.

how about here 's a couple of ideas: 1) some experience in diplomacy; maybe working your way up from ambassador to Uruguay or something before you graduate to solving the MidEast; 2) some experience period. Maybe the job would be better in the hands of someone over 40.

That's just two that spring to mind. Even Blair can manage to meet those criteria.

Bollocks.

Ok I'll play -
1) diplomacy (obviously, but this is a personality trait, not something you learn at college or on the job),
2) a solid knowledge base of Middle East history and current affairs.

[Poopadoop]

Be Jewish.

Try harder.

His job would be to gather information, hold talks, and advise lawmakers, including his fatherinlaw. That's about it. It's not like he has any real power to unilaterally make any kind of policy.

And where does he have the time to do this while he's solving the Middle East problem? Fuck he is one busy initiate.

So who would you trust to try and solve this problem??

Don't know for sure, but probably not the guy who's working day and night to solve the MidEast.

[Poopadoop]

Bollocks.

Ok I'll play -
1) diplomacy (obviously, but this is a personality trait, not something you learn at college or on the job),

Pretty sure diplomacy in the real world is not just about following your instincts. There's protocol, etc. that has to be followed. I agree though there's a heavy dose of personality in it. Any reason to think JK is better qualified in this way than anyone else?

2) a solid knowledge base of Middle East history and current affairs.

Same question.

[BananaStand]

Try harder.

Don't need to

And where does he have the time to do this while he's solving the Middle East problem? Fuck he is one busy initiate.

Cmon now, his father in law is twice his age and juggling a hell of a lot more problems.

Don't know for sure, but probably not the guy who's working day and night to solve the MidEast.

Don't forget China!

[BananaStand]

Any reason to think JK is better qualified in this way than anyone else?

TRUMP TRUSTS HIM!!!!!

[OngBonga]

Pretty sure diplomacy in the real world is not just about following your instincts. There's protocol, etc. that has to be followed.

Right. You need to have the right sort of personality. It's not about following your instincts, it's about knowing when to follow your instincts and when to follow protocol in spite of your instincts.

Any reason to think JK is better qualified in this way than anyone else?

I have no idea, I'm not qualified to make that determination. I certainly don't have any reason to not think he's qualified, other than he doesn't have formal experience. But I'm not the one appointing a Middle East diplomat, I'm not the one deciding whether trust or experience is a more important trait to consider.

And neither are you. I dunno what your problem with this is, other than "omg Trump employs his family". Even though they're not actually on the payroll, as far as I can tell, which means Daddy pays them out of his own pocket.

[OngBonga]

same question

How hard is it to study? How long does it take before one has sufficient knowledge to begin working?

I don't know, nor do I care. If he has a poor knowledge, then he better brush up quick. If he fails, it looks bad for Trump, I won't dispute that. But I have no problem with the appointment, so long as Trump is prepared to fire him if it goes wrong. Which I don't really doubt.

[BananaStand]

I'm really surprised Poop hasn't tried to claim that Trump put Kushner in charge of the middle east hoping he'd get killed there so he could have Ivanka all to himself.

[Poopadoop]

I'm really surprised Poop hasn't tried to claim that Trump put Kushner in charge of the middle east hoping he'd get killed there so he could have Ivanka all to himself.

I'm really surprised you're not crouching down under your desk in the fetal position after your embarrassing failure to find a video of Trump looking coherent for more than 20 seconds straight.

[Poopadoop]

Ya ok, i don't really care let JK be the Minister of Defense if you want. I'm just saying there's a reason why most presidents don't trust young inexperienced family members to do important government jobs. Actually two reasons: 1) it stinks of swamp material and 2) they're not qualified no matter how loosely you define it.

And ya, it's sad if Trump has to scrape that low in the barrel to find someone willing to work for him. Doesn't exactly say a lot for his amazing executive skills that banana keeps bragging about does it?

[BananaStand]

I'm really surprised you're not crouching down under your desk in the fetal position after your embarrassing failure to find a video of Trump looking coherent for more than 20 seconds straight.

I didn't fail

[Poopadoop]

I didn't fail

It's ok, we'll let you off the hook.

Now I'm tuning out for the day. You can go back to having sex with your Trump blow up doll, and dream about the day he hires you to manage the Ministry of Silly Handshakes.

[BananaStand]

Ya ok, i don't really care let JK be the Minister of Defense if you want. I'm just saying there's a reason why most presidents don't trust young inexperienced family members to do important government jobs. Actually two reasons: 1) it stinks of swamp material and 2) they're not qualified no matter how loosely you define it.

And ya, it's sad if Trump has to scrape that low in the barrel to find someone willing to work for him. Doesn't exactly say a lot for his amazing executive skills that banana keeps bragging about does it?

Again, you really don't understand what "drain the swamp" means.

If Trump's style alienates some people...so be it. He wouldn't be president if he acted any other way. If his attitude is toxic to swamp-monsters, that's ok. We're better off without them. If it means someone else has to learn the job fast....fine. There will be some growing pains, but what else would you expect when you elect a TV star and real estate hustler as President.

I find it hard to blame Trump for being himself.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You can go back to having sex with your Trump blow up doll

You are also well capable of recognizing where the line is and when you've crossed it.

If you're not clear on where the line is, it's personal attacks, and this is dangerously close.

Keep it in check, everyone.

[BananaStand]

You are also well capable of recognizing where the line is and when you've crossed it.

If you're not clear on where the line is, it's personal attacks, and this is dangerously close.

Keep it in check, everyone.

Hey....maybe you didn't catch on, in this thread we maintain skepticism until definitively proven otherwise.

You don't know for sure whether or not I have a Trump blow up doll, so you can't say definitively that his statement was an attack.

[BananaStand]

It's ok, we'll let you off the hook.

You know damn well I have no sound on my work computer. Now that I'm home it didn't take very long to find this

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...speech-sot.cnn

Do you need help with any of those words?

Now I'm tuning out for the day. You can go back to having sex with your Trump blow up doll, and dream about the day he hires you to manage the Ministry of Silly Handshakes.

I would most definitely be Secretary of Salt

[MadMojoMonkey]

Hey....maybe you didn't catch on, in this thread we maintain skepticism until definitively proven otherwise.

You don't know for sure whether or not I have a Trump blow up doll, so you can't say definitively that his statement was an attack.

Pay attention, man.

dangerously close

[BananaStand]

Pay attention, man.

It's like you're daring me to say something disparaging about you.

You're the greatest!!

[Poopadoop]

You know damn well I have no sound on my work computer. Now that I'm home it didn't take very long to find this

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...speech-sot.cnn

So classic that after months of prodding to show Trump being coherent you find a speech where he a) reads off a teleprompter and b) misreads off a teleprompter.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/20/trump-...peech-7244934/

[BananaStand]

So classic that after months of prodding to show Trump being coherent you find a speech where he a) reads off a teleprompter and b) misreads off a teleprompter.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/20/trump-...peech-7244934/

So classic that in your mind, yesterday = months ago

So classic that you suddenly move the goal post and disqualify it because there was a teleprompter.

So classic that you equate the misreading of a single letter as incoherence.

So classic for a media site to shit on Trump for what even they admit is an "obvious" mix up that could happen to anyone

So classic to create a story out of a non-story, just to create an opportunity to bring up some 2 year old bullshit about Trump

So classic for that media site to find a so-called "expert" to debunk Trump's claim even though Trump's claim is undeniably true.

[Poopadoop]

So classic that in your mind, yesterday = months ago

So classic that you suddenly move the goal post and disqualify it because there was a teleprompter.

You think it's a point of pride to be able to read most of a speech off a teleprompter? Lol, ya that's a sign of intelligence for sure. the guy can read most of the words put in front of him, wp gg.

The challenge remains: find two minutes of Trump speaking on a policy issue in a coherent manner without assistance.

[BananaStand]

The challenge remains: find two minutes of Trump speaking on a policy issue in a coherent manner without assistance.

He let cameras come into legislative talks on gun control this week. Did you catch that?

[Poopadoop]

He let cameras come into legislative talks on gun control this week. Did you catch that?

Are you saying you have a video to show me or not?

[BananaStand]

Are you saying you have a video to show me or not?

You know I don't have sound during working hours! Check this link out. There's a whole playlist under the main video window of short videos that show Trump talking about all kinds of stuff. The subtitles made sense to me, but I'm sure you'll just call it all incoherent drivel.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/polit...ing/index.html

And honestly, to find a president talking off teleprompter for more than a few seconds, you'd almost have to go back to a time before the teleprompter was invented.

Why don't you just say what your point is hmmm??

I can't imagine why you think Trump has trouble communicating. The guy uses a 4th grade vocabulary. Are there words you don't understand??

The guy fucked up one god damn letter in the first video I posted and you just bathed yourself in confirmation bias. I really don't see any value in fighting you through this juvenile "challenge" you've initiated.

[Poopadoop]

Actually if you recall my original argument was he is an incoherent idiot when it comes to policy matters.

Your response was to post a video of him reading off a teleprompter, which only goes to show he can read, not that he's erudite when it comes to policy.

So when you get home from work, go through your playlist and find two minutes of him speaking off the cuff about policy in a coherent manner. Should be easy if he's as smart as you claim he is. I've provided plenty of examples of him being incoherent, you're only being asked to provide one example of the opposite. And you're failing miserably.

And fyi, there are things called interviews where presidents get asked questions about policy, and they're not reading off a teleprompter. And invariably Trump rambles on incoherently in those as well. Would you like me to post a few transcripts of interviews to prove it, or are you happy to accept his general incoherence as a given?

[BananaStand]

Actually if you recall my original argument was he is an incoherent idiot when it comes to policy matters.

Your response was to post a video of him reading off a teleprompter, which only goes to show he can read, not that he's erudite when it comes to policy.

So when you get home from work, go through your playlist and find two minutes of him speaking off the cuff about policy in a coherent manner. Should be easy if he's as smart as you claim he is. I've provided plenty of examples of him being incoherent, you're only being asked to provide one example of the opposite. And you're failing miserably.

And fyi, there are things called interviews where presidents get asked questions about policy, and they're not reading off a teleprompter. And invariably Trump rambles on incoherently in those as well. Would you like me to post a few transcripts of interviews to prove it, or are you happy to accept his general incoherence as a given?

We're just gonna go down a rabbit hole debating "what is incoherent". Count me out.

I feel like I understand everything he's saying. Yes, it's happened that he's thought three sentences at once, swished them all together in his mouth, and spat them out on phrase at a time. He does that alot. That doesn't mean he's an incoherent idiot. The only people that seem to have trouble understanding him are the media shitheads who have financial/career incentives to mock soundbytes and pass it off as political commentary.

Perfect example, the link you posted earlier today mocked Trump for thinking that babies shouldn't be born at 9 months. Trump knows how long it takes for a baby to be born. No sensible person actually thinks that Trump thinks it's wrong for a baby to be born after 9 months gestation. Yet there it is, in black and white. A 70 year old misread one friggen letter within some small print, and suddenly we're accusing him of not knowing 2nd grade biology.

I really have no interest in engaging with people like that. Let me know when you want to have an adult conversation..

[OngBonga]

Your response was to post a video of him reading off a teleprompter, which only goes to show he can read, not that he's erudite when it comes to policy.

Well done, you've just identified something that pretty much every world leader (*) can do and does regularly... read an autocue.

Next you'll be pointing out that it's normally someone other than Trump that actually writes what's on the autocue.

(*) citation needed

[MadMojoMonkey]

I can't imagine why you think Trump has trouble communicating. The guy uses a 4th grade vocabulary.

What you can or can't imagine is a statement about yourself, and not the topic of conversation.
Or is that more snowflake melodrama?

Are you really suggesting that using a 4th grade vocabulary is indicative of superior communication skills?

What's holding you back from being a great orator yourself, then? A lack of Dr. Seuss to practice at home?

I feel like I understand everything he's saying. Yes, it's happened that he's thought three sentences at once, swished them all together in his mouth, and spat them out on phrase at a time. He does that alot. That doesn't mean he's an incoherent idiot. The only people that seem to have trouble understanding him are the media shitheads who have financial/career incentives to mock soundbytes and pass it off as political commentary.

Your ability to take a sentence and contort it into something other than its literal meaning is exceptional, I agree.

That is not indicative that what meaning you have divined is his intended meaning.
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. There's more than one way to interpret his stream-of-consciousness speaking style.

[BananaStand]

What you can or can't imagine is a statement about yourself, and not the topic of conversation.
Or is that more snowflake melodrama?

OMFG, this need you have to be the most philosophically deep person here, while still saying nothing of substance is no longer cute.

Are you really suggesting that using a 4th grade vocabulary is indicative of superior communication skills?

No I'm saying that it shouldn't be hard to understand.

What's holding you back from being a great orator yourself, then? A lack of Dr. Seuss to practice at home?

To quote one of the great philosophers of our time

You are also well capable of recognizing where the line is and when you've crossed it. If you're not clear on where the line is, it's personal attacks, and this is dangerously close. Keep it in check

Your ability to take a sentence and contort it into something other than its literal meaning is exceptional, I agree.

I have no idea what you're referring to.

That is not indicative that what meaning you have divined is his intended meaning.
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. There's more than one way to interpret his stream-of-consciousness speaking style.

Dude...even the article that Poop linked said that "of course he meant to say 'torn'". They said it was "apparent".

Are you suggesting that it's remotely possible that Trump is against babies being born after full gestation??

[MadMojoMonkey]

Are you suggesting that it's remotely possible that Trump is against babies being born after full gestation??

No.

[BananaStand]

Then are you suggesting that it's remotely possible that Trump doesn't know how long full gestation takes?

[Poopadoop]

Well done, you've just identified something that pretty much every world leader (*) can do and does regularly... read an autocue.

Next you'll be pointing out that it's normally someone other than Trump that actually writes what's on the autocue.

(*) citation needed

So what's your point?

There's plenty of examples of Trump speaking off the cuff in an incoherent manner - I posted several of them myself.

So then the question was asked, "Given all the examples of him being incoherent provided here, is he actually capable of speaking coherently about policy without assistance?", and the response to that question was to post a video of him reading off a teleprompter.

Do you not see how that doesn't address the question that was posed?

[Poopadoop]

We're just gonna go down a rabbit hole debating "what is incoherent". Count me out.

I feel like I understand everything he's saying. Yes, it's happened that he's thought three sentences at once, swished them all together in his mouth, and spat them out on phrase at a time. He does that alot. That doesn't mean he's an incoherent idiot. The only people that seem to have trouble understanding him are the media shitheads who have financial/career incentives to mock soundbytes and pass it off as political commentary.

Perfect example, the link you posted earlier today mocked Trump for thinking that babies shouldn't be born at 9 months. Trump knows how long it takes for a baby to be born. No sensible person actually thinks that Trump thinks it's wrong for a baby to be born after 9 months gestation. Yet there it is, in black and white. A 70 year old misread one friggen letter within some small print, and suddenly we're accusing him of not knowing 2nd grade biology.

I really have no interest in engaging with people like that. Let me know when you want to have an adult conversation..

I guess that's your way of saying "No, I can't find anything with him speaking coherently for 2 minutes straight on policy without assistance from notes and/or a teleprompter. But here's a gif of him saying something stupid again because deep down inside I know you're right."

[CoccoBill]

I'd say the chance of banana admitting to or conceding anything is close to nil. He's here to "win" arguments, not debate.

[OngBonga]

So what's your point?

There's plenty of examples of Trump speaking off the cuff in an incoherent manner - I posted several of them myself.

So then the question was asked, "Given all the examples of him being incoherent provided here, is he actually capable of speaking coherently about policy without assistance?", and the response to that question was to post a video of him reading off a teleprompter.

Do you not see how that doesn't address the question that was posed?

Fair enough, it's just using an autocue is non indicative of his oration skills one way or the other.

And banana has a point when he says that speaking like a 4th grader should not be "incoherent", since coherence is the ability to be "logical and consistent", it has nothing to do with the actual words you're using. For example, if he said "capaciously", dumb people have no idea what he meant and therefore he's being "incoherent" in the context of difficult to understand. But would you nod in approval because you know what he means and it's a big word?

You're discriminating against dumb people if you expect him to stop using language that both dumb people and smart people understand, in favour of language that only smart people understand. You're a hater.

[BananaStand]

So then the question was asked, "Given all the examples of him being incoherent provided here, is he actually capable of speaking coherently about policy without assistance?", and the response to that question was to post a video of him reading off a teleprompter.

Do you not see how that doesn't address the question that was posed?

OMG Fuck the fuck off sir.

This was the question(s) you asked

Now I'd like to see you post anything up to 5 minutes long of him speaking intelligently on the issues.

Still waiting for that video of Trump waxing eloquent on the issues of the day.

Find some reels where he's speaking intelligently so we can compare.

That question was answered with a 75 minute example from about two days before. Your response was to say

Can't be bothered

I posted the pro-life speech as another example

...and then you moved the goalpost by whining about teleprompters [even though huge portions of the CPAC speech were off-prompter]. AND reiterated your claim of 'incoherence' because the guy misread ONE FUCKING LETTER. So fuck off man.. what kind of idiot would I be if I kept trying to convince you??

BTW, the videos you posted of him allegedly being "incoherent" are bunk. That first one about how he has 5 different positions on minimum wage in 45 seconds is just re-fucking-tarded. Are you really telling me that you watched that video, and don't know Trump's stance on minimum wage. If so, you're re-fucking-tarded too.

Maybe there's a reason that David Pakman isn't on real TV.

The second video he is clearly talking about Iran. But the video seems to have snipped that part out. They removed the context, then added subtitles to say "what's he talking about". RE-FUCKING-TARDED.

The third video....I don't even know why you posted that. Everything he says in that video is totally understandable and makes sense. Are there words in that video that you don't understand? What specifically do you need help with?

In fact, consider that video my final submission to your "challenge"

After that I gave up on the rest of the videos. You just so badly want to believe that the guy is dumb, crooked, and a russian spy that you will confirmation-bias yourself into interpreting everything he does as folly.

one fucking letter.....proof that he's an ignoramus........nice troll.

[Poopadoop]

Fair enough, it's just using an autocue is non indicative of his oration skills one way or the other.

Which is what makes posting a video of it so irrelevant. Which is why I ridiculed banana for doing it.

And banana has a point when he says that speaking like a 4th grader should not be "incoherent", since coherence is the ability to be "logical and consistent", it has nothing to do with the actual words you're using. For example, if he said "capaciously", dumb people have no idea what he meant and therefore he's being "incoherent" in the context of difficult to understand. But would you nod in approval because you know what he means and it's a big word?

It's not that he's simplifying the message to reach a wider audience, it's that he's babbling nonsense. There's a clear difference.

You're discriminating against dumb people if you expect him to stop using language that both dumb people and smart people understand, in favour of language that only smart people understand. You're a hater.

No, I'm pointing out that if one possesses no coherent thought process on an issue, it's impossible to express a coherent thought without some kind of outside assistance (e.g. teleprompter). If he did have a coherent thought, you'd expect him to be able to express that at an adult level at some point.

E.g., do you think a lot of dumb people read the WSJ? I doubt it. But when they interview him, he still babbles incoherently.

The argument that he could speak coherently like an adult but chooses to speak at a fourth grade (i.e., incoherent) level is silly. It's not that he's trying to get across complicated issues to dumb people but rather that he's using inflammatory rhetoric with very little substance to rabble rouse. That's not evidence of any knowledge about the issues, it's evidence of knowing how to manipulate dumb people into chanting things like 'build the wall!' and 'lock her up!'.

[Poopadoop]

OMG Fuck the fuck off sir.

This was the question(s) you asked







That question was answered with a 75 minute example from about two days before. Your response was to say



I posted the pro-life speech as another example

...and then you moved the goalpost by whining about teleprompters [even though huge portions of the CPAC speech were off-prompter]. AND reiterated your claim of 'incoherence' because the guy misread ONE FUCKING LETTER. So fuck off man.. what kind of idiot would I be if I kept trying to convince you??

BTW, the videos you posted of him allegedly being "incoherent" are bunk. That first one about how he has 5 different positions on minimum wage in 45 seconds is just re-fucking-tarded. Are you really telling me that you watched that video, and don't know Trump's stance on minimum wage. If so, you're re-fucking-tarded too.

Maybe there's a reason that David Pakman isn't on real TV.

The second video he is clearly talking about Iran. But the video seems to have snipped that part out. They removed the context, then added subtitles to say "what's he talking about". RE-FUCKING-TARDED.

The third video....I don't even know why you posted that. Everything he says in that video is totally understandable and makes sense. Are there words in that video that you don't understand? What specifically do you need help with?

In fact, consider that video my final submission to your "challenge"

After that I gave up on the rest of the videos. You just so badly want to believe that the guy is dumb, crooked, and a russian spy that you will confirmation-bias yourself into interpreting everything he does as folly.

one fucking letter.....proof that he's an ignoramus........nice troll.

Cry foul all you want, the challenge stands. And no, proof that he can read off a teleprompter is not proof of erudition. Nice try though.

[Poopadoop]

I'd say the chance of banana admitting to or conceding anything is close to nil. He's here to "win" arguments, not debate.

Getting him to publicly concede is not the goal. He's never going to do that, he'll resort to name-calling and all sorts of other accusations instead. The goal is to demonstrate that it's impossible to find an example of Trump speaking intelligently on an issue, at least not since he became president. If banana, the biggest Trump supporter and apologist on this forum, can't find one, then there's a good chance it doesn't exist.

[BananaStand]

I'd say the chance of banana admitting to or conceding anything is close to nil. He's here to "win" arguments, not debate.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT???

Your assertion that I am unable or unwilling to make concessions is beyond stupid. Like extra extra extra fucking dumb.

Pay attention, I'm gonna walk you through this one more time...slowly.

I have stated, clearly, verbosely, and in extensive detail what information supports my opinions, conclusions and positions. If you would like to persuade me otherwise, then you need to present some credible information, or objective fact that is MORE compelling than the information that currently supports my position. You have not done that.

You even admit that you haven't done that

I haven't tried to debate on the issues

So how the fuck can you say that I am unwilling to debate?????

[BananaStand]

Getting him to publicly concede is not the goal. He's never going to do that,

False. See the post above. I've given you explicit instructions what it takes to persuade an intelligent person. If that's hard for you, then I guess I'm not surprised that your opinion has de-volved into "Banana is stubborn".

he'll resort to name-calling and all sorts of other accusations instead.

Incorrect. If you post retarded idiocy, it's not name-calling to address it as retarded idiocy.

The goal is to demonstrate that it's impossible to find an example of Trump speaking intelligently on an issue, at least not since he became president.

You have failed at that goal. At least one of your examples to the contrary actually demonstrates the opposite.

If banana, the biggest Trump supporter and apologist on this forum, can't find one, then there's a good chance it doesn't exist.

Apologist?? Really?

If he fucks up, I'll say he fucked up. Want an example? I think Trump is fucking up this gun stuff. There ya go.

[BananaStand]

Cry foul all you want, the challenge stands.

The challenge has been satisfied. If you don't recognize that, it's because you're the kind of person who will never concede anything and resort to name-calling and all sorts of other accusations instead.

[Poopadoop]

me: Prove Trump can speak intelligently about the issues.

banana: Here, look at him read words off a teleprompter.

me: that's not proof.

banana: zomfg what are you talking about?

lool

[BananaStand]

me: Prove Trump can speak intelligently about the issues.

banana: Here, look at him read words off a teleprompter.

me: that's not proof.

banana: zomfg what are you talking about?

lool

Major portions of the CPAC speech were off-prompter. Watch it. Oh wait....you can't be bothered. WTF is that about?? You issue a challenge, the challenge is answered, but for some reason you reserve the right to dismiss the answer with a chintzy excuse of "can't be bothered"

You claimed that what you did watch just sounded like rabble-rousing from the campaign.

Except that can't logically be true. Follow me here. That exact same crowd REJECTED his campaign rabble-rousing in 2016. Now, that exact same crowd is licking Trump's balls.

So he must be doing something different.

[CoccoBill]

So how the fuck can you say that I am unwilling to debate?????

I've already pointed out a few times that this recent conversation was not a debate about the issues, and certainly not about my personal opinions, but an observation about the people having differing opinions about them. This is a bit meta, I'll try to explain in more detail if it still wasn't clear.

[BananaStand]

newsweek:

TRUMP GOES 'OFF-SCRIPT' AT CPAC

NBC

Trump went off-script at CPAC.

Some other cuck-rag that came up in my google results

Trump dumps 'boring' script, goes extempore at 2018 CPAC to kick off campaign for midterms

Please look up the definition of "extempore"


Poop

There was a teleprompter in the room, doesn't count. Plus, it's too long and listening to conservatives make sense hurts my bleeding heart

To find a President speaking without a prompter in the room, or without a prepared speeech, or giving an interview without pre-prepared talking points, you'd probably have to go back to the Coolidge administration.

[BananaStand]

This is a bit meta, I'll try to explain in more detail if it still wasn't clear.

Don't bother.. I'm not really interested in your dodges.

Face it Bill. You're a bleeding heart liberal who hates Trump. You're only interested in information that supports your anti-Trump bias. You ignore objective facts and verifiable information to the contrary. You do so by citing some kind of fanatical agnosticism that you ironically believe makes you smart.

[CoccoBill]

Re: the Trump intelligence video, I initially asked you to provide proof, either in video, text or whatever medium, where his words demonstrate intelligence and a deep understanding of an issue. From any time in the history of the universe, on any topic. The only criteria was that it needs to be his words, not a written and rehearsed speech. We're still waiting for you to find a single intelligent sentence that he's ever uttered.

The point isn't whether you can find one or not, just the fact alone that it really seems to be a non-trivial task shows that he's not exactly spewing out wisdom. Why the hell should anyone automatically assume a person who speaks like a 4th grader and rarely ever utters anything intelligent that makes you go hmm, he actually does have a brain, and whose gaffes could already fill a library by themselves, is a super intelligent person? All you have going for that theory are that some angry white folks voted for him, he's continued his father's business legacy and he's headlined a reality TV show. For most people being intelligent means something more than being able to "acquire skills and knowledge".

Now please ignore the whole point here and start arguing how his gaffes would actually barely fill at most half a library, 2 of his voters actually were merely peeved, not angry and how I'm in your opinion leftist which would clearly nullify everything I say.

[Poopadoop]

Major portions of the CPAC speech were off-prompter. Watch it. Oh wait....you can't be bothered. WTF is that about?? You issue a challenge, the challenge is answered, but for some reason you reserve the right to dismiss the answer with a chintzy excuse of "can't be bothered"

You claimed that what you did watch just sounded like rabble-rousing from the campaign.

Except that can't logically be true. Follow me here. That exact same crowd REJECTED his campaign rabble-rousing in 2016. Now, that exact same crowd is licking Trump's balls.

So he must be doing something different.

My point is I shouldn't be required to watch a 45 minute video based on your claim that parts of it are both off-prompter and coherent. It's not my job to sift through your evidence to find proof for your case based on some vague claim of yours that 'it's in there somewhere'.

If you can post the video and indicate which two-minute segment meets the criteria I stated, I'll happily skip to that point.

[Poopadoop]

To find a President speaking without a prompter in the room, or without a prepared speeech, or giving an interview without pre-prepared talking points, you'd probably have to go back to the Coolidge administration.

It took me all of five minutes to find those half-dozen examples of Trump going off the prompter or without a prompter and babbling like an idiot. I can find another half-dozen in another five minutes, and so on ad nauseum until I exhaust the internet if you like, but I think I made my point.

[BananaStand]

Re: the Trump intelligence video, I initially asked you to provide proof, either in video, text or whatever medium, where his words demonstrate intelligence and a deep understanding of an issue. From any time in the history of the universe, on any topic. The only criteria was that it needs to be his words, not a written and rehearsed speech. We're still waiting for you to find a single intelligent sentence that he's ever uttered.

Do you really think that Trump's prepared speeches contain none of his ideas, none of his words, and are no reflection of his own understanding of an issue?? You think there's some wizard behind the curtain telling Trump what to think, do, and say?

The point isn't whether you can find one or not, just the fact alone that it really seems to be a non-trivial task shows that he's not exactly spewing out wisdom.

I did find one. It was 75 minutes long.

Why the hell should anyone automatically assume a person who speaks like a 4th grader and rarely ever utters anything intelligent that makes you go hmm, he actually does have a brain, and whose gaffes could already fill a library by themselves, is a super intelligent?

Loaded question. I disagree with the premise that he "rarely utters anything intelligent". So I don't even know what you're asking here.

All you have going for that theory are that some angry white folks voted for him,

Hmmm, why didn't those "angry white folks" vote for Jeb, or Marco, or Ted?

he's continued his father's business legacy

And grew it by a factor of 50. You keep forgetting that part, lol.

and he's headlined a reality TV show.

You think that's easy? When is your TV show on??

For most people being intelligent means something more than being able to "acquire skills and knowledge".

this is more of your "duh, everything" juvenile rhetoric. You can't possibly presume to know what "most people" think. Furthermore, that is the dictionary definition of intelligence. I'm still not sure why you get to pretend it's not.

Now please ignore the whole point here and start arguing how his gaffes would actually barely fill at most half a library, 2 of his voters actually were merely peeved, not angry and how I'm in your opinion leftist which would clearly nullify everything I say.

No thanks. I'd rather watch you continue this nonsense tantrum. Please, continue....

[BananaStand]

It took me all of five minutes to find those half-dozen examples of Trump going off the prompter or without a prompter and babbling like an idiot.

I only watched the first three, and your statement above does not describe those three videos. DP is just being an ass hole in the first one. The second was edited to remove context. And the third makes perfect sense. Im not even sure why you posted that one.

Again, I am submitting that third video, called "trumps 2 minute sentence" as my response to your challenge.

I also think the first one, with Trump talking about minimum wage, is fine.

[wufwugy]

This is the kind of video you're looking for.

[wufwugy]

Another short one

[wufwugy]

On Charlie Rose.




Watching these, it's striking the amount of gaslighting that has gone on since. He used to be adored, was considered one of the most brilliant businessmen of all time by nearly every "important" person (and casual). But like Floyd Mayweather said, that changed the moment he was branded politically, more specifically that changed the moment he went against the wishes of the media elite that try to control what people think about what they see and hear.

[BananaStand]

he went against the wishes of the media elite that try to control what people think about what they see and hear.

It's kinda funny how those media elites, and the people they control call themselves the "resistance" and label the other side "fascist"

[CoccoBill]

^^Those are much more convincing than anything I've seen him say in the past decades. So what do you think changed? That's not how he talks and acts these days.

Banana, if you had linked to those clips you might have a bit of a case. But clearly you hadn't seen them (or forgot about them) and used them as basis for your idea of him.

[BananaStand]

^^Those are much more convincing than anything I've seen him say in the past decades. So what do you think changed? That's not how he talks and acts these days.

He's angrier now. Believe me, I know how enraging it can be to have all the answers and watch the rest of the world fuck up. He's been boiling for 8 years under Obama.

I also don't really agree that he doesn't act the same way now. Other than being a little angrier, I think he does act pretty much how he's always acted. He's also fatter and has less hair, so when he strikes the same tone it can be perceived differently. When he was younger and better looking, he came off as more smooth. Now that he's older, he comes off as grumpy. Even though his statements and tone are generally the same.

Also the posture is WAAAY different. Look how he's sitting in the old vids. He's leaning back and appears very cool. He never sits like that anymore. He's generally more hunched over. 30 years at a desk job will do that to you.

Banana, if you had linked to those clips you might have a bit of a case.

A case for what??

But clearly you hadn't seen them (or forgot about them) and used them as basis for your idea of him

The most recent one is from 1992. Let's just say I didn't have my finger on the pulse of politics back then. The most heated debate in my life at the time was about which Ninja Turtle was the coolest.

[Poopadoop]

^^Those are much more convincing than anything I've seen him say in the past decades. So what do you think changed? That's not how he talks and acts these days.

Banana, if you had linked to those clips you might have a bit of a case. But clearly you hadn't seen them (or forgot about them) and used them as basis for your idea of him.

They're a good case that he WAS erudite at one time. Shit, I might even have an old video of me playing decent basketball 20 years ago. Doesn't mean I can do it today.

In fact I was aware such footage of Trump existed, which is why i added the stipulation 'since becoming president', as it's just as irrelevant to his fitness for office now to show he was erudite 20 years ago as it is irrelevant for my qualifications to play on a basketball team than I could play decently 20 years ago.

[Poopadoop]

He's angrier now. Believe me, I know how enraging it can be to have all the answers and watch the rest of the world fuck up. He's been boiling for 8 years under Obama.

I also don't really agree that he doesn't act the same way now. Other than being a little angrier, I think he does act pretty much how he's always acted. He's also fatter and has less hair, so when he strikes the same tone it can be perceived differently. When he was younger and better looking, he came off as more smooth. Now that he's older, he comes off as grumpy. Even though his statements and tone are generally the same.

Also the posture is WAAAY different. Look how he's sitting in the old vids. He's leaning back and appears very cool. He never sits like that anymore. He's generally more hunched over. 30 years at a desk job will do that to you.

The question wasn't 'has he gotten older?' it was 'can he speak in complete sentences now like he did then?'

[Poopadoop]

Oh, and before you link to a video of him reading a restaurant menu, I should add the usual caveat 'without assistance'

[BananaStand]

In fact I was aware such footage of Trump existed, which is why i added the stipulation 'since becoming president',

Goalpost moved

EDIT: How come the videos you posted were allowed to come from a time before he became president? Maybe you just misspoke, and really meant to say "since becoming a politician" or "since running for president". I could forgive that, but I've been told that such babbling incoherence is a sign of donkey-brain stupidity.

[BananaStand]

The question wasn't 'has he gotten older?' it was 'can he speak in complete sentences now like he did then?'

A whole new question?? That's not just moving the goalpost. That's relocating it to another town.

The answer though, is 'yes'

I cite the videos that you posted as evidence

[Poopadoop]

Goalpost moved

[Poopadoop]

One of the sad truths of aging is the cognitive decline that comes with it. The stark contrast between c. 1990 Trump and 2018 Trump is a textbook example.

[BananaStand]

my original argument was he is an incoherent idiot when it comes to policy matters.

[Poopadoop]

I said 'incoherent', but insane is not too far off either.

[BananaStand]

I'm only a third of the way through this, but Trump is crushing it here. No teleprompter. But it's from before he became president, so I guess I fail again.

https://youtu.be/HTo7MHDhh18

I'm 100% positive Poopadoop is gonna call this 'incoherent' and admittedly, parts of it are a little sketchy. But I can't see how you could walk away from this not knowing what his policy ideas are.

[wufwugy]

I can't find it again, but I read a fantastic article a while back describing how his speaking pattern signals the opposite of cognitive decline and instead shows greater comfort in his natural mode of speaking.

Anyways, people are going to see what they want to see on this.

[wufwugy]

He has strong results in other intellectually challenging areas, he is well known for branding and sales (and his behavior can be explained by established practices therein), and for the last 40 years every top level Republican has been heavily attacked on intelligence grounds. Given the great lack of direct information about his intelligence, these factors can be helpful.

[BananaStand]

Given the great lack of direct information about his intelligence, these factors can be helpful.

Nope, we won't know for sure until he croaks and we can weigh his brain

[Poopadoop]

I'm only a third of the way through this, but Trump is crushing it here. No teleprompter. But it's from before he became president, so I guess I fail again.

https://youtu.be/HTo7MHDhh18

I'm 100% positive Poopadoop is gonna call this 'incoherent' and admittedly, parts of it are a little sketchy. But I can't see how you could walk away from this not knowing what his policy ideas are.

The irony is at the time, most people commented that he seemed incoherent in those debates. And yet you want to use a heavily edited version cut into dozens of sound bites to argue that he was coherent.

[Poopadoop]

Ignoring the fact that he starts out by plainly lying about initially supporting the war in Iraq, he then goes on a rambling incoherent monologue.



Also, that smug Hillary face almost makes me want to vote for Trump.

[Poopadoop]

I can't find it again, but I read a fantastic article a while back describing how his speaking pattern signals the opposite of cognitive decline

This is the exact opposite of what any expert in cognitive aging would argue.

[OngBonga]

Here we go again with semantics.

What does "incoherent" mean to you poop? I'm reading a trascript of his interview with WSJ, and his language comes across as "logical and consistent".

Babbling? Maybe, but I can follow him, I understand what he's trying to say. Logical? The words make sentences. Consistent? He's not contradicting himself.

You've got it in you head that he's "incoherent" but you're wrong. What you mean is he uses dumbed down language.