Donald Trump... Narcissist in Chief!

this is a good example of why i brought up the issue of trump mocking the reporter's disability as being questionable. if you read your article is says "they would be fired if they voted for Obama", it does not state they were actually fired as you claim. you may see this as a minor discrepancy amidst all the other evidence, but it is the same type of discrepancy wrt the claimed mocking.

being accurate with what happened and believing what you think happened are not always the same thing.

the reason i bring it up is that being inaccurate and making false claims delegitimizes the truth as to why trump should never even have been allowed to be nominee for the republican party, never mind win the presidency. every misrepresentation of the truth, no matter how small, becomes an excuse for hte "other team" to point and say hey they're lieing, they're no good! it leads to the type finger pointing and disdain we've seen over the past few pages.

if there is no respect for evidence, no matter how unpalatable the alternative may be, then we may as well just fabricate everything.

You and I see the mocking incident differently. I don't know why that is so hard for you to comprehend. This is the third time I've said this, hopefully it sinks in this time: If we can't agree on the basic premise of each other's arguments, which we don't, move on. I think I've clearly stated my reasoning, so have you. We've reached different conclusions. Let it go.

https://courthousenews.com/man-says-boss-carried-out-threatto-fire-him-for-voting-for-obama/

Sorry, my link didn't contain the information on the specific civil case I was talking about. Since intent in wrongful firing cases is very difficult to prove, I realize it's in no way conclusive. So I'll edit my initial post and remove that specific claim.

We have a new type of rule now. Not one-man rule, or rule of aristocracy or plutocracy, but of small groups elevated to positions of absolute power by random pressures, and subject to political and economic factors that leave little room for decision. They are representatives of abstract forces who have reached power through surrender of self. The iron-willed dictator is a thing of the past. There will be no more Stalins, no more Hitlers. The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident, inept, frightened pilots at the controls of a vast machine they cannot understand, calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push.

.

Two (now three) short clips of Trump using similar gestures is not enough evidence to convince me he wasn't mocking the reporters disability. Given Trump's long track record of attacking and mocking his critic's appearance, it's more probable that he WAS mocking the reporter's disability than not in my view. As I said to you months ago, I'm not as willing to dismiss deplorable behavior as easily as you apparently are.

Since posting an unflattering picture of someone is neither intimidating nor threatening, using those words in your example is just a pretty blatant attempt to 'load the question', I've removed them. So, what would I call that behavior? Mocking.

Also, in my view the 'media' did not set out to mock Trump. So your example is further flawed, it's also painfully oversimplified. In my view, the media's initial intention wasn't to mock Trump, it was to report the news. Trump looked at his chin in the pictures that they were posting and decided that they were unflattering. He then lashed out at the media on twitter and at rallies and threatened the media with repercussions if they continued to post 'unflattering' images of him. In response, and in defiance after being threatened, some members of the media continued to use 'unflattering' images of Trump. IMO hilarity ensued.

As I said though, I don't think posting images of someone is bullying and IMO your scenario should actually read:

person a does something that person b's find 'offensive'
person b objects to such behavior, and lashes out publicly and subsequently threatens person a
person a, partly in an act of defiance, continues to repeat, and increases frequency of behavior that person b finds offensive.

As I said earlier, I understand where your coming from. I don't agree with you. I think the term bullying is overused and I certainly don't think it applies when a public figure, who many would say ACTUALLY fits the 'classic definition of a bully' in regards to his treatment of the media, doesn't like the way that they're being portrayed in the media and lashes out with threats. Bullying in my mind, and in definition, implies that one of the parties is in a position of weakness, or helplessness. That is not the case here IMO. One of them is now arguably the most powerful figure in the free world. If we can't agree that this isn't an example of bullying, there's nothing left to say.

there's too much focus on the term bullying here. the suggestion was that it is somewhat disingenuous for the media to criticize trump for one thing he's done and then treat him in the same manner. i've watched lots of satire, parody and comedy on trump and other politicians and laughed because it was presented in a context of humour. there was a brilliant one this afternoon of phone calls between trump and obama, if you haven't seen go watch it as it is definitely good for a few laughs. however, media organizations using unflattering, mocking or whatever label you want to use type of pictures to shamee/mock or attempt to shame/mock someone is not something they should be doing imo.

You and I see the mocking incident differently. I don't know why that is so hard for you to comprehend. This is the third time I've said this, hopefully it sinks in this time: If we can't agree on the basic premise of each other's arguments, which we don't, move on. I think I've clearly stated my reasoning, so have you. We've reached different conclusions. Let it go.

yes, i understand that we see the alleged mocking incident differently and i can comprehend that quite well and it does not need to sink in. the argument in this particular case is whether trump mocked the reporter's disability. i've at least provided or pointed to evidence that trump has exhibited those same mannerisms in the past when talking about people other than the reporter in question. the one video, from 2005, well before he was on the campaign trail, was mocking himself.

the bigger point i'm getting at is the way these things are taking place. many people have a strong bias against trump which is understandable, but that bias is colouring the way they are looking at some of these issues and negatively affecting the way in which they are talking about them and imo i don't see that as understandable or ok. your response here and in a previous post illustrates that.

https://courthousenews.com/man-says-boss-carried-out-threatto-fire-him-for-voting-for-obama/

Sorry, my link didn't contain the information on the specific civil case I was talking about. Since intent in wrongful firing cases is very difficult to prove, I realize it's in no way conclusive. So I'll edit my initial post and remove that specific claim.

cool!

The World Accordion to Trump. Not mocking, just playing "air concertina".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSsYyEXnUe8
Oh yeah, don't call it an accordion. We hate that.

What’s the Difference Between Concertinas and Accordions?

seen any of these? omg funny as shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIvZPFOmPhw

LOL - those are great Syncro

LOL - those are great Syncro

there's a few that are just meh, but some of them are comedic gold - Melania want's to say hi…

there's a few that are just meh, but some of them are comedic gold - Melania want's to say hi…

Hello daa-ling…

seen any of these? omg funny as shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIvZPFOmPhw

:lol:

Some pretty funny lines in that. Thanks.

Sad that violence is marring a peaceful protest. It undermines any message that would otherwise be sent.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-inauguration-president-1.3944347

google "paid protesters"

google "paid protesters"

There are no paid protestors

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/18/tucker-carlsons-surprising-much-needed-takedown-of-a-paid-protester-hoax/?utm_term=.c83749b1ba3d

As a side note, I really hope NOT that Marine Le Pen is becoming France's First Lady. That would probably be welcome by Trump, but would be one more catastrophe.
Guess, wait and see.

Donald Trump is really the new President of the United States. I am still amazed.

You're right, it took them a day or so before they started beating minorities, jumping people wearing Obama shirt shouting 'Ngger president' and 'Fck Obama', hanging effigies from trees and burning a predominantly black church.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2009/racist-backlash-greets-president-barack-obama

:lol: done stretching? Solid 'data', make sources great again. Here you're the one sending me messages about being 'smart'.

Anyways, I'm looking forward to the next 4 years. Fear mongering aside, I think that carrot is gonna kick the establishment in the butt before someone puts his sites on him.

And so it begins…