The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

"Plain speaking" means telling the truth and telling it bluntly.

Neither of which describe Trump's speaking style.

Some "plain speaking" from yesterday.  If a Democrat spoke to an audience of Jewish Americans as if they were Israeli and not American, the GOP would be having a cow.

The American Jewish Committee criticized President Donald Trump for referring to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "your prime minister" in a keynote speech at the conference of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) earlier on Saturday.

"Mr. President, the Prime Minister of Israel is the leader of his (or her) country, not ours," AJC tweeted. "Statements to the contrary, from staunch friends or harsh critics, feed bigotry."

Link: https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/AJC-criticizes-Trump-for-referring-to-Netanyahu-as-Your-prime-minister-585979

mtierney said:

 I do not recall ever having to “excuse” myself on this thread. 

 The difference between "having" to and "needing" to.

nohero said:
"Plain speaking" means telling the truth and telling it bluntly.
Neither of which describe Trump's speaking style.

 Plain speaking as opposed to just plain lying. Who is going to pay for that wall?

nohero, I believe speaking plainly does not necessarily translate to relating “truth”. Citizens listening may hear a different message, attuned to their own belief and understanding. But, plain speakers communicate an unpolished image sadly lacking in Washington. Voters demonstrated their mistrust of  old guard politicking  in 2016. 

If "plain speaking" equates to "saying whatever comes into your mind" without first checking accuracy or considering consequences, then please give me something more "polished."  Chatting among friends or advisors, as a way to arrive at a better understanding, is one thing.  Blurting out whatever when the whole world is your audience, is no favor to the people of this country or the world.

That people seem to simply expect that everyone will lie (or, kindly, be inaccurate) seems to me to be a recipe for social collapse.  (and why is "truth" in quotes above?  it appears to be blowing off the whole concept of an attainable truth/accuracy - seriously, what was the actual intent there?)

(stop me before i get started on Reagan, imo a much more intentional, and possibly even more harmful figure)

mtierney said:
nohero, I believe speaking plainly does not necessarily translate to relating “truth”. Citizens listening may hear a different message, attuned to their own belief and understanding. But, plain speakers communicate an unpolished image sadly lacking in Washington. Voters demonstrated their mistrust of  old guard politicking  in 2016. 

 With all due respect, I disagree.  What you call "plain speaking", if it isn't connected with truth, is just bullsh*t.  Pardon my language, but sometimes it's necessary to drive home the point.

Can’t get any plainer than “Sheldon Adelson like essogyn... That’s the 

kiddaofguyheeedev.”

https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1114668728992636928?s=21

it definitely can't be described as "plain speaking" if half the time Trump says something and our collective reaction is "WTF??!!"

nohero said:
 With all due respect, I disagree.  What you call "plain speaking", if it isn't connected with truth, is just bullsh*t.  Pardon my language, but sometimes it's necessary to drive home the point.

 I have never felt the need to misspell curses to get a point across in written communications.

F2F— that is another story  

mtierney said:

nohero said:
 With all due respect, I disagree.  What you call "plain speaking", if it isn't connected with truth, is just bullsh*t.  Pardon my language, but sometimes it's necessary to drive home the point.

 I have never felt the need to misspell curses to get a point across in written communications.
F2F— that is another story  

I had tried to make that same point earlier, but from your response it was clear you didn't get it the first time.  

mtierney said:
nohero, I believe speaking plainly does not necessarily translate to relating “truth”. Citizens listening may hear a different message, attuned to their own belief and understanding. But, plain speakers communicate an unpolished image sadly lacking in Washington. Voters demonstrated their mistrust of  old guard politicking  in 2016. 

 there ya go.

I'm out.

mtierney said:
Both Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan were, in my recall, plain speakers. Both spoke directly to the people.

drummerboy said:
 plain speaking huh?
Do you know how many times in this thread you've had to excuse yourself from attempting to understand what this "plain speaking" person meant? Do you know what "plain speaking" even means anymore? 

 I do not recall ever having to “excuse” myself on this thread. 

 Call it what you will, but you frequently throw up your hands in trying to explain some particular line of egregious Trumpian B.S., and just toss it off as "that's the way he talks".

But then, I'm asking you to do some introspection. Silly me.

mtierney said:
 I have never felt the need to misspell curses to get a point across in written communications.
F2F— that is another story  

I'm puzzled why you get so upset at vulgar language used by people on this board, but you laud the president's "plain speaking", which is typically full of profanities.

and then there was this:

The 67 most stunning lines from Donald Trump's epic 2-hour CPAC speech

This is how far the country has now gone in normalizing the abnormal.  In another era, if the president discarded his prepared remarks and went on an incoherent rant for over 2 hours, we'd be having a discussion about his mental stability.  There would be talk of invoking the 25th Amendment.  But this lunacy is just another Saturday with Trump.

ml1 said:

I'm puzzled why you get so upset at vulgar language used by people on this board, but you laud the president's "plain speaking", which is typically full of profanities.

Mtierney’s practice of heedless inconsistency puzzles you?

DaveSchmidt said:
Mtierney’s practice of heedless inconsistency puzzles you?

Come to think of it, I guess it really doesn't.

drummerboy said:
 there ya go.
I'm out.

 ...for three minutes.  lol

DaveSchmidt said:
Mtierney’s practice of heedless inconsistency puzzles you?

 My not liking cuss words to express feelings or beliefs is my view. My adult children would confirm that potty mouth language was not acceptable while they were growing up and —to this day — they do not use that language in my hearing - or would THEY have while my husband was alive.

How POTUS uses profanity in his personal environment is not my concern. My reference to his plain speaking was directed at his saying what he thinks bluntly, and  without concern to political fallout.

Next time Speaker Pelosi speaks, I defy you to truly comprehend her musings, disjointed comments, and facial and hand gestures. I believe she  has refined plausible deniability to a fine art. A complete opposite of plain speaking.

mtierney said:
 How POTUS uses profanity in his personal environment is not my concern. 

it's not his personal environment.  His public speeches are chock full of profanities that we can't even write on MOL.

oy, let the cognitive dissonance begin

mtierney said:

Next time Speaker Pelosi speaks, I defy you to truly comprehend her musings, disjointed comments, and facial and hand gestures. I believe she  has refined plausible deniability to a fine art. A complete opposite of plain speaking.

 you may not consider Pelosi to be "plain speaking", but at least she's coherent.  Here's the president in a typical example of what you call "plain speaking":

Now, here’s what I don’t understand: I’ve had a lot of people — Lindsey Graham. I said, Lindsey — it’s not his thing necessarily. It’s not the thing that he’s most adept at. But he’s adept and he’s smart. I said, “Lindsey, if they charge us a hundred, I’d like a reci-…” If they charge us, we charge them. He goes, “That makes sense to me.” (Laughter.) And then he gets on to judiciary and things that, frankly, he likes and finds very interesting. But he’s a smart guy, and he said — I’ll never forget. It took me about a minute, which is a long time. I did a bad description. It’s so easy. They charge 100; we charge nothing. Now we have reciprocal, so it’s 100.  
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-2019-conservative-political-action-conference/

Trump cancelled the MLB deal with Cuba.

A deal negotiated by the Obama administration.

Need I say more?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-cancels-mlb-deal-with-cuba/2019/04/08/99c7d9be-5a2f-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html

How can we expect countries to seriously negotiate agreements with us when we cancel whenever we feel like it? We'll end up being labeled as the world's Farengi.

BG9 said:

How can we expect countries to seriously negotiate agreements with us when we cancel whenever we feel like it? We'll end up being labeled as the world's Farengi.

 Trump has short fingers AND small lobes.

mtierney said:

 My not liking cuss words to express feelings or beliefs is my view. 

 Your beliefs are, in and of themselves, obscene.  There is no need for further vulgarity on your part.

mtierney said:

How POTUS uses profanity in his personal environment is not my concern. My reference to his plain speaking was directed at his saying what he thinks bluntly, and  without concern to political fallout.

 "Grab em in the pussy" for example. If the POTUS wants to grab your vagina, he's going to do it, regardless of the political fallout (which, to be fair, in your party, will be nil).

Broken record

lord_pabulum said:
Broken record

 Right.  Complaining about the President grabbing women's vaginas is SOOOOOOO 2017.  Just for context though, I did post that comment on a thread about Benghazi.  And, while we're at it, what about her emails.....

On the subject of a party that is ok with their President bragging about sexual assault, it seems to be a thing these days that, whenever someone brings up crimes or outrages that Twitler committed before the 2016 election, his spokespeople tell us that the issue was "litigated in the election". In essence, the President grabbed them in the pussy but he won the election so it doesn't matter.

It seems to me that this a spot where HRC's overwhelming victory in the popular vote comes into play.   While Twitler may have eeked out a victory in the Electoral College by a couple thousand votes, the American people, by a margin of millions, CLEARLY showed that they did not approve of Trump. If these issues were really "litigated" by the election, why hasn't Twitler honored the results of that referendum and resigned? 

BG9 said:
Trump cancelled the MLB deal with Cuba.
A deal negotiated by the Obama administration.
Need I say more?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-cancels-mlb-deal-with-cuba/2019/04/08/99c7d9be-5a2f-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html
How can we expect countries to seriously negotiate agreements with us when we cancel whenever we feel like it? We'll end up being labeled as the world's Farengi.

what an idiotic move.  Their justification is that the deal is "human trafficking."  Not many people are going to feel sorry for athletes when there is so much worse oppression all over the world, but it's a shame that these players won't get to compete against the best in the world.  Although I suppose there's the possibility of Trump walking this back after he gets a call from Hal Steinbrenner.

public service announcement for my Democratic colleagues...  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/08/upshot/democratic-electorate-twitter-real-life.html