US Elections: CTRL ALT-RIGHT DELETE

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

So, color me surprised that I'd ever be saying this, but I happened to read Ann Coulter's most recent column about how Donald Trump did not actually make fun of reporter Serge Kovaleski's disability when he did his weird arm-flaily thing, and after I went and read the "debunking" of this story by Catholics 4 Trump ... I actually think she's correct, and convincingly so. The Catholics 4 Trump link is better than Coulter's, in that it provides embedded video to back up the claims, but the crux of the argument is that we have video of Trump making fun of Tred Cruz and a military General in the exact same way, with the same arm-flailing motion, and this just appears to be how Trump was making fun of people being flustered by having to answer a question they didn't like or anticipate. 

An additional part of her thesis is that the media put this story forward knowing that it wasn't true, based on some other evidence including the fact that Trump made fun of the General in basically the exact same way in the same speech he made fun of Kovaleski, and nobody bothered to report it. And on top of that, the media's use of still-photos of Trump and Kovaleski to create a comparison deliberately fostered the impression that Kovaleski experiences spastic movements (what Trump appeared to be mocking) when in fact he does not. Coulter also makes the claim, unverified of course, that an otherwise respectful comment made to a Washington Post story debunking their claim by linking to the Catholics 4 Trump site was deleted. As to that - who knows? But I actually find the other arguments to be fairly compelling. 

 

[Fez]

10 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Not impossible, sure, but at this point he'd need to keep every state leaning his way (Utah & Arizona), win every tossup state (Florida, Ohio, Georgia, NC, Iowa, & Nevada), and then make headway into at least one of Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, PA, Virginia, or New Hampshire.  All this while basically battling the Obama ground game that will focus on mainly those states.

This wouldn't be impossible with a normal campaign that was able to stay on message, ramped up a good ground game in every one of the above states, performed well in every debate, and had the full support of the party.  It would be hard and an unheard of comeback, but not impossible.  Can The Donald do organize something like that over the next couple of months?  I highly, highly doubt it.

The ground game point is key, and is one of the primary reasons Clinton is still in pretty good shape. But the states generally move in unison, and if Clinton bleeds much more support to Johnson and Stein, Trump will start overtaking her in most of those tossup states. The fact that CO and VA seem safely in Clinton's column, even safer than PA, is enormously helpful; but not quite enough.

The two polls of Wisconsin yesterday showed Clinton with either a +3 or +5 lead, which is still nice, but way down from where she was a few weeks ago.

[SkynJay]

13 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

So, color me surprised that I'd ever be saying this, but I happened to read Ann Coulter's most recent column about how Donald Trump did not actually make fun of reporter Serge Kovaleski's disability when he did his weird arm-flaily thing, and after I went and read the "debunking" of this story by Catholics 4 Trump ... I actually think she's correct, and convincingly so. The Catholics 4 Trump link is better than Coulter's, in that it provides embedded video to back up the claims, but the crux of the argument is that we have video of Trump making fun of Tred Cruz and a military General in the exact same way, with the same arm-flailing motion, and this just appears to be how Trump was making fun of people being flustered by having to answer a question they didn't like or anticipate. 

An additional part of her thesis is that the media put this story forward knowing that it wasn't true, based on some other evidence including the fact that Trump made fun of the General in basically the exact same way in the same speech he made fun of Kovaleski, and nobody bothered to report it. And on top of that, the media's use of still-photos of Trump and Kovaleski to create a comparison deliberately fostered the impression that Kovaleski experiences spastic movements (what Trump appeared to be mocking) when in fact he does not. Coulter also makes the claim, unverified of course, that an otherwise respectful comment made to a Washington Post story debunking their claim by linking to the Catholics 4 Trump site was deleted. As to that - who knows? But I actually find the other arguments to be fairly compelling. 

 

I'm willing to accept parts of the argument that he was not specifically mocking one reporters actions.  And then still not excusing it for one second.  

For one, his arm flailing combined with the way he spoke while flailing them closely mimics every non-PC way of calling something 'retarded" that children on playgrounds have been doing great for years.  So if instead of singling out one reporter he instead invokes an image of his opponents being retarded (and thus mocking all mentally disabled people) to make his points I'm not sure how it's better.

Second, the cover story he put out after doesn't fit.  He claimed he didn't know the reporter after; a quickly disproven excuse.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

So, color me surprised that I'd ever be saying this, but I happened to read Ann Coulter's most recent column about how Donald Trump did not actually make fun of reporter Serge Kovaleski's disability when he did his weird arm-flaily thing, and after I went and read the "debunking" of this story by Catholics 4 Trump ... I actually think she's correct, and convincingly so. The Catholics 4 Trump link is better than Coulter's, in that it provides embedded video to back up the claims, but the crux of the argument is that we have video of Trump making fun of Tred Cruz and a military General in the exact same way, with the same arm-flailing motion, and this just appears to be how Trump was making fun of people being flustered by having to answer a question they didn't like or anticipate. 

An additional part of her thesis is that the media put this story forward knowing that it wasn't true, based on some other evidence including the fact that Trump made fun of the General in basically the exact same way in the same speech he made fun of Kovaleski, and nobody bothered to report it. And on top of that, the media's use of still-photos of Trump and Kovaleski to create a comparison deliberately fostered the impression that Kovaleski experiences spastic movements (what Trump appeared to be mocking) when in fact he does not. Coulter also makes the claim, unverified of course, that an otherwise respectful comment made to a Washington Post story debunking their claim by linking to the Catholics 4 Trump site was deleted. As to that - who knows? But I actually find the other arguments to be fairly compelling. 

 

Yeah no. I found that to be one of the least convincing arguments I've ever read, and it's completely meaningless because last night Coulter gave a long interview in which she gleefully and repeatedly disparaged people with disabilities.

Also, the way he mocks the reporter and the way he mocks the general are very different. Watch the video again dude. 

You're a lot better than this Nestor...........

 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

6 minutes ago, SkynJay said:

I'm willing to accept parts of the argument that he was not specifically mocking one reporters actions.  And then still not excusing it for one second.  

For one, his arm flailing combined with the way he spoke while flailing them closely mimics every non-PC way of calling something 'retarded" that children on playgrounds have been doing great for years.  So if instead of singling out one reporter he instead invokes an image of his opponents being retarded (and thus mocking all mentally disabled people) to make his points I'm not sure how it's better.

Second, the cover story he put out after doesn't fit.  He claimed he didn't know the reporter after; a quickly disproven excuse.

To be clear, I'm not defending Donald Trump. I agree that imitating a "standard retard" - as Coulter said in his defense, although not this most recent column - is not a good defense at all (to put it mildly, as her own characterization is pretty offensive), nor true (I'm not really convinced that was Trump's intent to put out a portrayal that mocked people with disabilities when he made fun of Cruz, the General or the reporter. As an exaggerated caricature of someone flustered, it works, kind of). 

I also don't think this is any kind of meaningful rehabilitation of Trump as a candidate. I'm already on record here as stating that I am voting, unequivocally, for Clinton, and that I think Trump is a uniquely dangerous candidate. That he apparently did not actually mock a reporter's disabilities is kind of something I just assume any candidate I would vote for would not have done. So this is not actually a plus mark in his column or me. 

But the story here, I think, is that the media reported on this story in an incredibly disingenuous (at worst) and sloppy (at best) fashion, and for that, I think there deserves to be meaningful inquiry and criticism. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah no. I found that to be one of the least convincing arguments I've ever read, and it's completely meaningless because last night Coulter gave a long interview in which she gleefully and repeatedly disparaged people with disabilities.

Also, the way he mocks the reporter and the way he mocks the general are very different. Watch the video again dude. 

You're a lot better than this Nestor...........
 

The fact that Ann Coulter thinks it's acceptable to mock people with disabilities has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether Donald Trump was actually making fun of the disabilities of the reporter is was making fun of. I'm absolutely baffled at why you would think otherwise. It's clear to me that if Donald Trump WAS making fun of his disabilities, that Ann Coulter probably would not have had an issue with it. But the question is not whether Ann Coulter would have been okay with that - the question is whether Trump actually did was he was accused of doing.

And I think that all of the evidence, in context, which includes not just the video of the General (which, by the way, I disagree was "very different" than the way he spoke about the reporter - certainly much shorter), and Ted Cruz (which is virtually the same as to how he imitated the reporter), and the fact that the reporter's disability does not actually involve spastic movements, suggests that he was not. I make this determination by a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, based just on which I think is more likely. Based on all of the evidence, I think it's more likely than not he wasn't taking a shot at the reporter's physical disability. I don't think you can conclusively rule it out, but if I had to give odds, I'm convinced 60/40 against it. 

[BloodRider]

Just now, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

The fact that Ann Coulter thinks it's acceptable to mock people with disabilities has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether Donald Trump was actually making fun of the disabilities of the reporter is was making fun of. I'm absolutely baffled at why you would think otherwise. It's clear to me that if Donald Trump WAS making fun of his disabilities, that Ann Coulter probably would not have had an issue with it. But the question is not whether Ann Coulter would have been okay with that - the question is whether Trump actually did was he was accused of doing.

And I think that all of the evidence, in context, which includes not just the video of the General (which, by the way, I disagree was "very different" than the way he spoke about the reporter - certainly much shorter), and Ted Cruz (which is virtually the same as to how he imitated the reporter), and the fact that the reporter's disability does not actually involve spastic movements, suggests that he was not. I make this determination by a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, based just on which I think is more likely. Based on all of the evidence, I think it's more likely than not he wasn't taking a shot at the reporter's physical disability. I don't think you can conclusively rule it out, but if I had to give odds, I'm convinced 60/40 against it. 

WAT.

So because Donald Trump did not effectively mimic the nuances of a person's disability he was therefore not mocking that particular person when he pantomimed spastic movements and make noises associated with being mentally disabled?  

'Cmon.  

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Just now, BloodRider said:

WAT.

So because Donald Trump did not effectively mimic the nuances of a person's disability he was therefore not mocking that particular person when he pantomimed spastic movements and make noises associated with being mentally disabled?  

'Cmon.  

I sometimes get a little tired of the game of taking an entire post where an argument is being laid out, and then cherry-picking a single piece of that argument and then pretending as if somehow coming to a different conclusion on that one piece of the evidence is definitive proof that the entire argument is wrong. 

I can only lay out the chain of inference as simply and succinctly as possible:

- The fact that Donald Trump imitated two non-disabled people in the same or similar way makes it less likely that he was specifically referencing the disability of the third person when he did his imitation.

- All three of the imitations took place within the context of the imitated parties being asked questions to which they did not have ready or easy answers (at least as alleged by Trump), making them flustered. 

- The fact that the imitation Trump did actually does not bear a meaningful resemblance to the physical disability of the person being imitated also makes it less likely that he was referencing their disability. 

When you take these pieces of data and read them all together, I think it strongly suggests that Trump was not referencing the reporter's disability in his imitation of the reporter being flustered in response to hypothetical questions he was being posed. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

The fact that Ann Coulter thinks it's acceptable to mock people with disabilities has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether Donald Trump was actually making fun of the disabilities of the reporter is was making fun of. I'm absolutely baffled at why you would think otherwise. It's clear to me that if Donald Trump WAS making fun of his disabilities, that Ann Coulter probably would not have had an issue with it. But the question is not whether Ann Coulter would have been okay with that - the question is whether Trump actually did was he was accused of doing.

Then what are you even arguing? Because you literally just wrote:

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

So, color me surprised that I'd ever be saying this, but I happened to read Ann Coulter's most recent column about how Donald Trump did not actually make fun of reporter Serge Kovaleski's disability when he did his weird arm-flaily thing, and after I went and read the "debunking" of this story by Catholics 4 Trump ... I actually think she's correct, and convincingly so.

 

You're not making any sense here dude.

Also, go watch the video again. His arm movements when he was mocking the general are entirely different. 

 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Then what are you even arguing? Because you literally just wrote:

You're not making any sense here dude.

The two posts that you quoted are not contradictory at all. 

Here are two statements that can both be true at the same time (in fact, I think they are): 

1. If Donald Trump actually made fun of Serge Kovaleski's disability, Ann Coulter would not have cared. 

2. Donald Trump did not actually make fun of Serge Kovaleski's disability. 

Quote 1 + Quote 2. They aren't contradictory. 

 

[sologdin]

guys, trump's a quantum singularity of cocked up.  whether he mocks the disabilities of disabled persons vel non does not escape his event horizon.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

guys, trump's a quantum singularity of cocked up.  whether he mocks the disabilities of disabled persons vel non does not escape his event horizon.

Well, I don't actually disagree with this. I have stated my position pretty explicitly - this doesn't impact my decision to vote for Hillary and vehemently oppose Trump.

But what I find suspect is people who use this rationale to deflect away from examining the actual issue. It matters, and it's important to know, whether the accusations that have been leveled against Trump by the media are actually true or if they are not true. It's important because it's important to have accurate and true information being promulgated by our candidates for president. It's important because it's important to understand whether the "mainstream" media is accurately and fairly representing information about our candidates for president. If Trump is being accused unfairly, the record should be corrected to incorporate all of the exculpatory evidence, and if the media is not providing that exculpatory evidence, it's not doing its job and deserves to be called out and criticized. 

I'm concerned that some, like Tywin, consider my entire line of argument as suspect from the word go because it's perceived as a bad-faith "defense" of Trump. This suggests to me, problematically, that there's such a level of group-think about these issues that these conversations are more about signaling to other in-group members about where you stand than, you know, an attempt to get at the truth of things. And I find that to be a terribly dangerous thing. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

The two posts that you quoted are not contradictory at all. 

Here are two statements that can both be true at the same time (in fact, I think they are): 

1. If Donald Trump actually made fun of Serge Kovaleski's disability, Ann Coulter would not have cared. 

2. Donald Trump did not actually make fun of Serge Kovaleski's disability. 

Quote 1 + Quote 2. They aren't contradictory. 

 

I misread what you wrote, so that's on me. 

That said, the entire argument is totally BS, and I can't believe you're buying the snake oil. It all rests on the notion that in the same speech, Trump also mocked a general, albeit in a different way, and at a later date mocked Cruz in a similar way, That's not exactly the strongest argument. And regardless, if you make fun of a disabled person in a way that is clearly mocking their disability, and then argue, "but I also make fun on non-disabled people in the same way," it doesn't change the fact that you mocked someone for their disability. This isn't a case about media bias, it's about trying to find a way to justify what Trump did and grasping at anything you think can muddy the waters. 

[sologdin]

14 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

it's important to understand whether the "mainstream" media is accurately and fairly representing information about our candidates for president. If Trump is being accused unfairly, the record should be corrected to incorporate all of the exculpatory evidence, and if the media is not providing that exculpatory evidence, it's not doing its job and deserves to be called out and criticized. 

I'm concerned that some, like Tywin, consider my entire line of argument as suspect from the word go because it's perceived as a bad-faith "defense" of Trump. This suggests to me, problematically, that there's such a level of group-think about these issues that these conversations are more about signaling to other in-group members about where you stand than, you know, an attempt to get at the truth of things. And I find that to be a terribly dangerous thing. 

yeah, i wasn't subjecting your position to discipline. are we agreed that bourgeois journalism is reasonably described by chomsky in manufacturing consent--reliable within an extremely narrow range of political possibility and inherently unreliable outside of that blinkered scope? it shall not be surprising, if so, that the press relies on a degree of ideologically directed apousia.

you knew of course that endorsing coulter's argument here was a molotov cocktail thrown into the thread? nothing wrong with that at all, if you're attempting to uncover the process at issue in your last paragraph.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

50 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I'm concerned that some, like Tywin, consider my entire line of argument as suspect from the word go because it's perceived as a bad-faith "defense" of Trump. This suggests to me, problematically, that there's such a level of group-think about these issues that these conversations are more about signaling to other in-group members about where you stand than, you know, an attempt to get at the truth of things. And I find that to be a terribly dangerous thing. 

This isn't an issue of group think, and I didn't think the argument was suspect from the get-go. It's just a bad argument. 

[TrackerNeil]

When one is trying to make distinctions about just how a presidential candidate is mocking people, you've got nothing much to say.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

If he mocked a black guy with stereotypical shucking and jiving, and his defense was that he also mocked some white people with stereotypical shucking and jiving (for whatever reason), would that fly?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I misread what you wrote, so that's on me. 

That said, the entire argument is totally BS, and I can't believe you're buying the snake oil. It all rests on the notion that in the same speech, Trump also mocked a general, albeit in a different way, and at a later date mocked Cruz in a similar way, That's not exactly the strongest argument. And regardless, if you make fun of a disabled person in a way that is clearly mocking their disability, and then argue, "but I also make fun on non-disabled people in the same way," it doesn't change the fact that you mocked someone for their disability. This isn't a case about media bias, it's about trying to find a way to justify what Trump did and grasping at anything you think can muddy the waters. 

If you start with the premise here, as you are doing, that Trump was "clearly mocking" the reporter's disability, and then look at the evidence that he was not as some kind of devious attempt to justify his behavior after the fact, then you're just begging the question. You're merely interpreting all of the evidence in light of the conclusion that you've already reached. In light of the evidence that's actually being presented, it's far, far from "clear" that Trump was actually mocking the reporter's disability, as his impression could also quite plausibly be that of a person who is flustered by an unexpected question that they cannot easily answer - which is consistent with all three of his imitations. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

11 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

If he mocked a black guy with stereotypical shucking and jiving, and his defense was that he also mocked some white people with stereotypical shucking and jiving (for whatever reason), would that fly?

Again, this is question-begging, in that your example presupposes the conclusion. 

It might be the case that Trump's impression of someone who is flustered bears an uncomfortable resemblance to making fun of someone with a spastic condition. We're dealing with what is clearly a set of ambiguous physical displays. As an expression of being flustered, all Trump's doing is presenting a visual, physical manifestation of what it means to be flustered - ie: a physical manifestation of someone flailing around for a response. That's a pretty common understanding of how people visualize and physically dramatize emotional states. 

But of course, there's a huge difference between engaging in the intentional and deliberate mockery of someone's physical disability with engaging in a pantomine that inadvertently bears a resemblance to the former. The former is a pretty egregious faux pas, the latter much less so. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Yeah, I'm not buying it. That goes so far beyond faux pas, I can't believe you're defending it.

 http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/02578/comp_trump_2578529a.jpg