Even with audio proof trump denies "Nasty" remark

[JimH52]

YOUR president IS A JERK!

Nevermind the fact you are just as much of a "jerk" as you claim he is.

You know, I remember the first time I said "Obama wasn't my president" after he was elected. So consumed with emotion I was.

I was questioning the results of a legitimate election. After a while, I thought, "if Obama isn't my president, who is?"

Then it dawned on me. Whether I liked him or not, he was the President of The United States, and I should embrace him as the leader of the free world.

So, Jim, if Trump isn't your president, then who is?

Another Ignore on Monday morning.....go away....

 

[TemplarKormac]

You have been a Dick on this board for years....try to do better.

Says the guy whose been a registered member for nearly 12 years...

 

[TemplarKormac]

YOUR president IS A JERK!

Nevermind the fact you are just as much of a "jerk" as you claim he is.

You know, I remember the first time I said "Obama wasn't my president" after he was elected. So consumed with emotion I was.

I was questioning the results of a legitimate election. After a while, I thought, "if Obama isn't my president, who is?"

Then it dawned on me. Whether I liked him or not, he was the President of The United States, and I should embrace him as the leader of the free world.

So, Jim, if Trump isn't your president, then who is?

Another Ignore on Monday morning.....go away....

YES!!!

And good riddance.

Liberals like you are akin to music, there are many chords to strike.

(I wonder how long this will last before he reneges)

 

[joaquinmiller]

Adults? That's laughable. Adults - particularly in responsible positions - think before they speak and choose their words carefully. You couldn't have picked a less-accurate term for a man who lashes out like a two-year-old.

Imagine a plane of reality where words and actions are two different things entirely. Words are meaningless. Insults are empty and hollow. His outward demeanor toward the public is irrelevant. How he behaves and what he says in the presence of other leaders is pertinent. Action is everything.

Meanwhile, we have a bunch of elected House Democrats calling for the impeachment of a sitting president sans evidence of any crimes or misdemeanors he committed.

Are they choosing their words wisely?

Imagine a world in which Trump's words and actions stood alone - his insults weren't blamed on the person he was insulting, and his words weren't excused with 'yebbut the democrats'.

Uh, isn't that what I just said?

Words and actions are distinct. You judge him on words but not actions.

So um, what are you getting at exactly?

'yebbut Trump'

Please don't.

In diplomacy and politics, words can mean as much as action, or even be actions. I don't know what you're getting at, unless it's, "I don't care what he says as long as I got my tax cut (or border wall, or Muslim ban, etc). He's the President, for chrissake! He's a reflection on us, and he speaks for us - particularly on a diplomatic journey. I don't think asking him to think before he opens his mouth is a big ask. I suspect Sadiq Khan already knows how tall he is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He's the President, for chrissake! He's a reflection on us, and he speaks for us - particularly on a diplomatic journey. I don't think asking him to think before he opens his mouth is a big ask.

Is this virtue signaling? Moral preening? I can't honestly tell.

Either way, if I used that reasoning, anyone I voted for who fell from grace could "speak for me". But in reality, I speak for myself, and myself alone.

In diplomacy and politics, words can mean as much as action, or even be actions.

In diplomacy, words rarely if ever match actions. Or vise versa.

 

[Foxfyre]

i am working on being less judgmental; it is "nasty" or do i just need to get used to modern women in modern times?

Interesting question. As a woman who grew up in more socially civilized times when there was no internet and therefore no social media of any kind, I learned to communicate and criticize without insulting people specifically anyway. And I learned to intensely appreciate and admire those who could be angry and/or emphasize an opposing point of view without using any profanity.

I certainly use a few 'swear' words now and then but still recoil from the more hateful and vulgar terms others throw around freely without even thinking about it. However 'nasty' is not a profanity or vulgarity but is simply the strongest antonym for the word 'nice'.

President Trump matter of factly described Meaghan's characterization of him as misogynistic as 'nasty' when the interviewer threw that out there--he didn't know she was 'nasty' (in her comment) back then. But the President was not at all bothered by it and went on with his complimentary opinion of Meaghan's new role as an 'American Princess' in the Royal family.

 

[sartre play]

Being President of the United States of America is a huge deal, hard to even imagine the complexity of dealing with heads of states all over the world, much less problems right here at home. so my question is why would our president even waste our time or his energy to insult 3rd rate comic's actors, & other people who don't like him. and why would we repeat this petty stuff?

 

[HappyJoy]

What she said at that time was nasty.

Many of the Hollywood crowd said nasty things during the campaign.

What did she say that would make her nasty?

This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.

Yes there is, stupid.

How about you add the question he asked Trump?

Trump calls everyone nasty that opposes him, and the journalist surprised him by saying she was against him during his campaign. So he said "I didn't know she was nasty." There you go, idiot. Actual fucking context to the statement.

He called everyone who opposed him nasty and then when the interviewer said Markle was against him he called her what? And this helps your argument? How?

He was saying that He didn't know she WAS nasty to him. How do you fucking morons not understand the concept of context? I thought you idiots called yourselves smart?

Either you're all on the autism spectrum and don't understand social aspects like context, are deliberately ignoring it, or just to fucking stupid to understand context when it comes to quotes. Take your pick.

So wait. Trump said "I didn’t know that she was nasty" after hearing she made comments about him. And now you are trying to rewrite that, where he wasn't saying she was nasty, but rather her comments to him were?

Are you deliberately ignoring WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID? or just too fucking stupid to understand the English language.

No, but I'm smart enough to understand that context matters when understanding quotes. Merkle might say something like: "Sure, I could kill him." And, without context, you wouldn't know what that quote would mean or what the intent of that quote was. Could be talking about murder, or Call of Duty. You'd need more context from the discussion that the quote was made in.

Same with Trump saying "I didn't know she was nasty." You have to know the context in which that statement was made. The dude informed Trump that she disliked him in 2016 and thus he made his statement. About him not knowing her being nasty to him in the past. You idiots seem to dismiss the fact that he PRAISED her in the same fucking discussion. Listen to the whole fucking conversation and you might end up getting a clue about he actually feels about her, instead of just listening to a sound clip and barking at Trump like a bunch of dogs.


After today, I can't wait for Joe Biden to say something like "Well, yea I did touch her." And conservatives take it out of context and call him a pervert. Then I'll sit back and watch as Democrats fucking scramble to put context into the quote. Maybe then you'll turn the blinders off and get a clue.

A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.

The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.

I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.

No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.

 

[JimH52]

Adults? That's laughable. Adults - particularly in responsible positions - think before they speak and choose their words carefully. You couldn't have picked a less-accurate term for a man who lashes out like a two-year-old.

Imagine a plane of reality where words and actions are two different things entirely. Words are meaningless. Insults are empty and hollow. His outward demeanor toward the public is irrelevant. How he behaves and what he says in the presence of other leaders is pertinent. Action is everything.

Meanwhile, we have a bunch of elected House Democrats calling for the impeachment of a sitting president sans evidence of any crimes or misdemeanors he committed.

Are they choosing their words wisely?

Imagine a world in which Trump's words and actions stood alone - his insults weren't blamed on the person he was insulting, and his words weren't excused with 'yebbut the democrats'.

Uh, isn't that what I just said?

Words and actions are distinct. You judge him on words but not actions.

So um, what are you getting at exactly?

'yebbut Trump'

Please don't.

In diplomacy and politics, words can mean as much as action, or even be actions. I don't know what you're getting at, unless it's, "I don't care what he says as long as I got my tax cut (or border wall, or Muslim ban, etc). He's the President, for chrissake! He's a reflection on us, and he speaks for us - particularly on a diplomatic journey. I don't think asking him to think before he opens his mouth is a big ask. I suspect Sadiq Khan already knows how tall he is.

There was hope that he would change. I hoped the dignity and class of the great office would suddenly dawn on him and he would change his rhetoric and his views. I...and many others were dead wrong.

He is and always will be a classic serial liar who holds double standards for his words and decisions.

I cannot imagine ANYONE...short of a dead cold lunatic....being less qualified for this great office. He is trampling the Office of the Presidency ever day he is there.

He is and will always be Putin's President.....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Adults? That's laughable. Adults - particularly in responsible positions - think before they speak and choose their words carefully. You couldn't have picked a less-accurate term for a man who lashes out like a two-year-old.

Imagine a plane of reality where words and actions are two different things entirely. Words are meaningless. Insults are empty and hollow. His outward demeanor toward the public is irrelevant. How he behaves and what he says in the presence of other leaders is pertinent. Action is everything.

Meanwhile, we have a bunch of elected House Democrats calling for the impeachment of a sitting president sans evidence of any crimes or misdemeanors he committed.

Are they choosing their words wisely?

Imagine a world in which Trump's words and actions stood alone - his insults weren't blamed on the person he was insulting, and his words weren't excused with 'yebbut the democrats'.

Uh, isn't that what I just said?

Words and actions are distinct. You judge him on words but not actions.

So um, what are you getting at exactly?

'yebbut Trump'

Please don't.

In diplomacy and politics, words can mean as much as action, or even be actions. I don't know what you're getting at, unless it's, "I don't care what he says as long as I got my tax cut (or border wall, or Muslim ban, etc). He's the President, for chrissake! He's a reflection on us, and he speaks for us - particularly on a diplomatic journey. I don't think asking him to think before he opens his mouth is a big ask. I suspect Sadiq Khan already knows how tall he is.

There was hope that he would change. I hoped the dignity and class of the great office would suddenly dawn on him and he would change his rhetoric and his views. I...and many others were dead wrong.

He is and always will be a classic serial liar who holds double standards for his words and decisions.

I cannot imagine ANYONE...short of a dead cold lunatic....being less qualified for this great office. He is trampling the Office of the Presidency ever day he is there.

He is and will always be Putin's President.....

Oh god!

Ahahahahahah!!

And you have the gall to lecture Trump on his civility?

Wait, you've ignored me. Nevermind. Those blinders suit you.

 

[joaquinmiller]

He's the President, for chrissake! He's a reflection on us, and he speaks for us - particularly on a diplomatic journey. I don't think asking him to think before he opens his mouth is a big ask.

Is this virtue signaling? Moral preening? I can't honestly tell.

Either way, if I used that reasoning, anyone I voted for who fell from grace could "speak for me". But in reality, I speak for myself, and myself alone.

In diplomacy and politics, words can mean as much as action, or even be actions.

In diplomacy, words rarely if ever match actions. Or vise versa.

Then you miss the essence of "representative" in representative democracy. In politics, a Presidential statement is an action.

You can't tell if asking a President to think before he speaks is "virtue signaling" or "moral preening"? That's because it's neither.

 

[JimH52]

What she said at that time was nasty.

Many of the Hollywood crowd said nasty things during the campaign.

What did she say that would make her nasty?

This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.

He called everyone who opposed him nasty and then when the interviewer said Markle was against him he called her what? And this helps your argument? How?

He was saying that He didn't know she WAS nasty to him. How do you fucking morons not understand the concept of context? I thought you idiots called yourselves smart?

Either you're all on the autism spectrum and don't understand social aspects like context, are deliberately ignoring it, or just to fucking stupid to understand context when it comes to quotes. Take your pick.

So wait. Trump said "I didn’t know that she was nasty" after hearing she made comments about him. And now you are trying to rewrite that, where he wasn't saying she was nasty, but rather her comments to him were?

Are you deliberately ignoring WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID? or just too fucking stupid to understand the English language.

No, but I'm smart enough to understand that context matters when understanding quotes. Merkle might say something like: "Sure, I could kill him." And, without context, you wouldn't know what that quote would mean or what the intent of that quote was. Could be talking about murder, or Call of Duty. You'd need more context from the discussion that the quote was made in.

Same with Trump saying "I didn't know she was nasty." You have to know the context in which that statement was made. The dude informed Trump that she disliked him in 2016 and thus he made his statement. About him not knowing her being nasty to him in the past. You idiots seem to dismiss the fact that he PRAISED her in the same fucking discussion. Listen to the whole fucking conversation and you might end up getting a clue about he actually feels about her, instead of just listening to a sound clip and barking at Trump like a bunch of dogs.


After today, I can't wait for Joe Biden to say something like "Well, yea I did touch her." And conservatives take it out of context and call him a pervert. Then I'll sit back and watch as Democrats fucking scramble to put context into the quote. Maybe then you'll turn the blinders off and get a clue.

A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.

The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.

I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.

No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.

trumpettes are using semantics in order to excuse the bastard they call president.

He did not call her words nasty....he did not call her attitude nasty. He said "I didn't realize she WAS nasty."

But then he turned right around and said "I didn't call her nasty."

And his cult says...."WHY...NO YOU DIDN'T MISTER PRESIDENT."

The drooling and bowing at every lie he makes needs to stop..

He is the perfect example of the King with No Clothes.

 

[HappyJoy]

What she said at that time was nasty.

Many of the Hollywood crowd said nasty things during the campaign.

What did she say that would make her nasty?

This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.

He was saying that He didn't know she WAS nasty to him. How do you fucking morons not understand the concept of context? I thought you idiots called yourselves smart?

Either you're all on the autism spectrum and don't understand social aspects like context, are deliberately ignoring it, or just to fucking stupid to understand context when it comes to quotes. Take your pick.

So wait. Trump said "I didn’t know that she was nasty" after hearing she made comments about him. And now you are trying to rewrite that, where he wasn't saying she was nasty, but rather her comments to him were?

Are you deliberately ignoring WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID? or just too fucking stupid to understand the English language.

No, but I'm smart enough to understand that context matters when understanding quotes. Merkle might say something like: "Sure, I could kill him." And, without context, you wouldn't know what that quote would mean or what the intent of that quote was. Could be talking about murder, or Call of Duty. You'd need more context from the discussion that the quote was made in.

Same with Trump saying "I didn't know she was nasty." You have to know the context in which that statement was made. The dude informed Trump that she disliked him in 2016 and thus he made his statement. About him not knowing her being nasty to him in the past. You idiots seem to dismiss the fact that he PRAISED her in the same fucking discussion. Listen to the whole fucking conversation and you might end up getting a clue about he actually feels about her, instead of just listening to a sound clip and barking at Trump like a bunch of dogs.


After today, I can't wait for Joe Biden to say something like "Well, yea I did touch her." And conservatives take it out of context and call him a pervert. Then I'll sit back and watch as Democrats fucking scramble to put context into the quote. Maybe then you'll turn the blinders off and get a clue.

A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.

The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.

I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.

No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.

trumpettes are using semantics in order to excuse the bastard they call president.

He did not call her words nasty....he did not call her attitude nasty. He said "I didn't realize she WAS nasty."

But then he turned right around and said "I didn't call her nasty."

And his cult says...."WHY...NO YOU DIDN'T MISTER PRESIDENT."

The drooling and bowing at every lie he makes needs to stop..

He is the perfect example of the King with No Clothes.

He also calls people nasty like a 70 year old queen.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then you miss the essence of "representative" in representative democracy. In politics, a Presidential statement is an action.

Aren't we a Constitutional Republic?

Moreover, how can words be actions if they aren't acted on? That makes little sense. Oh way, the fallacy of inference.

You can't tell if asking a President to think before he speaks is "virtue signaling" or "moral preening"? That's because it's neither.

No, I was referring to your comments, not his.

After all the things people have said and/or done to him and his family, I can't blame him for sometimes (or most of the time) dispensing with courtesy and civility. That however, does not mean I approve of him constantly doing it.

I voted for him, his actions, not his words. Experience tells me that politicians rarely act on what they say, rather they should be made to answer for what they have or have not done for the people who elected them.

 

[HappyJoy]

Then you miss the essence of "representative" in representative democracy. In politics, a Presidential statement is an action.

Aren't we a Constitutional Republic?

Both, we are both. Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[rightwinger]

What she said at that time was nasty.

Many of the Hollywood crowd said nasty things during the campaign.

What did she say that would make her nasty?

This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.

Show us some nasty

 

[joaquinmiller]

Then you miss the essence of "representative" in representative democracy. In politics, a Presidential statement is an action.

Aren't we a Constitutional Republic?

Moreover, how can words be actions if they aren't acted on? That makes little sense. Oh way, the fallacy of inference.

You can't tell if asking a President to think before he speaks is "virtue signaling" or "moral preening"? That's because it's neither.

No, I was referring to your comments, not his.

After all the things people have said and/or done to him and his family, I can't blame him for sometimes (or most of the time) dispensing with courtesy and civility. That however, does not mean I approve of him constantly doing it.

I voted for him, his actions, not his words. Experience tells me that politicians rarely act on what they say, rather they should be made to answer for what they have or have not done for the people who elected them.

I understood you were referring to my comments. You were attempting to use denigrating buzzwords to devalue my statement. "Approval" and "condemnation" are actions - expressed with words.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then you miss the essence of "representative" in representative democracy. In politics, a Presidential statement is an action.

Aren't we a Constitutional Republic?

Moreover, how can words be actions if they aren't acted on? That makes little sense. Oh way, the fallacy of inference.

You can't tell if asking a President to think before he speaks is "virtue signaling" or "moral preening"? That's because it's neither.

No, I was referring to your comments, not his.

After all the things people have said and/or done to him and his family, I can't blame him for sometimes (or most of the time) dispensing with courtesy and civility. That however, does not mean I approve of him constantly doing it.

I voted for him, his actions, not his words. Experience tells me that politicians rarely act on what they say, rather they should be made to answer for what they have or have not done for the people who elected them.

I understood you were referring to my comments. You were attempting to use denigrating buzzwords to devalue my statement. "Approval" and "condemnation" are actions - expressed with words.

"Denigrating buzzwords"

You'll need to be more specific.

Seemingly, you are expecting the man to be perfect. Politically correct. Tame and civil to a fault.

Seemingly, that would be an unreasonable expectation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What she said at that time was nasty.

Many of the Hollywood crowd said nasty things during the campaign.

What did she say that would make her nasty?

This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.

Show us some nasty

...

That sent chills down my spine.

 

[Foxfyre]

What she said at that time was nasty.

Many of the Hollywood crowd said nasty things during the campaign.

What did she say that would make her nasty?

This has already been discussed.
Go back and read them.

He called everyone who opposed him nasty and then when the interviewer said Markle was against him he called her what? And this helps your argument? How?

He was saying that He didn't know she WAS nasty to him. How do you fucking morons not understand the concept of context? I thought you idiots called yourselves smart?

Either you're all on the autism spectrum and don't understand social aspects like context, are deliberately ignoring it, or just to fucking stupid to understand context when it comes to quotes. Take your pick.

So wait. Trump said "I didn’t know that she was nasty" after hearing she made comments about him. And now you are trying to rewrite that, where he wasn't saying she was nasty, but rather her comments to him were?

Are you deliberately ignoring WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID? or just too fucking stupid to understand the English language.

No, but I'm smart enough to understand that context matters when understanding quotes. Merkle might say something like: "Sure, I could kill him." And, without context, you wouldn't know what that quote would mean or what the intent of that quote was. Could be talking about murder, or Call of Duty. You'd need more context from the discussion that the quote was made in.

Same with Trump saying "I didn't know she was nasty." You have to know the context in which that statement was made. The dude informed Trump that she disliked him in 2016 and thus he made his statement. About him not knowing her being nasty to him in the past. You idiots seem to dismiss the fact that he PRAISED her in the same fucking discussion. Listen to the whole fucking conversation and you might end up getting a clue about he actually feels about her, instead of just listening to a sound clip and barking at Trump like a bunch of dogs.


After today, I can't wait for Joe Biden to say something like "Well, yea I did touch her." And conservatives take it out of context and call him a pervert. Then I'll sit back and watch as Democrats fucking scramble to put context into the quote. Maybe then you'll turn the blinders off and get a clue.

A good example of context was in President Obama's statement. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." His opposition had a field day with that. But in its full context, what he was saying that nobody succeeds without involvement of others. When we are intellectually honest, I think it was obvious that he intended it to be something like like Hillary's 'It takes a village to raise a child" or "no man is an island" sort of thing.

The full quote in context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

It was said awkwardly, but I could easily cut President Obama some slack on that even though I strongly opposed what I saw as his Marxist side as opposed to social contract.

I wish the TDS crowd could do that for President Trump.

No, really bad example because we have as you quoted a full quote from Obama that perfectly explains what Obama was saying. The right ignored all of that and took him out of context. In the case of the ogre in chief, he doesn't use a lot of words, we've seen the entire quote to include before and after "I didn't know she was nasty" and you know what? There is no change in context, he called her nasty.

In full context Trump did not call Meaghan Markle personally nasty. So again I will wish you a pleasant day and will not respond further until you can explain how the full context does not support the spin you are putting on it. Thanks for understanding.