The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Daehawk]

Donald’s creepy obsession with Ivanka Trump began when she was very young. It’s just…disturbing.

Uggggggh! Almost too creepy to even comment. This is the same Donald Trump that once said on The View that he would date his own daughter. How many shades of wrong is that statement? Trump has always had a disturbing relationship with Ivanka. Once while on the Howard Stern Show, Stern asked if it was okay to call Ivanka a “piece of ass.” Trump had no qualms about this. During an appearance on the Wendy Williams Show, Trump said his favorite thing he and Ivanka have in common is sex.

[GreenGoo]

I guess I come off as quite sensitive sometimes. (And not unfairly so.) Anyway, I didn't take any offense at what you were saying, so no worries.

That's not it. Being misconstrued is something that I spend a lot of time trying to avoid, in general. Here it is possible that I was extra careful, but not because you're particularly thin skinned or overly sensitive, but because it was extra important to me that I not be misconstrued, if at all possible.

[GreenGoo]

The long and short of it is...they don't like it. And that is reason enough.

Perhaps, but it's a weak, unprincipled reason. Allowing others to dictate to everyone else how everyone should behave based on their feelings, is a slippery slope with no real bottom.


See: The LBGT community, who are busy adding letters at a furious pace while infighting is still deciding what acronym is acceptable, all the while lashing out at anyone who doesn't match their particular preference.

See: College campuses "Safe Zones" and demanding that they not be "triggered" and if they are, deciding that punishment (both literal and figurative) is appropriate based on how they feel.

See: African Americans who have changed what terms are acceptable multiple times in my life time, let alone since the civil rights movement.


My point is not that Little People are doing this, my point is that not doing something because others don't like it is not often a valid reason. I agree that having a say in what the world calls a group that you belong to is a valid position. Forming a consensus either formally or organically will allow those being dictated to to understand and act accordingly. "Because I feel like it" by itself isn't going to cut it because it potentially leaves the world walking on eggshells for the foreseeable future because no one can know how "you feel" today. "I feel this until future notice at which point I will dictate the new acceptable" is not much better.

Note that this isn't really aimed at the Little People community, or even Z-Corn. I'm trying to address the concept of "How I feel dictates how you should behave" and the pitfalls that accompany trying to enforce that, either formally like regulations on a college campus, or informally, through social norms.

[Daehawk]

I hate that word triggered. If you are then its your problem.

[GreenGoo]

I hate that word triggered. If you are then its your problem.

Well...also no.

Going around shitting on people then calling it their problem when they don't like it is also not acceptable, which is the natural result of what you're saying.

I do dislike the word triggered though, so we are in agreement there.

[Holman]

The long and short of it is...they don't like it. And that is reason enough.

Perhaps, but it's a weak, unprincipled reason. Allowing others to dictate to everyone else how everyone should behave based on their feelings, is a slippery slope with no real bottom.


See: The LBGT community, who are busy adding letters at a furious pace while infighting is still deciding what acronym is acceptable, all the while lashing out at anyone who doesn't match their particular preference.

See: College campuses "Safe Zones" and demanding that they not be "triggered" and if they are, deciding that punishment (both literal and figurative) is appropriate based on how they feel.

See: African Americans who have changed what terms are acceptable multiple times in my life time, let alone since the civil rights movement.

And what does any of this actually cost you? I mean this as a neutral question.

"Appropriate language" has always been controlled by the political and social elites. Everything listed here is just the politically and socially marginal claiming that power for themselves. If the LGBTetc community wrestles with what terms are the right ones, how is this different from their claiming "queer" and translating it from an insult into a badge of identity?

I'm not dumping on you--plenty of us in the past couple of decades have looked up and felt uncomfortable when told what to do. I think the real issue is that straight white males like you and me have little experience with anyone insisting that their preferences wrt their own experience might outweigh our preconceptions.

[GreenGoo]

And what does any of this actually cost you? I mean this as a neutral question.

It costs society uncertainty. It costs societal defensiveness. It costs acceptability being weaponized. It costs a constant threat of being in the wrong because what "in the wrong" means changes on a whim. If you actually care about people, then you have to know how to treat them with respect. Being at risk of offending no matter how you act or behave is crippling for those trying to act or behave in such a way so that everyone feels valued and and accepted.

Those are just the first few that come to mind. I'm quite certain a sociologist would have a more complete, better answer for you.

What does it cost me? What does it cost the community being discussed? Everybody has an answer for this, I withdraw the question. My point was not that it costs them nothing. My point was that everyone else's feelings are also valid and should also be taken into account, so finding a way to peacefully co-exist without doubt, uncertainty and outrage is the goal here. Basing things on feelings and feelings alone, when emotions are by their very nature chaotic and subject to change on a whim, is a sure way to ensure that conflict will constantly exist no matter how much time, effort, money and good intentions are put into peaceful co-existence.

It's a good question, but I feel like some aspects of the answer should be obvious, while others are rooted in the sciences of psychology, sociology and the study of human behavior, and none of those were my major.

I don't feel uncomfortable about being told what to do, I just wish they'd hurry up and make up their mind, and maybe stop changing it so often. And maybe not accuse the world of being Hitler when we use west coast acceptable terminology with someone from the east coast. Particularly frustrating is when the east coaster loses their shit when they are on the west coast. I'm all for social norms. I'm not a big fan of whim, particularly when that whim is used to attack others for the crime of not knowing what your whim is today. Forgetting a letter for your acronym is not a reason for outrage.

edit: Typos, coherency.

[Kraken]

And what does any of this actually cost you? I mean this as a neutral question.

It costs society uncertainty. It costs societal defensiveness. It costs acceptability being weaponized. It costs a constant threat of being in the wrong because what "in the wrong" means changes on a whim. If you actually care about people, then you have to know how to treat them with respect. Being at risk of offending no matter how you act or behave is crippling for those trying to act or behave in such a way so that everyone feels valued and and accepted.

Arguably, it cost the presidency. Political correctness is one thing people widely hate about liberals.

[GreenGoo]

Arguably, it cost the presidency. Political correctness is one thing people widely hate about liberals.

Sure, but that doesn't mean PC is the problem or wrong either. Losing the election is not reason enough to go back to using the N-word. I realize you're not saying this, I'm saying just because some people (even a lot of people) hate a thing doesn't make the thing a bad thing.

A small subsection of leftist culture use PC to attack others. Conservatives hate that. I hate that too. That Conservatives paint all Liberals with a brush that only applies to a tiny subsection, or that all PC is a problem because some PC is, is not a legitimate criticism of PC.

I will say the constant moving targets and new PC things that require kid glove handling can be difficult and frustrating, which is part (but not the entirety) of my earlier post's point.

[Holman]

And what does any of this actually cost you? I mean this as a neutral question.

It costs society uncertainty. It costs societal defensiveness. It costs acceptability being weaponized. It costs a constant threat of being in the wrong because what "in the wrong" means changes on a whim. If you actually care about people, then you have to know how to treat them with respect. Being at risk of offending no matter how you act or behave is crippling for those trying to act or behave in such a way so that everyone feels valued and and accepted.

Those are just the first few that come to mind. I'm quite certain a sociologist would have a more complete, better answer for you.

I see where you're coming from, and I think it's from defensive white straight male privilege.

I occupy that same space, but if we're wise we really have to ask, who is "society" here?

Look at the language you're using: "uncertainty," "defensiveness," "weaponized," "threat," "respect." Every statement assumes that "society" is a very particular identity group newly scrutinized and judged by some outside group that is... somehow not society?

Society in the Liberal Democratic West is big and complex and disturbed by history. If "uncertainty" is the problem, well, welcome to lived experience. The other terms are just defensiveness against interrogating dominant terms. If that's really an affront to you, you haven't been paying to anything happening in western culture since the 1920s or 30s.

[Holman]

Watch @seanhannity on @FoxNews NOW. Enjoy!

Ignorance is Strength!

[GreenGoo]

You can try to blame this on white male privilege but it's not and I'm confident it's not.

Society is everyone, including the groups themselves.

I think I'm being clear, and the problems aren't *my* problems, they are problems.

When two groups that feel things and demand that others behave based on those feelings interact, it's often bedlam, and there isn't an old white male in sight. Both sides demand deference over the other because of their feelings with no effort to empathize with each other and become increasingly agitated when they don't get it.

This doesn't always happen of course, and it's not proof of my opinion, but it's illustrative.

We can go around in circles about how it's a lack of empathy, understanding, or white privilege blinding me, but that's not true and that's not something I want to waste my time with.

I'm in no way invalidating those feelings. I'm just saying they are a terrible basis for deciding what is acceptable for everyone who isn't you.

[YellowKing]

I mentioned it on the forum before (not sure which thread), but we had a guy come in and talk about diversity in the workplace and he said something that really struck me. "Always assume good intentions."

His point was that we, as a society, should stop assuming someone means to offend us and instead assume they mean well (but may just not realize the consequences of their words). In those cases, use it as a teaching opportunity and move on.

If they continue to use hurtful language even after it's been pointed out, *then* you can be offended.

[Kraken]

Arguably, it cost the presidency. Political correctness is one thing people widely hate about liberals.

Sure, but that doesn't mean PC is the problem or wrong either. Losing the election is not reason enough to go back to using the N-word. I realize you're not saying this, I'm saying just because some people (even a lot of people) hate a thing doesn't make the thing a bad thing.

A small subsection of leftist culture use PC to attack others. Conservatives hate that. I hate that too. That Conservatives paint all Liberals with a brush that only applies to a tiny subsection, or that all PC is a problem because some PC is, is not a legitimate criticism of PC.

I will say the constant moving targets and new PC things that require kid glove handling can be difficult and frustrating, which is part (but not the entirety) of my earlier post's point.

Yeah, I was actually agreeing-ish with you. People do that sometimes.

The N-word is so entrenched that nobody dares type it, even when discussing the word itself, even though we all know what it is and there are no children here to protect. Now we have a R-word and (apparently) a M-word, which comes as news to me. All the woke people will nod and add those letters to their list, and maybe in some circles typing "retard" or "midget" will eventually become just as taboo at typing the N-word. This forum might be one of those circles.

There a lot of other downtrodden groups and perceived insults and 22 more letters to assign. Every time you coalesce around a new one, your tribe gets a little more insular. That's political correctness. 80% of Americans think it's a problem. Holman asked "what does it cost you?" Well, it costs you elections.

Look: I'm not entirely insensitive. Norms change and I sometimes change with them. I've stopped saying "retard" because I can see that it's hurtful. I don't think I'll ever call it "the R-word" though.

[Combustible Lemur]

Am I the only one offended for the equating of LM with a special needs kid incapable of self responsibility? FOR SHAME!

Also as someone who's been on both sides of this type conflict, Calm down and go have a nice diplomatic PM conversation that may or may not prove to be fruitful before the nerds spend the next two pages defining the meaning of spitwad.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Fucking prescient.

My two cents.

If people get offended, stop saying things. Unless you're a stand up comedian. Then it's your job.

They're offended because someone somewhere was hurt by the shit you're saying. It doesn't matter what you think.

The massive behemoth of culture and society will sort out whether you're actually an asshole or just being funny.

Being PC is obnoxious and totally helped trump get elected. It still may not be wrong.

It's a much more real question to ask why we think it's okay to take the easy route because an antiquated election system from a bygone culture reinforced the power of the minority to suppress the will of minorities?

While I bemoan over sensitivity and quit huffpo for its safe space over zealous identity angst, I have had waaaaaaay too many personal experiences as a teacher with individuals touched by insensitivity, micro aggressions, racism, abuse, dismissal, bias, and injustice to not give deference to someone who honestly feels agreived.

The real world is fucked up and hard. There is no need for me to contribute to it being such.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[GreenGoo]

Yeah, I was actually agreeing-ish with you. People do that sometimes.

Sure, and you might note that there are ways to interpret my response as more observational and less "you're wrong and here's why". My response was more "Kraken's point brings these further thoughts to mind". I understand that there is no easy way to identify that which is why I'm saying it directly now.

I do that more often than I realize which is *one* of the reasons why I come across as abrasive and confrontational.

This topic is not easy nor is it straightforward, but many people think it is, which is one reason why it gets so much judgment and condemnation from everyone to everyone else.

[GreenGoo]

Am I the only one offended for the equating of LM with a special needs kid incapable of self responsibility? FOR SHAME!

Also as someone who's been on both sides of this type conflict, Calm down and go have a nice diplomatic PM conversation that may or may not prove to be fruitful before the nerds spend the next two pages defining the meaning of spitwad.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Fucking prescient.

My two cents.

If people get offended, stop saying things. Unless you're a stand up comedian. Then it's your job.

They're offended because someone somewhere was hurt by the shit you're saying. It doesn't matter what you think.

The massive behemoth of culture and society will sort out whether you're actually an asshole or just being funny.

Being PC is obnoxious and totally helped trump get elected. It still may not be wrong.

It's a much more real question to ask why we think it's okay to take the easy route because an antiquated election system from a bygone culture reinforced the power of the minority to suppress the will of minorities?

While I bemoan over sensitivity and quit huffpo for its safe space over zealous identity angst, I have had waaaaaaay too many personal experiences as a teacher with individuals touched by insensitivity, micro aggressions, racism, abuse, dismissal, bias, and injustice to not give deference to someone who honestly feels agreived.

The real world is fucked up and hard. There is no need for me to contribute to it being such.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I...am going to need someone to help me understand this one.

I *think* you are talking about the complications/difficulties of both sides of this topic. And I think I agree with what you're saying, although I'm not convinced that the correct response to someone being offended is self censorship in all instances. I fully admit that it can be, and I do do it, even do it most times even if I don't think it's warranted. I'm much less likely to self-censor on the forum for multiple reasons, but in person, I tend to defer.

The reason I feel that way about self censorship is that people can be just as unreasonable as I can be (because I'm people too) and other peoples' irrationality is not my problem. There are times when their irrationality takes precedent, such as with someone grieving, or other emotional trauma. Being "triggered" may or may not match this same criteria. It's not acceptable to be "triggered" and become aggressive because I'm talking about American history in a positive light, even if you are of native American descent, as one random example picked out of thin air. I shouldn't have to stop talking about slavery in an academic sense just because several generations back your family were slaves, even if it upsets you. What happens if the American history speaker is of native american descent too? Or the slavery lecturer is black? Or vice versa? Is it ok because they aren't white males? I can choose to stop, but that should be my choice, not your feelings' choice. Obviously I used 2 male white European examples that appear to reinforce Holman's point, but that's purely coincidence, because I'm more familiar with those topics because I'm a white male and I need to be aware that just being a white male may trigger some people, and being a white male talking about certain topics may trigger even more, and just as importantly, why that is. It's also because as a white male, I don't belong to any group that has a reasonable stance of being offended by anything, really. My examples are for other races because my race/cultural background has little to be upset about or offended by, as a whole, and certainly comparatively.

Subjective evaluation is hard. Objective non-evaluation (Person A is offended by Person B, so it's Person B's responsibility to shut up in all cases or even just most cases) is not fair or reasonable.

I think a good, practical example is any R.I.P. thread here. Some people believe it's unacceptable to talk negatively about the dead. This viewpoint loses some of it's power to supress these comments as the distance between the two people talking and the deceased grows, as well as the details of the person being discussed. If Paingod's wife were to, heaven forbid, pass away, it wouldn't be ok to talk about all the critical aspects that Paingod has shared with us in a thread discussing her passing. The wife of a celebrity who is known for the specific behaviour/attributes being criticized? That should be acceptable EVEN IF that celebrity was a favourite of someone's. Just because you like a stranger and think they are a good person does not overrule other peoples' freedom (I mean this socially. Obviously free speech is a thing) to discuss the negative aspects of that person, EVEN IF those aspects aren't necessarily factual. The acceptability of talking about her in a negative light grows with distance. It changes back to unacceptable if that celebrity was a close personal friend of someone here. There are some people who feel ANY negative discussion of the recently dead is forbidden, or even just in bad taste. I don't agree with either of those views as absolutes.

Navigating that minefield of acceptability is already difficult enough. Adding the changing random whims of peoples' feelings just because they feel them, essentially makes it impossible not to offend someone at some point in time, no matter how much you pay attention, how sensitive you are to the other person's feelings, or how much effort you put in. Creating criteria that are guaranteed to cause failure then blaming those who fail despite all honest efforts is bullshit. And that's what happening today as we as a society move into the "safe space" and "triggered" cultural changes. That's not ok for anyone, not just white males or me personally.

[Holman]

You can try to blame this on white male privilege but it's not and I'm confident it's not.

Society is everyone, including the groups themselves.

I think I'm being clear, and the problems aren't *my* problems, they are problems.

When two groups that feel things and demand that others behave based on those feelings interact, it's often bedlam, and there isn't an old white male in sight. Both sides demand deference over the other because of their feelings with no effort to empathize with each other and become increasingly agitated when they don't get it.

This doesn't always happen of course, and it's not proof of my opinion, but it's illustrative.

We can go around in circles about how it's a lack of empathy, understanding, or white privilege blinding me, but that's not true and that's not something I want to waste my time with.

I'm in no way invalidating those feelings. I'm just saying they are a terrible basis for deciding what is acceptable for everyone who isn't you.

I'm definitely not signing on for a day-long spat about this, but it really sounded like you were complaining about being told what to call marginalized groups.

If those groups claim the right to assert what's appropriate in language, they're just doing what privileged groups have always been able to do as a matter of course. That's the white male privilege part--you and I have been able to make these same moves forever.

Language is a field of contest more often than we like, but that's how it is. What's the benefit in digging in your heels to claim that x-group CAN'T define the decent terms to use about them? What's the "problem" if they do? Does it really deserve terms like "threat" or "bedlam"?

Please accept those questions as rhetorical. We probably agree that there's really no need to go around and around this.

[Combustible Lemur]

+1

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[hepcat]

Ah man, someone threw a fight and didn’t invite me?

[Z-Corn]

Just as a data point, the family of little people that I knew that taught me that they didn't like the m-word taught me this when we were in High School. So that's been a prevailing sentiment in their community for at least 30 years. You can't really lump it in with LGBT adding letters to their chain recently.

If that makes me "woke" then I guess I'm 30-years "woke". Shrug...I've already admitted to being PC. I'm also filthy minded and believe funny is funny when it's funny.

[hepcat]

Just to be clear, I can still insult people by calling them a Lithuanian Panda Spanker, right?

[Z-Corn]

Just to be clear, I can still insult people by calling them a Lithuanian Panda Spanker, right?

Are you fucking serious!?

I'm very proud to be Lithuanian and honestly don't appreciate you making a joke. I know I'm not the only Lithuanian on this site but I'm not going to out anyone.

Pandas are from China not Lithuania. Lithuanians don't go to China. Your attempt at humor reveals your ignorance.

[$iljanus]

Just to be clear, I can still insult people by calling them a Lithuanian Panda Spanker, right?

PETA would like a word with you...

[hepcat]

Just to be clear, I can still insult people by calling them a Lithuanian Panda Spanker, right?

Are you fucking serious!?

I'm very proud to be Lithuanian and honestly don't appreciate you making a joke. I know I'm not the only Lithuanian on this site but I'm not going to out anyone.

Pandas are from China not Lithuania. Lithuanians don't go to China. Your attempt at humor reveals your ignorance.

Jokes on you. My attempt at life reveals my ignorance.

PETA would like a word with you...

And that word better be delicious. 'cause that's what pandas are, my friend. They're nature's super food.

[$iljanus]

Just to be clear, I can still insult people by calling them a Lithuanian Panda Spanker, right?

Are you fucking serious!?

I'm very proud to be Lithuanian and honestly don't appreciate you making a joke. I know I'm not the only Lithuanian on this site but I'm not going to out anyone.

Pandas are from China not Lithuania. Lithuanians don't go to China. Your attempt at humor reveals your ignorance.

Jokes on you. My attempt at life reveals my ignorance.

PETA would like a word with you...

And that word better be delicious. 'cause that's what pandas are, my friend. They're nature's super food.

Their endangered status does add to the flavor.

[GreenGoo]

I'm definitely not signing on for a day-long spat about this, but it really sounded like you were complaining about being told what to call marginalized groups.

Only in that "feelings" are not a good basis for determining what you want people to call you.

That's it.

[GreenGoo]

Ah man, someone threw a fight and didn’t invite me?

Before I comment, I'll ask for clarification.

What do you mean by this?

[Smoove_B]

Staying classy.

Reporter: Do you regret any of your comments about George H.W. Bush or the Bush family?
President Trump: "Thank you very much everybody."

[pr0ner]

Staying classy.

Reporter: Do you regret any of your comments about George H.W. Bush or the Bush family?
President Trump: "Thank you very much everybody."

Can he be uninvited from the funeral? Please?

[Freyland]

You're looking at this the wrong way. Any "apology" would have been overtly insincere and likely complimented himself, or more likely a double-down on whatever he is supposed to be apologizing for.

He failed "classy" when he made his original comments.

[GreenGoo]

Can he be uninvited from the funeral? Please?

There is literally no reason outside of civility and decorum and tradition that prevents him from being uninvited.

I don't invite craven, sniveling hate mongers baboons (insult to baboons) to my social events, particularly solemn ones. I don't feel the need to be polite about it either. The Bushes may feel differently.

[Zarathud]

Trump on Letterman in 1988

Same themes he's using now, except for the racist anti-immigration.

[Holman]

Really wondering who wrote this. We all know Trump is incapable of writing fluid sentences on any topic, let alone in praise of someone not named Donald Trump.

Still, they got even a basic fact wrong. Bush didn't do Yale and then go off to WW2. It was the other way around.

[GreenGoo]

Hilariously no one has a problem with other presidents having speech writers. You have to be a special kind of ass for even this basic help that all presidents enjoy to be criticized.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree, but if he had a modicum of dignity or coherency, that he didn't write his statement wouldn't even be noteworthy. We can assume that most presidents at least approve of the statement before it's sent out, although I'd like to think a personal note on the death of someone noteworthy would be at least somewhat personal.

What are the chances that drumpf read it? Or even better, that whoever authorized it *let* him see it before it went out?

More importantly why is drumpf referring to himself in the 3rd person on his personal twitter account?

[Skinypupy]

Wait...he actually called out "thousand points of light" in this statement? The same "thousand points of light" that he made fun of during the campaign?

During a July 5 political rally in Montana, Trump attacked Bush, saying, "Thousand points of light, I never quite got that one."

"What the hell is that?" Trump said. "Has anyone ever figured that one out? And it was put out by a Republican, wasn't it? I know one thing, Make America Great Again we understand. Putting America first we understand."

This one gave me the lulz

There are now only 5 Living Presidents.

Jimmy Carter 94 years old
Bill Clinton 72 years old
George W Bush 72 years old
Barack Obama 57 years old
Vladimir Putin 66 years old

[Chaz]

Hilariously no one has a problem with other presidents having speech writers. You have to be a special kind of ass for even this basic help that all presidents enjoy to be criticized.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree, but if he had a modicum of dignity or coherency, that he didn't write his statement wouldn't even be noteworthy. We can assume that most presidents at least approve of the statement before it's sent out, although I'd like to think a personal note on the death of someone noteworthy would be at least somewhat personal.

What are the chances that drumpf read it? Or even better, that whoever authorized it *let* him see it before it went out?

More importantly why is drumpf referring to himself in the 3rd person on his personal twitter account?

I think the difference with this president is that generally, the goal of a speechwriter is to imitate the voice of the person they're writing for. If they're doing their job well, then it should be very difficult to distinguish between something that the principal wrote/said, and something a speechwriter prepared for them.

In this case, it's GLARINGLY obvious when Trump wrote or said something, and when a speechwriter did. I'm not sure if the problem is that the speechwriters aren't capable of fully capturing Trump's...unique way of imitating an angry first-grader, or if even among the bargain bin staffers this admin has working for it, they can't bring themselves to write something that sounds authentically Trump.

Beyond the actual phrasings, it's also the sentiments expressed. We know that when talking off the cuff or tweeting, Trump is incapable of empathy or human caring for just about anyone who isn't him. The only times you get that is in a written statement, or in a prepared teleprompter speech (and even then, you can usually count on him to undermine that with an unscripted comment or five). So when those statements do come, and they're obviously not written by him, it looks bad.

Basically, past Presidents used speechwriters to take the core message, feelings, and voice that the President held and expressed on their own, and just do more of that. With Trump, it's more like when a toddler screams "FAT MAN UGLY FACE", and his parents say "oh, what he meant was thank you very much for the cookie." Ain't nobody buying that that's what the toddler meant.

[Holman]

With most significant public statements, the speechwriters craft a document but the president edits and puts his own choices into it. Presidents have traditionally tended to care a *lot* about the words that come out of their mouth, and most of them have been invested in making sure it was their own voice. Think of Reagan's soaring warmth and Obama's fluid intellect.

Not so with Trump. We all know his real voice, and when he's given a decently written piece to read, he drones from the teleprompter like a sullen teen delivering a book report he stole from Wikipedia.

If he gives remarks at GHWB's funeral, they'll be like that.

[hepcat]

Trump on Letterman in 1988

Same themes he's using now, except for the racist anti-immigration.

That’s actually the most humble and down to earth I’ve ever seen him, to be honest. He comes across almost human.

[noxiousdog]

And what does any of this actually cost you? I mean this as a neutral question.

It costs society uncertainty. It costs societal defensiveness. It costs acceptability being weaponized. It costs a constant threat of being in the wrong because what "in the wrong" means changes on a whim. If you actually care about people, then you have to know how to treat them with respect. Being at risk of offending no matter how you act or behave is crippling for those trying to act or behave in such a way so that everyone feels valued and and accepted.

Arguably, it cost the presidency. Political correctness is one thing people widely hate about liberals.

It's even a problem for most liberals.

"'Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that 'political correctness is a problem in our country.' Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages.'"

Kraken already posted that survey.