The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[T.Lex]

Maybe politicians shouldn't buy stock.

Would that apply to POTUS, too?

 

[nonobaddog]

Would that apply to POTUS, too?

It seems to me POTUS is a politician position.

 

[Mongo59]

There's a bit more to it than that. There are ethics rules (believe it or not) that are intended to prevent that kind of thing.

How are they to know the definition of that when they don't even know the definition of "is"...

 

[BugI02]

Maybe politicians shouldn't buy stock.

Or, maybe buy all they want but can only sell small percentages at any one time. HODL like the rest of us, mother*******

 

[Phase2]

Maybe politicians shouldn't buy stock.

Politicians should be able to invest like anyone else. The difference is that they often have access to insider info that most others don't. It isn't illegal for them to trade on that info, unlike the peons.

A simple answer would be to be required to place their investments into a blind trust. Basically, they just hire someone to handle their investments for them, but they don't get to direct the investments or know what is in them at any point in time.

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube_share;AtPwEzqGe6g]https://youtu.be/AtPwEzqGe6g[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

That was an undisciplined thing for an undisciplined authority to do. That was a friendly question that he completely botched.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

That was an undisciplined thing for an undisciplined authority to do. That was a friendly question that he completely botched.

First time seeing Trump in action?

 

[BugI02]

That was an undisciplined thing for an undisciplined authority to do. That was a friendly question that he completely botched.

You mean, it was like a presidential candidate (front runner, too) telling a voter with a question for him that he is full of and not to 'try him'?

 

[T.Lex]

First time seeing Trump in action?

That was not an expression of surprise.

 

[printcraft]

That was an undisciplined thing for an undisciplined authority to do. That was a friendly question that he completely botched.

"friendly question" You know how I know you didn't bother to watch the lead up video?

 

[nonobaddog]

"friendly question" You know how I know you didn't bother to watch the lead up video?

Kind of like all the uninformed masses that are just spoon fed the short version and never see the truth.

 

[actaeon277]

That was an undisciplined thing for an undisciplined authority to do. That was a friendly question that he completely botched.

I disagree.
The reporter had repeatedly tried to push the "everyone's gonna die" idea.

 

[T.Lex]

I disagree.
The reporter had repeatedly tried to push the "everyone's gonna die" idea.

"friendly question" You know how I know you didn't bother to watch the lead up video?

So a reporter trying to bait a POTUS is new?

The question, and even the buildup, invited a, "I would comfort them by telling them we're doing everything we can and we'll all get through this together." Literally, the exact words he's been saying over and over. Then, the only soundbite would be The Talking Points.

Smile while responding, then backchannel that that reporter (NBC?) won't get called on anymore. Done.

The problem is not the reporter. The problem is not the process. The problem is that Trump takes things personally.

It was a fair question.

 

[nonobaddog]

So a reporter trying to bait a POTUS is new?

The question, and even the buildup, invited a, "I would comfort them by telling them we're doing everything we can and we'll all get through this together." Literally, the exact words he's been saying over and over. Then, the only soundbite would be The Talking Points.

Smile while responding, then backchannel that that reporter (NBC?) won't get called on anymore. Done.

The problem is not the reporter. The problem is not the process. The problem is that Trump takes things personally.

It was a fair question.

Obviously you didn't watch the whole video either.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

So a reporter trying to bait a POTUS is new?

The question, and even the buildup, invited a, "I would comfort them by telling them we're doing everything we can and we'll all get through this together." Literally, the exact words he's been saying over and over. Then, the only soundbite would be The Talking Points.

Smile while responding, then backchannel that that reporter (NBC?) won't get called on anymore. Done.

The problem is not the reporter. The problem is not the process. The problem is that Trump takes things personally.

It was a fair question.

While I agree with you on how _I_ would have handled it...

Was it a _fair_ question depends a lot on your definiton of "fair". If it was a "fair" question, then why the need to "never call on the reporter anymore?" . So I think we can agree that it WAS a loaded question at minimum.

Now as for how to handle that, a Reagan would have done as you suggested above. He had TONS of liberal detractors who were constantly up his keister with similar questions. He parried them with a smile and with skill. Trump has an ego and is much more combative in his approach. I think it's also fair to say that media are much more rabid in their approach to him.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

While I agree with you on how _I_ would have handled it...

Was it a _fair_ question depends a lot on your definiton of "fair". If it was a "fair" question, then why the need to "never call on the reporter anymore?" . So I think we can agree that it WAS a loaded question at minimum.

Now as for how to handle that, a Reagan would have done as you suggested above. He had TONS of liberal detractors who were constantly up his keister with similar questions. He parried them with a smile and with skill. Trump has an ego and is much more combative in his approach. I think it's also fair to say that media are much more rabid in their approach to him.

After four years of being constantly attacked, I think I would have a short fuse myself.

 

[T.Lex]

Obviously you didn't watch the whole video either.

Obviously, you don't understand the roles in the video.

While I agree with you on how _I_ would have handled it...

Was it a _fair_ question depends a lot on your definiton of "fair". If it was a "fair" question, then why the need to "never call on the reporter anymore?" . So I think we can agree that it WAS a loaded question at minimum.

"Loaded" questions are fair questions for a reporter in the WH press pool asking questions directly to the POTUS. They come with the job.

Part of the reason to backchannel that the reporter will be frozen out is that's how the game is played. It doesn't meant the reporter ACTUALLY won't get called on. It sends a message to the editor to back the **** off with the grandstanding. That's an optional step.

Another route is to thank the reporter afterwards for contributing to his next campaign video. That treatment is probably worth a million bucks from sympathetic donors. "See how bad I get treated....." waahmbulance

 

[nonobaddog]

Obviously, you don't understand the roles in the video.
"Loaded" questions are fair questions for a reporter in the WH press pool asking questions directly to the POTUS. They come with the job.

Part of the reason to backchannel that the reporter will be frozen out is that's how the game is played. It doesn't meant the reporter ACTUALLY won't get called on. It sends a message to the editor to back the **** off with the grandstanding. That's an optional step.

Another route is to thank the reporter afterwards for contributing to his next campaign video. That treatment is probably worth a million bucks from sympathetic donors. "See how bad I get treated....." waahmbulance

Remember the "Covington Kids" and how the media and other libtards were ready to lynch them because they only saw an edited version of what really happened?

When you mention a 'single' question two times, it indicates that you only saw one of the questions which means you only saw the edited version of what really happened.

 

[T.Lex]

When you mention a 'single' question two times, it indicates that you only saw one of the questions which means you only saw the edited version of what really happened.

First, you used quotes (those little "" things) which suggest I actual wrote "single." I did not. At least, it doesn't look like I did. If I did - feel free to actually quote me. The fact that you "quote" me incorrectly indicates you don't actually read what I write, which means many things.

Second, I did refer to the question as a singular question. There was a single question that broke Trump's resolve to stay on-message. (Not that it takes much to break his resolve.) That question was not difficult. It was not tricky. It was exactly the kind of question he should want.

If he was focused on leading the country, it whatever else the reporter said wouldn't have mattered. Instead, he gets caught up in ego and insult.