|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
So Huffingtonpost has got it's hands on a unaired transcript of a moment(s) of The Apprentice...
During the boardroom session that decided which team did the better job transforming its artist, Trump turned the conversation sharply ― and at times, uncomfortably ― to West’s physical appearance, specifically her skin.
“I assume you’re gonna leave this off, don’t put this shit on the show, you know. But her skin, her skin sucks, okay?” he says, according to the transcript. “I mean her skin, she needs some serious fuckin’ dermatology.”
Cyndi Lauper, who headed the team that managed West, interjected to explain that they used “dry stuff” ― presumably, makeup ― and said Trump was objecting to something that was “not her skin.” But he remained unimpressed.
“Fuck,” he proclaimed. “That’s Emily, that’s what I’m hearing about? Let me see the other one. I assume you’re not putting this on the show. ‘Cause I don’t wanna destroy the kid’s career.”
At one point, Trump briefly brought the conversation back to the actual work. But he returned again to West’s physical appearance. The back-and-forth continued for roughly three minutes.
“Personally, I am, as you probably heard, not a gay man, but I think he’s better looking that [sic] Emily okay?” Trump said of Bryan at one point.
Trump also asked Trace Adkins, the country music star who served as a guest judge on the show, what he thought about brochures that each team produced.
“Well I um, I, I think the one they did for Emily is a little more polished looking,” Adkins said.
“You’re obviously not a skin man,” Trump said. He later reiterated the point, pounded the table and said, “which is okay.” He added, “I wish I wasn’t.”
West, whose team went on to win the episode, told HuffPost she never met Trump during her appearance on the show. They filmed their pieces separately, and the apprentices would gather in the boardroom, where Trump would decide who was “fired” and make comments about their “products.”
“Trace Adkins approved of me,” West said. “I’m good.”
Lauper, meanwhile, confirmed that the transcript accurately captured the unaired portion of that episode.
Source
|
On October 11 2016 03:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This, more than anything else from the debate, really confuses me. Because we can entertain the idea of two possible worlds:
1) Trump actually does have some intimate Russian connections
2) Trump does not have intimate Russian connections
No matter what, there's absolutely no reason to contradict the formal accusation levied by the U.S. government against Russia. If you're an agent, just ignore that part and respond with your typical word salad. If you aren't, just ignore that part and respond with your typical word salad.
It's like if a Russian spy during the Cold War decorating his house with the hammer and sickle.
The only sub-worlds where saying what he did makes sense are:
3) The world where he both forgot and doesn't follow the news outside r/Donald regardless of his connections
4) The world where he's been co-opted but doesn't even know how to handle being co-opted because he's just that shitty at life
It's just bizarre.
|
On October 11 2016 03:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Honestly the whole Republican primary was doomed once it became clear none of the non-Trumps were willing to bow out early, which I totally missed. I didn't realize just how huge an advantage in delegates the weird states-rights distribution would give Trump and how hard that would be to break.
I think if those debates had been Trump + 1 on a stage where they're roughly even in the polls, we would have been treated to the same word salad nonsense we got during the main debates when he was talking half the time. And that might have been enough to let the other person eke out a win, especially since they could have done some opposition research on him instead of each other.
Instead we got Rubio and Cruz arguing over each other's immigration reform bills and Christie babbling about being a state prosecutor while everyone else just kinda waits to get asked a question.
The "other person" would have ended up being Cruz, no? If people had dropped out more conservatively (as it were).
|
On October 11 2016 03:37 Plansix wrote:
The fact that people are still trying to play it like Trump isn’t some Russia shill is hysterical. It was reported a long time ago that Trump’s son admitted a lot of their investors were from Russia.
Even I have admitted in the past that Trump has pushed talking points that are clearly from a Russian, rather than merely a Russian-friendly, perspective. Some things he says are... clearly under influence.
|
On October 11 2016 03:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:This, more than anything else from the debate, really confuses me. Because we can entertain the idea of two possible worlds: 1) Trump actually does have some intimate Russian connections 2) Trump does not have intimate Russian connections No matter what, there's absolutely no reason to contradict the formal accusation levied by the U.S. government against Russia. If you're an agent, just ignore that part and respond with your typical word salad. If you aren't, just ignore that part and respond with your typical word salad. The only sub-worlds where saying what he did makes sense are: 3) The world where he both forgot and doesn't follow the news outside r/Donald regardless of his connections 4) The world where he's been co-opted but doesn't even know how to handle being co-opted because he's just that shitty at life It's just bizarre.
Eh, there's nothing wrong with Trump's response about not "knowing," regardless of what the Feds may have told Trump. It's a typical, lawyered response (that's technically correct), and God knows that Trump has received plenty of coaching from lawyers.
|
On October 11 2016 03:42 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 03:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Honestly the whole Republican primary was doomed once it became clear none of the non-Trumps were willing to bow out early, which I totally missed. I didn't realize just how huge an advantage in delegates the weird states-rights distribution would give Trump and how hard that would be to break.
I think if those debates had been Trump + 1 on a stage where they're roughly even in the polls, we would have been treated to the same word salad nonsense we got during the main debates when he was talking half the time. And that might have been enough to let the other person eke out a win, especially since they could have done some opposition research on him instead of each other.
Instead we got Rubio and Cruz arguing over each other's immigration reform bills and Christie babbling about being a state prosecutor while everyone else just kinda waits to get asked a question. The "other person" would have ended up being Cruz, no? If people had dropped out more conservatively (as it were).
Depends on the timeline; at times Cruz was in a pretty desperate spot, and Iowa was the thing that really brought him into the picture big time. I think it could have been Cruz, Bush, or Rubio. Maaaaybe even Christie. But all of them staying in made it really bad for them. (Carson and Fiorina were ultimately inconsequential)
On October 11 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 03:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:This, more than anything else from the debate, really confuses me. Because we can entertain the idea of two possible worlds: 1) Trump actually does have some intimate Russian connections 2) Trump does not have intimate Russian connections No matter what, there's absolutely no reason to contradict the formal accusation levied by the U.S. government against Russia. If you're an agent, just ignore that part and respond with your typical word salad. If you aren't, just ignore that part and respond with your typical word salad. The only sub-worlds where saying what he did makes sense are: 3) The world where he both forgot and doesn't follow the news outside r/Donald regardless of his connections 4) The world where he's been co-opted but doesn't even know how to handle being co-opted because he's just that shitty at life It's just bizarre. Eh, there's nothing wrong with Trump's response about not "knowing," regardless of what the Feds may have told Trump. It's a typical, lawyered response (that's technically correct), and God knows that Trump has received plenty of coaching from lawyers.
I think I disagree that you can just "I can't recall" two days after a formal announcement by the government of the country you're running to be president of after being informed of the issue previously at an intelligence briefing. Especially since it's the *only* time he acted lawyer-coached the entire debate, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
And I also still don't understand the point of doing it. At all. In any universe besides those last two.
|
On October 11 2016 03:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 03:42 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2016 03:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Honestly the whole Republican primary was doomed once it became clear none of the non-Trumps were willing to bow out early, which I totally missed. I didn't realize just how huge an advantage in delegates the weird states-rights distribution would give Trump and how hard that would be to break.
I think if those debates had been Trump + 1 on a stage where they're roughly even in the polls, we would have been treated to the same word salad nonsense we got during the main debates when he was talking half the time. And that might have been enough to let the other person eke out a win, especially since they could have done some opposition research on him instead of each other.
Instead we got Rubio and Cruz arguing over each other's immigration reform bills and Christie babbling about being a state prosecutor while everyone else just kinda waits to get asked a question. The "other person" would have ended up being Cruz, no? If people had dropped out more conservatively (as it were). Depends on the timeline; at times Cruz was in a pretty desperate spot, and Iowa was the thing that really brought him into the picture big time. I think it could have been Cruz, Bush, or Rubio. Maaaaybe even Christie. But all of them staying in made it really bad for them. (Carson and Fiorina were ultimately inconsequential)
Cruz is as unpalatable to a big part of the voterbase as Trump is, and that would all come out if he were the frontrunner.
|
On October 11 2016 03:13 KwarK wrote:
Oh please. I'll give you an advance screening on that "nigger" tape.
Bio Major: Well that was a few years ago, it's unfortunate but I'd hope he's changed his views on nig-... thugs since then.
xDaunt: What you don't know is that he's actually one of the least racist people around so I can't believe you'd read any kind of racism into that. You're actually the real racist.
GGTemplar: Yeah but were the people he was calling niggers black? They were? So you checked if they were black!?!? Wow. That is so racist. I can't believe you would actually check if they were black. You should be like me. I don't see colour.
Danglars: Hillary Clinton though.
Zeo: The media is just spinning up another scandal to distract from how Trump is winning.
Nettles: Buy gold!
RealityIsKing: Why does the left keep making accusations of racism? Why can't they just be impartial like me?
and, for some reason,
Doodsmack: Bill Clinton raped a woman.
Holy shit Kwark, you've made me laugh out loud in the office.
|
Kwark, that was pretty funny. Lol'd on flight. Be fair and balanced please, I'm sure you could come up with something for the Hillary shills as well.
|
On October 11 2016 03:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:This, more than anything else from the debate, really confuses me. Because we can entertain the idea of two possible worlds: 1) Trump actually does have some intimate Russian connections 2) Trump does not have intimate Russian connections No matter what, there's absolutely no reason to contradict the formal accusation levied by the U.S. government against Russia. If you're an agent, just ignore that part and respond with your typical word salad. If you aren't, just ignore that part and respond with your typical word salad. It's like if a Russian spy during the Cold War decorating his house with the hammer and sickle. The only sub-worlds where saying what he did makes sense are: 3) The world where he both forgot and doesn't follow the news outside r/Donald regardless of his connections 4) The world where he's been co-opted but doesn't even know how to handle being co-opted because he's just that shitty at life It's just bizarre.
It would be better if Trump have intimate Russian connections.
This means he probably know what's really going on over there and to Ol' Berndawg would say to Hillary not have "bad judgement".
|
On October 11 2016 03:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:This, more than anything else from the debate, really confuses me. Because we can entertain the idea of two possible worlds: 1) Trump actually does have some intimate Russian connections 2) Trump does not have intimate Russian connections No matter what, there's absolutely no reason to contradict the formal accusation levied by the U.S. government against Russia. If you're an agent, just ignore that part and respond with your typical word salad. If you aren't, just ignore that part and respond with your typical word salad. It's like if a Russian spy during the Cold War decorating his house with the hammer and sickle. The only sub-worlds where saying what he did makes sense are: 3) The world where he both forgot and doesn't follow the news outside r/Donald regardless of his connections 4) The world where he's been co-opted but doesn't even know how to handle being co-opted because he's just that shitty at life It's just bizarre.
Isn't this typical Trump behavior though? If he thinks there is an opportunity to obfuscate reality he goes in on it. Especially if it will play well at his rallies. It is a bit of a tell imo.
|
On October 11 2016 03:51 biology]major wrote:
Kwark, that was pretty funny. Lol'd on flight. Be fair and balanced please, I'm sure you could come up with something for the Hillary shills as well.
I wouldn't mind seeing that, except that Kwizach's portion might take too long.
No hate, Kwizach, just making a joke!
|
On October 11 2016 03:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I think I disagree that you can just "I can't recall" two days after a formal announcement by the government of the country you're running to be president of after being informed of the issue previously at an intelligence briefing. Especially since it's the *only* time he acted lawyer-coached the entire debate, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
And I also still don't understand the point of doing it. At all. In any universe besides those last two.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. Regardless of whether Trump knew or remembered the announcement by the Feds, he still doesn't have any personal knowledge of whether the Russians are, in fact, responsible for the hacking (none of us do, either, for that matter). And not conceding the point leaves open the possibility that Trump can blast the Obama administration for collusion in the scapegoating of the Russians to draw attention away from the contents of the hacked materials.
|
On October 11 2016 03:54 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 03:51 biology]major wrote:
Kwark, that was pretty funny. Lol'd on flight. Be fair and balanced please, I'm sure you could come up with something for the Hillary shills as well. I wouldn't mind seeing that, except that Kwizach's portion might take too long. No hate, Kwizach, just making a joke!
Let me reference a scientific study to explain why you were wrong to make that joke... :p
|
Gotta admit, this GOP infighting is very satisfying
|
On October 11 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 03:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I think I disagree that you can just "I can't recall" two days after a formal announcement by the government of the country you're running to be president of after being informed of the issue previously at an intelligence briefing. Especially since it's the *only* time he acted lawyer-coached the entire debate, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
And I also still don't understand the point of doing it. At all. In any universe besides those last two. I think you're misunderstanding my point. Regardless of whether Trump knew or remembered the announcement by the Feds, he still doesn't have any personal knowledge of whether the Russians are, in fact, responsible for the hacking (none of us do, either, for that matter). And not conceding the point leaves open the possibility that Trump can blast the Obama administration for collusion in the scapegoating of the Russians to draw attention away from the contents of the hacked materials.
But he didn't do the last part-he just said he didn't know and left it out that, despite the other times he basically said Obama was a corrupt loser at the debate. And I think you're misunderstanding me in that I'm not assessing whether he was technically correct but whether it made any sense for him to do given the rest of his behavior at the debate from a rational, goal-oriented standpoint.
And I hope you'll admit that if you don't think Russia was responsible at this point there's absolutely no evidence on earth that would convince you otherwise-I think there are posters here that would respond to a public Putin admission of hacking as evidence Russia was not responsible.
|
On October 11 2016 03:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 02:33 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 02:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 11 2016 02:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 11 2016 02:16 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Sanders, nuaced foreign policy, pick one
Edit: happy to undermine your post one level down, Liquid'Drone Oh, did that post sound like I was saying Sanders had a nuanced policy? I meant I would like a policy similar to Sanders but more nuanced, sorry if that didn't come through. Fair enough. If I'm abrasive, its because I have to read shit like zeo trying to start a "Hillary supporters are trying to rig polls to make it look like Trump supporters rig polls in Trump's favor" conspiracy and resist my urge to strangle something. This thread is toxic and/or stupid far too often and why I take long breaks from it to regain my faith in humanity. Meh, the only thing you can really do is to grow a thicker skin. If we all were triggered every time we heard something we think is stupidly wrong, we'd all go insane very quickly. There is stupid and stupid. We all handle our load of normal stupid every day, but trumpist dumb'ess is out of this world. The fact that we are all fucked if people elect this buffoon and that so much is at stake makes it harder to stay calm.
I suppose the difference is that I also see it as highly dangerous to allow the Hillary government to do as it does with little more than "at least it's better than Trump" as justification. The long-term effects of that are not pretty.
|
On October 11 2016 03:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So Huffingtonpost has got it's hands on a unaired transcript of a moment(s) of The Apprentice... Show nested quote +
During the boardroom session that decided which team did the better job transforming its artist, Trump turned the conversation sharply ― and at times, uncomfortably ― to West’s physical appearance, specifically her skin.
“I assume you’re gonna leave this off, don’t put this shit on the show, you know. But her skin, her skin sucks, okay?” he says, according to the transcript. “I mean her skin, she needs some serious fuckin’ dermatology.”
Cyndi Lauper, who headed the team that managed West, interjected to explain that they used “dry stuff” ― presumably, makeup ― and said Trump was objecting to something that was “not her skin.” But he remained unimpressed.
“Fuck,” he proclaimed. “That’s Emily, that’s what I’m hearing about? Let me see the other one. I assume you’re not putting this on the show. ‘Cause I don’t wanna destroy the kid’s career.”
At one point, Trump briefly brought the conversation back to the actual work. But he returned again to West’s physical appearance. The back-and-forth continued for roughly three minutes.
“Personally, I am, as you probably heard, not a gay man, but I think he’s better looking that [sic] Emily okay?” Trump said of Bryan at one point.
Trump also asked Trace Adkins, the country music star who served as a guest judge on the show, what he thought about brochures that each team produced.
“Well I um, I, I think the one they did for Emily is a little more polished looking,” Adkins said.
“You’re obviously not a skin man,” Trump said. He later reiterated the point, pounded the table and said, “which is okay.” He added, “I wish I wasn’t.”
West, whose team went on to win the episode, told HuffPost she never met Trump during her appearance on the show. They filmed their pieces separately, and the apprentices would gather in the boardroom, where Trump would decide who was “fired” and make comments about their “products.”
“Trace Adkins approved of me,” West said. “I’m good.”
Lauper, meanwhile, confirmed that the transcript accurately captured the unaired portion of that episode.
Source
i actually don't really see anything wrong tbh.
|
On October 11 2016 03:54 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 03:51 biology]major wrote:
Kwark, that was pretty funny. Lol'd on flight. Be fair and balanced please, I'm sure you could come up with something for the Hillary shills as well. I wouldn't mind seeing that, except that Kwizach's portion might take too long. No hate, Kwizach, just making a joke!
I'll try.
user1: (some position on the issue)
kwizach: (long-winded post attacking that position with sources)
user1: I think (so-and-so source) isn't saying what you say it's saying, and I take position X.
kwizach: no, this source is saying (something or other) and here is a bunch of evidence against the position Y that you took
user1: wtf? I took position X and your source is definitely not saying that
kwizach: no, YOU took position Y and HERE is why position Y is wrong
user1: meh w/e why do I even bother
In all fairness I'm interested in what people would characterize as my expected response to that hypothetical tape.
|
On October 11 2016 04:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 03:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 11 2016 02:33 LegalLord wrote:On October 11 2016 02:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 11 2016 02:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 11 2016 02:16 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Sanders, nuaced foreign policy, pick one
Edit: happy to undermine your post one level down, Liquid'Drone Oh, did that post sound like I was saying Sanders had a nuanced policy? I meant I would like a policy similar to Sanders but more nuanced, sorry if that didn't come through. Fair enough. If I'm abrasive, its because I have to read shit like zeo trying to start a "Hillary supporters are trying to rig polls to make it look like Trump supporters rig polls in Trump's favor" conspiracy and resist my urge to strangle something. This thread is toxic and/or stupid far too often and why I take long breaks from it to regain my faith in humanity. Meh, the only thing you can really do is to grow a thicker skin. If we all were triggered every time we heard something we think is stupidly wrong, we'd all go insane very quickly. There is stupid and stupid. We all handle our load of normal stupid every day, but trumpist dumb'ess is out of this world. The fact that we are all fucked if people elect this buffoon and that so much is at stake makes it harder to stay calm. I suppose the difference is that I also see it as highly dangerous to allow the Hillary government to do as it does with little more than "at least it's better than Trump" as justification. The long-term effects of that are not pretty.
Once Hillary is elected she can do whatever the fuck she wants because anyone who is comparing her to Trump before a binary election will in no way be able to change their votes in 2020.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
