So the POTSUS gets to swear on national TV now

[DJQuag]

So do his critics. Are we all still going to be censored? (Obviously tongue in cheek lol.)

[Crunch]

When properly used, a swear word can be an effective communication tactic.

[Wayward Son]

From Stonekettle Station:

Trump directly pandered to the racists and the sexists and bigots of all stripes, to the greedy and the selfish, to the nationalists and the xenophobes and the war mongers. Trump appealed to that guy at the end of every bar. You know, that guy, the loud drunk, the blowhard, who knows it all and is determined to tell you. The guy who thinks that if we just drop enough bombs, kill enough people, the rest will fall in line. That’s his answer to everything, bomb ‘em! Violence. A punch in the nose. Trump appealed to that guy because instead of attempting to lead from out in front, from a position of (alleged) moral high ground, Trump instead told that guy he was right.

The simpleminded demand simple solutions to complex problems, and Trump gave them that.

Trump told them they didn’t need to be better people.

That’s what a real leader does, encourage you to be better.

But not Trump.

No. Trump told Conservatives they were fine, the very best, in fact, they didn’t need to be better people because they were already the best people. Better than everybody else.

Trump didn’t appeal to their supposed better nature. Instead, he told *censored*ty terrible people that it was okay to be *censored*ty terrible people. Trump told the privileged that they were the real victims. That’s right.

Trump told racists that they were very fine people indeed, that it was okay to be racists, and he welcomed them to his rallies. The Klan. Nazis. Confederates. Proud Boys. For the first time since 1968, since George Wallace, they were all welcome up front. Come as you are!

Trump told the misogynists that it was okay to grab ‘em by the pussy so long as you popped in a Tic Tac first. He told the haters it was okay to hate gay people and Muslims and people of color. Trump told the greedy that it was okay to be selfish. He told the warmongers peace could only be had with the application of high explosives. He told the deliberately ignorant stupidity was a virtue, history was a liberal plot, education was elitism, compassion was an assault on manhood, and that money – and only money -- was proof of intellect.

Trump told terrible people that it was okay to be terrible.

Trump told terrible people that they didn’t need to feel bad about being terrible.

The defining moment was when Trump stood in front of America on national TV and told conservatives that it was A-OK to mock the disabled and he flapped his arms around and made weird squawking noises. The audience, instead of being appalled, they roared with laughter.

They roared with laughter.

Swearing?  Why not?  Everybody does it, so it can't be terrible.  Trump leads again. 

[yossarian22c]

Wayward, I'm not a particular fan of that write up. It takes everything Trump says and then spins it in the most negative context imaginable. As such it can only serve to stir emotions in anti-Trumpers and will not be persuasive at all to people who support him. If anything write ups like that just further convince his supporters that "the media," "the deep state," or "the democrats" are only out to get him and will never give him a fair hearing. Emotional appeals to your own supporters is a dangerously divisive technique (and one Trump uses regularly).

Rational and constructive conversation demands we admit Trump can be bad, rude, and potentially corrupt without being evil. Trump doesn't adhere to those standards, in his celebration yesterday he repeatedly called out democrats as being evil and basically anti-america. But that doesn't mean he needs to be responded to using his standards.

[rightleft22]

Rational and constructive conversation demands we admit Trump can be bad, rude, and potentially corrupt without being evil. Trump doesn't adhere to those standards, in his celebration yesterday he repeatedly called out democrats as being evil and basically anti-america. But that doesn't mean he needs to be responded to using his standards.

I agree but man is it hard not to fail into hypocrisy on this one and allow the lowering of the bar to become precedent.

Its the double standard that's so in our faces that I think is what making people crazy. Trump as a politician can behave pretty much as he pleases while others can't. 
Someone I know who has never batted eye on Trumps 'crudeness' and sometimes petulant behavior was beside himself over Pelosi ripping the speech in half. (had the tables been revised he would have cheer )

[Fenring]

Its the double standard that's so in our faces that I think is what making people crazy. Trump as a politician can behave pretty much as he pleases while others can't. 

I don't see what's so special about this situation. You think this is the first world leader who does things others can't do and get away with it? That's literally why people want to have power, to do whatever they want. You can file that under "duh". You could just as soon complain that other Presidents have armed terrorists, and it's a double standard because why can't we arm terrorists too and sink to their level.

[rightleft22]

That's literally why people want to have power, to do whatever they want. You can file that under "duh"

I was referring to the double standard in personal behavior, character, speech... not to policies or method of implementation. Though perhaps a case could be made for the latter

That said I find your statement sad though it may reflect today's concept of leadership and power, to get whatever you want, however historically the ideal of leadership is associated to service. 

but ok "dah"

[TheDrake]

Its the double standard that's so in our faces that I think is what making people crazy. Trump as a politician can behave pretty much as he pleases while others can't. 

I don't see what's so special about this situation. You think this is the first world leader who does things others can't do and get away with it? That's literally why people want to have power, to do whatever they want. You can file that under "duh". You could just as soon complain that other Presidents have armed terrorists, and it's a double standard because why can't we arm terrorists too and sink to their level.

We have armed terrorists. So there's that.

[Fenring]

I was referring to the double standard in personal behavior, character, speech... not to policies or method of implementation. Though perhaps a case could be made for the latter

I know, but it goes hand in hand. You may ask how Trump can get away with his behavior but we need to be better. Well part of that is decency - we *want* to be better - but part is necessity. You would be fired if you spoke like his does and maybe even worked like he does; or socially your friends would dump you. But the way he's structured his life it appears he can get away with it, and it likely even helps him. So he can get away with it and you can't, but I don't see the logic of complaining about the double standard.

That said I find your statement sad though it may reflect today's concept of leadership and power, to get whatever you want, however historically the ideal of leadership is associated to service.

Historically, like, as in Thomas Jefferson? I think the founding of the U.S. was uniquely interesting in that it featured what I would call actual principled philosophers determining how to lead a nation. But I would call that a remarkable aberration historically speaking, as you will rarely find an Augustus or Marcus Aurelius who are reputed to be honorable and wise. Most often leaders are users that also satisfy the hoi poloi. Contrary to what you are saying, I think that this notion of "leaders are here to help us" is a novel and actually strange notion, probably invented through propaganda during and after WWII, and was certainly by no means the public sentiment prior to that. The standard method of understanding governance was that the big boys don't care about the little guy and are out to pillage you. Until super-recently that was understood to be a given. This new concept that those occupying high office are supposed to be your buddy and look out for you is maybe how it should be - like in concept - and I am equally sad that it can't be like this, but I also know the reality is more or less how George Carlin put it: "It's a big club, and you ain't in it." *That* has historically been more or less the standard view of government and rulers.

[Fenring]

We have armed terrorists. So there's that.

You have? I hope you're using your browser on incognito mode...

[ScottF]

There's a study that correlates profanity with increased trustworthiness and honesty. Essentially people who use profanity tend to be viewed as more honest and sincere.

“The consistent findings across the studies suggest that the positive relation between profanity and honesty is robust, and that the relationship found at the individual level indeed translates to the society level,” concludes the final paper, set to be published in the journal of Psychological and Personality Science this year."

https://www.academia.edu/29725191/Frankly_we_do_give_a_damn_The_relationship_between_profanity_and_honesty

[Fenring]

Interesting point to that, ScottF, is I have encountered teachers - usually in the arts - who specifically use a lot of profanity almost as a marketing mechanism to demonstrate how "on the level" they are, giving you the real honest deal. I have seen students attracted to that sort of teacher, where the mere fact of them swearing seems to encourage the student that they can trust this teacher to have their back. And this is completely aside from whether in fact the teacher has their back. It's a style thing, and it works. The fact that profanity use may often actually be correlated to honesty may well be why this tactic works; you can always abuse a true thing to manipulate people.

[rightleft22]

So he can get away with it and you can't, but I don't see the logic of complaining about the double standard.

The double standard I'm referring to is not about Trump but in the debate.

A person that defends a behavior for one person and then condemns it for other deploying the same behavior.  That is a double standard and hypocrisy 
But you know that and your seeming deliberate misreading of that suggest a shadow problem of your own our your messing with me.

[Fenring]

A person that defends a behavior for one person and then condemns it for other deploying the same behavior.  That is a double standard and hypocrisy

Ok sure, but it's not even a double standard to roll your eyes when the a**hole does something and then get upset when someone you expect more of does the same thing. It means your expectations of both are not at parity. Should it even need to be stated that Trump has already lowered expectations of him to a minimum? That was practically his campaign. Do you really need to pretend to be mystified when good people act like the a**holes and this upsets people? It's not some big mystery, we expect little of him and more from others. But I think what grates is that all of this is stuff real people can't really do; it's all like some kind of theatre, and the 'role' we assign to certain people gets us upset when it's not met. Trump has already cast himself in the role of Richard III, who does ugly things, lets us know he's doing it, and winks. Like it or not politics is theatre.

But you know that and your seeming deliberate misreading of that suggest a shadow problem of your own our your messing with me.

My response to you involved more than just the single issue your comment was about. So yes, I expanded it. But you know very well why Trump makes some people upset, while others take him for granted at this point but get upset at hypocrisy. I don't think it's such a big mystery, and yes I think it's possible to have multiple standards in play at once without being a hypocrite. Like, if I support Trump or like him or whatever, I can still legitimately point my finger at someone who pretends to be oh so much better but really is no better than him. That's not an inconsistent position, even though you may find it an annoying one.

[Crunch]

“This is a big *censored*ing deal.”
—Joe Biden (March 23, 2010)