Corey Lewandowski mocks separation of 10-year old Down syndrome girl from parents at the border

[homersapien 11,393]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You also don't make fun of people's looks, which includes disabilities. That's my take. 

Well, in this case, Trump was two for two. 

But you just keep on trying to minimize what he did.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

 

Exactly. Am I being too nice? I feel the same way everyone else does, and then some. Why is ok to mock someone's facial characteristics, but not ok to mock someone with a disability? Both warrant condemning.

[HVAU 673]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You also don't make fun of people's looks, which includes disabilities. That's my take. 

I think that's somewhat fair.  Resorting to ad hominem attack, especially based on appearance and inherent characteristics, is classless.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, HVAU said:

I think that's somewhat fair.  Resorting to ad hominem attack, especially based on appearance and inherent characteristics, is classless.

I know I am in the minority on this. "It's ok to mock a 'normal' person, but don't mock someone who is 'disabled" - that's a logic I disagree with. People shouldn't mock others, period. I just wish we, and the media, called it out consistently. I am guilty of inconsistency too.  

[TitanTiger 20,499]

15 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

If he was mocking Zac, why should he apologize?

If he was mocking Zac, he wouldn't.  But he would need to explain that that's what he was doing.  Which he didn't when first confronted about it.  As I said before when commenting on the initial backlash, he may later try to claim that's what he was doing to save face, but at that point I'm not buying.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/19/politics/corey-lewandowski-undocumented-immigrant-womp-womp/index.html

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162848-corey-lewandowski-mocks-separation-of-10-year-old-down-syndrome-girl-from-parents-at-the-border/?do=findComment&comment=2875495

 

 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I know I am in the minority on this. "It's ok to mock a 'normal' person, but don't mock someone who is 'disabled" - that's a logic I disagree with. People shouldn't mock others, period. I just wish we, and the media, called it out consistently.

I agree with you

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Lewandowski did an extensive interview on CNN last night. Yes I did watch CNN for a short time. He did very well making it clear he was not mocking the child. Good enough for me but you inconsistent haters carry on if it satisfies your hateworm.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Lewandowski did an extensive interview on CNN last night. Yes I did watch CNN for a short time. He did very well making it clear he was not mocking the child. Good enough for me but you inconsistent haters carry on if it satisfies your hateworm.

You don't seem to get it.

He had been asked about this several times before last night and never once said anything about it being that he was mocking Zac (the guy he was debating).  Only a couple of days later or so does this new explanation percolate up.  As I linked in my previous posts a couple of posts before this one, I saw this as a possibility.  

And it's not about hating him (though he is a repugnant, hateful individual), it's about believability.  If someone does something offensive to me and gives me an explanation or defense for it, then changes their explanation/defense to something else a couple of days later, it wouldn't matter who they were, I'd think they were full of s***.  

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You don't seem to get it.--works both ways.

He had been asked about this several times before last night and never once said anything about it being that he was mocking Zac (the guy he was debating).  Only a couple of days later or so does this new explanation percolate up.  As I linked in my previous posts a couple of posts before this one, I saw this as a possibility.  

And it's not about hating him (though he is a repugnant, hateful individual), it's about believability.  If someone does something offensive to me and gives me an explanation or defense for it, then changes their explanation/defense to something else a couple of days later, it wouldn't matter who they were, I'd think they were full of s***.  

 

All that may be true but in today's world the media latches on to your every word. If he had said anything right way it probably would have made matters worse with people just like you. If I was falsely accused of something bad these days and it made media headlines, I would respond right away either. There are tons of such cases.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

All that may be true but in today's world the media latches on to your every word. If he had said anything right way it probably would have made matters worse with people just like you. If I was falsely accused of something bad these days and it made media headlines, I would respond right away either. There are tons of such cases.

Dang it man, pay attention.  He did respond right away.  The problem is that he gave a completely different explanation when he did.

And no, it wouldn't have made matters worse, it would have shown consistency.  It's rather simple.  If the real reason you made the "womp womp" snark was to poke at your debate opponent, then that explanation comes out the first time you're asked about it.  This is just how normal people operate.  But when you give one explanation at first, then a couple of days later offer a new and different one, it's perfectly reasonable to regard this new explanation as BS.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Dang it man, pay attention.  He did respond right away.  The problem is that he gave a completely different explanation when he did.

And no, it wouldn't have made matters worse, it would have shown consistency.  It's rather simple.  If the real reason you made the "womp womp" snark was to poke at your debate opponent, then that explanation comes out the first time you're asked about it.  This is just how normal people operate.  But when you give one explanation at first, then a couple of days later offer a new and different one, it's perfectly reasonable to regard this new explanation as BS.

Ok so he did what no high visibility person has ever done. Got it. I choose to accept his final explanation he made on CNN last night. Carry on with whatever you choose to believe.

[homersapien 11,393]

9 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Ok so he did what no high visibility person has ever done. Got it. I choose to accept his final explanation he made on CNN last night. Carry on with whatever you choose to believe.

There is nothing - no matter how obviously bogus - that you wouldn't accept coming from this administration.

How's the search for those 3 million illegal votes coming?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

6 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Ok so he did what no high visibility person has ever done. Got it. I choose to accept his final explanation he made on CNN last night. Carry on with whatever you choose to believe.

Of course you do.  

gullible - adjective   /ˈɡələb(ə)l/
easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say.

synonyms:  credulous, naive, overtrusting, overtrustful, easily deceived, easily taken in, exploitable, dupable, impressionable, unsuspecting, unsuspicious, unwary, ingenuous, innocent, inexperienced, unworldly, green;  

examples:  Proud Tiger at AUFamily.com

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, homersapien said:

There is nothing - no matter how obviously bogus - that you wouldn't accept coming from this administration.

Exactly.  This scum bucket doesn't even work for the Trump administration anymore and PT is still toting his water.

[Barnacle 9,064]

22 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I would love it if we called people out on TV every time they imitate Trump, for example. 

Are you talking about comedy or satire, or are you talking about joe-blow political commentator? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, Barnacle said:

Are you talking about comedy or satire, or are you talking about joe-blow political commentator? 

The latter I suppose. Though I do think even comedy takes it too far at times, but I can choose not to watch it. I should've used a better example. 

[kevon67 2,368]

57 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Lewandowski did an extensive interview on CNN last night. Yes I did watch CNN for a short time. He did very well making it clear he was not mocking the child. Good enough for me but you inconsistent haters carry on if it satisfies your hateworm.

Your a better man than me....its like watching a terrible SNL skit.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

23 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What? That's not what I am saying AT ALL. I'm saying that mockery/imitation in jest of any kind is unacceptable, whether one is disabled or not. We should not separate it based on whether one is disabled. I said Trump was wrong for doing that. It's sick. I detest it for what it is though, not because the person being mocked/imitated was disabled. Disabled and non-disabled people deserve equal dignity. My point is that there seems to be an inconsistency based on a political dividing line, and that's wrong. Is it ok for people to mock the President? Was it ok for people to mock Obama? It's the same thing. The presence of specific categorical physical condition shouldn't be the factor that warrants disdain.  

No, you aren’t. You are trying to normalize what Trump did, what CL did by saying Trump has been mocked too. 

[HVAU 673]

49 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

No, you aren’t. You are trying to normalize what Trump did, what CL did by saying Trump has been mocked too. 

I think there has to be a line demarcation for Obama and Trump.  Obama did not, except at the WHCD, publicly mock journalists, political opponents or children, with or without disabilities.  Obama delivered his rhetoric with class and dignity.

Trump, on the other hand, has made a brand of mocking or bullying other people.  A running tab on his ad hominem attacks would get pretty high, as he rarely uses anything else.  Many of his supporters regard his lack of class as a politically positive attribute.  CL falls into that category somewhat as well.

This being the case, ad hominem attacks, though still classless, bother me much less when directed at Trump or his proxies.  It's a "reap what you sow" scenario.

[aubiefifty 16,821]

On 6/21/2018 at 1:44 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Even if it is mockery, do you understand my point though? Being disabled is out of one's control. In no circumstances should it be mocked. In the same way, the way one's voice sounds or the way one looks (for the most part), is out of one's control as well. No group warrants compassion more than the other IMO. What's so bad about my feelings towards this? Trump should have been called out for the mockery, but damnit let's be consistent when we do it and blur political affiliation. I think it's wrong when people mock him. But you won't hear Homer complain about that. 

lets be clear. trump mocked a disabled man who cannot and does not have a choice in his situation. Trump is mocked because he is a friggin assh*le and brings it on himself with all the crap he spews.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

No, you aren’t. You are trying to normalize what Trump did, what CL did by saying Trump has been mocked too. 

No, I’m not. You’re can’t impose your will on me. They’re my words and I explained them

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

lets be clear. trump mocked a disabled man who cannot and does not have a choice in his situation. Trump is mocked because he is a friggin assh*le and brings it on himself with all the crap he spews.

There’s the “clear” logic....

You’ve failed to comprehend my point. So has Elle

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 minutes ago, HVAU said:

I think there has to be a line demarcation for Obama and Trump.  Obama did not, except at the WHCD, publicly mock journalists, political opponents or children, with or without disabilities.  Obama delivered his rhetoric with class and dignity.

Trump, on the other hand, has made a brand of mocking or bullying other people.  A running tab on his ad hominem attacks would get pretty high, as he rarely uses anything else.  Many of his supporters regard his lack of class as a politically positive attribute.  CL falls into that category somewhat as well.

This being the case, ad hominem attacks, though still classless, bother me much less when directed at Trump or his proxies.  It's a "reap what you sow" scenario.

I appreciate you at least understanding my point. I understand yours as well

[homersapien 11,393]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No, I’m not. You’re can’t impose your will on me. They’re my words and I explained them

Well, to be fair, I suppose it is possible that you are totally clueless about how your posts are going to be interpreted by any reasonable person reading them. 

Hopefully that's something you will learn with time.

[homersapien 11,393]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

There’s the “clear” logic....

You’ve failed to comprehend my point. So has Elle

Thusly...