Yes, Trump was just being Trump: a man who mocks disabled people.

Trump likes to mock people, and also likes to wave his hands around while doing it. The guy in the video says the reporter is disabled and has deformed hands. He fails to mention or show that the reporter shakes uncontrollably from his illness. Trump wasn't just waving his hands around this time. He was mimicking the uncontrollable shaking of a disabled person because it was someone he thought deserved to be mocked. This looks like the same thing Rush Limbaugh did when mocking Michael J. Fox.

Edit: I went and looked at videos from the past and discovered that Serge Kovaleski doesn't appear to suffer from uncontrollable shaking. When this happened a year ago I could've sworn I saw video of him shaking while talking to a reporter. I still think Trump mocking people like this is childish and wrong, and still believe there was some exaggerated mimicking of a disabled person.

We've all seen the video. Was he mocking a persons symptoms from illness, or miming for comic effect the act of backpedaling?

To me the disingenuous spin from team Trump is so blatant and laughable, it makes my brain hurt.

Trump got caught doing something he shouldn't have. An adult admits doing wrong and apologizes. A child immediately claims they didn't do it.

I'm also sick of seeing clips of speeches taken out of context.

Was Trump mocking a disable man or is this just Trump being Trump?
Meryl Streep being duped by Media Lies.
The Fake news machine is working.

What your saying is we should ignore all the things he has said and done. I say no.
Thousands of people openly mocked a disabled person, that conversation stops right there. My president wouldn't do that. If yours would,well good for you. But for me,that conversation stops right there.

holy fuck this guy's an idiot. No one is prejudging trump,We are judging him on the things he has already said and done. Trump stood on a stage and mocked someone's disability. While thousands laughed and cheered. This tells you everything you need to know about him and his supporters. Stop normalizing this vile repulsive "thing".

'Help! The human is mocking me!'

then kitty mocks baby: wahhhh yourself you little crybaby

As great as John Oliver is, he spent more time there mocking them over petty things as opposed to really concentrating on the (admittedly real) flaws in their platforms.

OK, Stein's "music" is cringeworthy. And Johnson's "skirt" comment is creepy and ill advised, but clearly meant in a metaphorical way.

It kinda bothers me when people (not just Oliver) do it to Trump and Clinton also. Like Trump having "tiny hands", or bringing up cankles or pantsuits for Clinton.

All of those things can be funny, a few times. But bringing them up constantly makes it seem like we have nothing of actual substance to criticize them for -- which is clearly not the case.


He did bring up legitimate concerns for some of Stein and Johnson's signature platforms. In both cases, that criticism boiled down to "you can't actually do that", as in the president doesn't actually have the power to implement the policy that they want. That's fair ... BUT, pretty much every single politician ever makes campaign promises that they don't actually have the power to implement. You pretty much have to if you want to get elected.

That doesn't mean that setting those policies as goals can't have value. Obama wanted a much more thorough overhaul of healthcare and insurance, but he didn't have the power to make it happen unilaterally. So we ended up with a watered-down version of Obamacare after the Republicans in the legislature did everything they could to obstruct it. But still, even though it isn't exactly what Obama originally had in mind, there are plenty of people now with some health coverage who had none before. That's a tangible positive result.

Trump will never build his wall, even if he ends up in the White House (not likely). I offer no defense for this idiotic idea, but it is at least possible for massive public works projects to be used to create jobs, improve infrastructure, and have other tangible positive effects; like FDR's New Deal.

Hillary would face lots of obstruction if she attempts to implement her plan to let people attend public universities for free. Probably more than Obama did on Obamacare. But trying to do something to make post-secondary education more available to everyone is a good goal. Even if the cynic in me thinks she only produced this "plan" as a way to try to win support of Sanders voters.

Johnson couldn't eliminate income tax, or abolish all those departments he mentioned. But he could rein in a lot of spending that the Executive branch does have power over. That could be a good thing in many cases (I'd be happy to see the TSA eliminated and military spending drastically reduced), but there are also a lot of potential problems. See Kansas transformation to "Brownbackistan" as a result of Sam Brownback's drastic tax cuts.

And Stein couldn't forgive student loan debt for this "entire generation". But just like Clinton's proposal to make public universities free, there is potential value to be found in just trying to do something about the insane problems with our university system. Hillary is a savvy enough politician to know not to say too much about her plan, which would open it up to scrutiny and criticism. Stein stepped into that by revealing her political inexperience, but I tend to trust that she does actually want to do something as opposed to Hillary just saying what she needs to say to get more votes.

See, this is why I don't engage with you other than to mock you.

You have no idea how debate works.

If I told you Donald Trump was a lizard, you would expect me to provide evidence. Simply saying "google it" is lazy and ineffectual. I could find a source on google for just about any claim (the earth is flat, homeopathy works, Steve McQueen was Jesus reincarnated).... doesn't mean any of them are credible sources.

Now, I tried to engage with you on this, because I think sexual assault is pretty fucking horrific, even if I had a previously favourable opinion of the perpetrator.

But if you're not willing to provide a credible source, I'm just going to assume this more of your usual complete bullshit and move on.

I wanted to say something like:

"Wait... some people need a guide to figure this out?"

But the relentless innuendo and mocking of modern feminism won me over by the end.

Pretty weak comedy there.

If they wanted someone to mock Trump, they should have asked Colbert or Sam Bee.

it's funny perhaps because when you're young those little moments, glimpses of infidelity seem so much bigger, more dramatic than the actual impact it has on your life before adulthood. It feels almost like mock passion; how one thinks one should respond. But it is a pure and naive response; romantic and tragic.

Also, honest and hurt and emboldened to make a video to send as a form of retribution. Yet what retribution did she really have? She threw a bracelet which she only momentarily cherished into a riverbed, as if it were the wedding ring worn for thirty years, now tarnished by her husband's revealed secrets.

It's funny because of it's contrast with our adult experiences and understanding, having experienced or known of this early form of love betrayal in our youth, we are now mature and knowing of human nature, but now reminded in an amusing way because of what she doesn't know yet that we know: irony.

Perhaps a scandal to all of her 12 year old classmates, to some it is frivolous and others an amusement. Something to acknowledge and also chuckle at, but also to admire in her self worth and conquering spirit. It's beautiful, I think. I'm with eric on this: you go girl! hahaha!

I love Cenk and TYT but that was a little cringe worthy. Let's watch the Fox News presenter mock perfectly good arguments with silly voices and acting. And then mock Fox News with our own silly voices and acting. (Picard facepalm)
And they are quite right about American foreign policy being a big reason behind the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. I wonder what Iran would look like today if we hadn't ousted the Iranian Prime Minister back in '53, simply to keep Iran from nationalizing their oil supply.

Edited:
I was the first to call that assumption in the description out, but you seemed to double down on the sentiment rather than disagree.

If that was meant as sarcasm, mocking the original description, that's why we have the "sarcasm" button, or winking emoji, or words to that effect, because if you don't hit it and instead write something insulting and stupid, then it seems you, like millions of others, MEAN it, especially when you go on with 2 paragraphs pre-defending your statement from the attacks you can see will follow.

I mentioned your qualification and explained how it's no excuse, so clearly I read it.


EDIT: Try reading your original post again without just assuming the first two sentences are mocking sarcasm and see if it sounds outrageous to you...then see if you have said anything to contradict that way of reading it.
BTW, "I was responding to that" does not mean "I was mocking that" or "I was disagreeing with that", imo.