Michelle Wolf is a runner!

Current US prez is leading western world into dystopian chaos. Fans of current prez like the chaos as long as his fans see themselves as riding the hammer. Dystopian chaos is a two way street. The most profane prez in my lifetime deserves profanity hurled toward him and his sycophants.

zxcvzxcvx wrote:

Clearly there are a lot of Red snowflakes out there. Trump got roasted so badly by a non-professional (Obama) at the same event years back that he hasn't dared to show his face since.

I would say that Trump is having the last laugh as he dismantles all of Obama's signature bills and we see how ineffective his landmark Iran peace accord was (dude funded a terrorist state).

Ugly Side Show wrote:

The kind of jokes told by this year’s headliner, Michelle Wolf, were out of line for an event that’s supposed to be fun – and fair.

Based on what Americans witnessed on national television at Saturday night’s dinner, a once-fine evening celebrating the strong, free press the WHCA speaks of has turned into an angry display and ad-hominem attacks.

We hope the dinner can get back to talking about the importance of the Fourth Estate without the kind of ugly sideshow that completely overshadowed the event this year.”

[/quote]

Your "liberal" media at work.

"Wah! We need to be play nicey-nice with everyone, regardless of whether they hold the ideas like truth or a free press in complete contempt. To do otherwise would be biased."

Bunch of invertebrate enablers. They're not mad that Wolf insulted Huckabee. They're mad that she insulted them for being terrible at their jobs.

revealing episode wrote:

this episode is really all you need to know about the credibility of the right-wing "free speech movement". no, don't get me wrong, I definitely do not like these overly politically correct college liberals. for, they have nothing in common with true liberalism. Bill Maher was right when he called them the regressive left. but it was always clear for anyone with half a brain that Republicans (with a few exceptions), of all people, have never and will never be defenders of free speech. they want to be allowed to insult other people, but when the joke's on them, they start crying. the problem is, a significant chunk of the GOP voter base, certainly of Trump's base, is too stupid to process these facts.

I'm neither liberal nor conservative, but excuse me, where are the screaming, pouting chanting, egg-throwing, fire-starting, fire-alarm pulling conservative Children Of The Corn starting riots in order to keep Wolf from even appearing? I must have missed that part. All I saw was Kellyanne Conway looking constipated and Chris Christie having oral relations with a utensil.

The Gallant Pig Man wrote:

Bunch of invertebrate enablers. They're not mad that Wolf insulted Huckabee. They're mad that she insulted them for being terrible at their jobs.

that's a good point.

radishes wrote:

celery wrote:

The reason conservatives are pointing out Wolf's caustic humor, is to show that there is a double standard, and that the main stream media is biased. This is clear to anyone with half a brain, or anyone with a whole brain that is properly engaged with reality.

Is Trump's joke about what groupies let you do to them, really more crass than the jokes Wolf said? Yet the media acts so outraged by Trump. Furthermore, most comedians hate Trump because he's funnier than they are.

Pointing out that you think there is a double standard is one thing, but you can't reconcile supporting Trump and being offended by Wolf's bit.

I'm not personally offended by Wolf's jokes. Some people are, and I disagree with those people. As for supporting Trump, the 2016 election was a choice between bad and worse. It's puerile to criticize people's voting decisions without understanding the full context of the decision they were forced to make.

Yes, Trump said some ridiculous things during the primaries, and more ridiculous things years before he ever attempted to be a politician. Since he's been the president, he's been positively angelic in comparison to the main stream media. For example, has he held up the severed head of anyone lately?

celery wrote:

radishes wrote:

Pointing out that you think there is a double standard is one thing, but you can't reconcile supporting Trump and being offended by Wolf's bit.

I'm not personally offended by Wolf's jokes. Some people are, and I disagree with those people. As for supporting Trump, the 2016 election was a choice between bad and worse. It's puerile to criticize people's voting decisions without understanding the full context of the decision they were forced to make.

Yes, Trump said some ridiculous things during the primaries, and more ridiculous things years before he ever attempted to be a politician. Since he's been the president, he's been positively angelic in comparison to the main stream media. For example, has he held up the severed head of anyone lately?

I'm not aware of him having done that, and though I don't follow the "main stream media" closely, I'm not aware of them doing that lately, either. Surely you aren't calling Kathy Griffin the main stream media.

I understand that the voting decision comes down to more than the crassness of the candidates, but you still can't be critical of Wolf's comments without being critical of a myriad of things Trump has said. But it sounds like we are in agreement that Wolf's comments were fine (albeit unfunny, in your opinion).

Pathetic Hobby Jogger? Really? wrote:

I am sure over 75% on letsrun cannot run a sub-61 400m as has Michelle Wolf. Start your own thread if you want to attack Wolf's politics. Are you faster than Michelle Wolf? Most likely not! If you are truly an elite runner (doubtful), not wise to attack so-called hobby joggers. Hobby joggers buy expensive gear.

In what world is a 61 400 fast?

celery wrote:

I'm not personally offended by Wolf's jokes. Some people are, and I disagree with those people. As for supporting Trump, the 2016 election was a choice between bad and worse. It's puerile to criticize people's voting decisions without understanding the full context of the decision they were forced to make.

Yes, Trump said some ridiculous things during the primaries, and more ridiculous things years before he ever attempted to be a politician. Since he's been the president, he's been positively angelic in comparison to the main stream media. For example, has he held up the severed head of anyone lately?

you should not compare Trump to Wolf, any other comedian, or any journalist you singled out as being most offensive. you should compare him to other presidents. surely Obama has also been attacked viciously by many on the other side of the aisle, but he showed class. Trump just isn't presidential material, he's an embarrassment, regardless of your policy views. but I understand that many voted for him as the perceived lesser of two evils, I'm not too concerned about those people. I'm concerned about his core base. it's not PC to say and clearly counter-productive to state this, but these people are deplorable.

revealing episode wrote:

you should not compare Trump to Wolf, any other comedian, or any journalist you singled out as being most offensive. you should compare him to other presidents. surely Obama has also been attacked viciously by many on the other side of the aisle, but he showed class. Trump just isn't presidential material, he's an embarrassment, regardless of your policy views. but I understand that many voted for him as the perceived lesser of two evils, I'm not too concerned about those people. I'm concerned about his core base. it's not PC to say and clearly counter-productive to state this, but these people are deplorable.

Obama had his a** kissed by 95% of the media for 8 years straight. The attacks he did receive (and rightfully deserved in almost all instances) were barely heard by the public. Obama did just about everything in his power to help put America into danger, whether it was allowing us to be overrun by illegal immigrants, directly funding terrorism (Iran nuclear deal) or completely allowing dictators to threaten us without any recourse (Kim family, Putin, etc...). Trump on the other hand defends America, actually loves America, and puts bad actors on notice all across the world.

So I think the left is now becoming more mad because their Presidential God Obama is being outed on a daily basis as the epic failure of a President that those who were paying attention always knew he was. Obama even failed at keeping Trump out of the White House, even though he used nearly every illegal tactic he could think of.

You are right. Me conflating Kathy Griffin with the MSM is not accurate. She has always been a fringe comedian. On the other hand, she has been getting jobs from TV or other media networks for years, so she sort of is in the MSM world.

Arguing over Trump gets very tedious. Are there some things he's said that deserve some condemnation? Sure. Does he deserve for the outrage to be turned up to 11? I don't think so. There is something incredibly refreshing about Trump, and once you see it, you will understand why people love him.

We all have an inner voice and an outer voice. There are the things we think, but we keep to ourselves. However, we all wish we could express our inner voice more. Isn't typing away on an anonymous internet message board just a way to let your inner voice have an outlet?

Trump's inner voice and outer voice have huge overlap. More so than the average person. The typical politician has an inner voice and outer voice that hardly ever overlap (I don't think Hillary's inner and outer voice have ever even met). Politicians have developed this huge chasm between their inner and outer voice because they are terrified of having the media take something they said out of context, or purposely ignore their intended meaning, and smear them. Trump doesn't give a s---.

I would estimate that at least 95% of the outrage over Trump since he's been President, has been due to the media purposely ignoring the intended meaning of what he said. The more the media purposely ignore his intended meaning, the more the people who already get him, rally behind him. It's not hypocrisy on their part. They like his authenticity, and they are thrilled that he's doesn't shy away from pushing a conservative agenda because he worries about what the NY Times will say about him.

lokie wrote:

NYT sympathy posturing wrote:

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/990428993542414336

I give leeway to Haberman for saying "physical appearance" rather than "looks" because she made one jab at Huckabee's makeup: her smoky eye. But the joke was based on the lies she tells. And the smoky eye is not a judgment call. Girlfriends dons a smoky eye pretty routinely. Fact. Neither good nor bad, If it were all about Hope Hicks's smoky eye, no one would be saying she insulted Hicks' looks. People are reading their own neurosis and judgments into this.

Mika B. is all faux outraged: "Watching a wife and mother be humiliated on national television for her looks is deplorable. "

The only one going on about looks is our friend Carrot Top poster. As if Michelle Wolf has never gotten that before. So original!

Yup, the smoky eye thing was a compliment, to lessen the harshness of calling her a liar. It was bizarre to see people talk about it as if it were an insult to SHS's appearance. Smoky eye, even if you haven't heard it before should sound complimentary and sexy. It sounds like "smokin'" for one, and sound's like a description taken from a novel. I agree that it wouldn't have been misunderstood if it was Hope Hick's smoky eye.

Smoky eye makeup really is a thing:

sounds, not sound's (typo)

I agree with you ZZZZ, the smokey eye thing really wasn't bad. Nor was the joke about SHS being like a softball coach. Those jokes work in a "roast" type atmosphere because they are not in-an-of-themselves political. However, the part where she just plain calls SHS a liar, or compares her to a fictional character who arranges rape, or calls her the uncle tom of women, those jokes are only funny to you if you hate SHS for being a Republican. Jokes whose only purpose is to mock someone on the other side of the political isle only work if you are honest about your polemic purposes.

For instance, if Rush Limbaugh said those jokes against Democrats on his show, there would be no reason to criticism him, other than to point out that they aren't very witty jokes. It is the use of partisan insults in a setting where you are PRETENDING to be non-biased, that is the outrage. IMO, I don't mind that Wolf made crass partisan jokes, it's that all the press audience thought they were funny at the time. Later, they realized how bad that looked, and decided to throw Wolf under the bus, to maintain their fake veneer of non-bias.