Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Meryl Streep criticizes Trump during acceptance speech Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Meryl sounds stupid for her self-importance, like anyone should consider a luvvie's view particularly worth listening too.

    Trump sounds stupid for descending to teasing an actress. How petty for a president elect to do that!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thatswrong.)
    Saying you're vocally against him doesn't strengthen your argument.
    Yes it does; it removes the question of bias.

    (Original post by thatswrong.)
    He's made similar hand movements but he does seem to clutch his hand more when he was mocking the reporter which further resembles that of the reporter. The movements actually lasted longer when you can hear audible laughing.
    The audience laughing is irrelevant. The movement he has done in the past is obviously to mock people, i.e. he is attempting to be funny in his childish way. The audience laughing is to be expected and it is equally expected that Trump would like this reaction - it's the entire point he's doing it.

    (Original post by thatswrong.)
    Another argument that is complete bs. Trump could not possibly have not known who this guy was and his condition since he was directly making fun of his journalism skills. That's fine, mocking his chronic condition isnt.
    He reads what the reporter has written - you don't have to know what a reporter looks like to read their report. However, he also says "you should see this guy" rather than "hear/read this guy" so as I said I'm not certain. I just find it hard to believe that he would intentionally do that. He comes across as ignorant and untactful but I don't think he would purposely sabotage his campaign, and it seems like too much of a coincidence that he's often doing odd hand movements. He does something similar here too, though not as extreme.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    Yes it does; it removes the question of bias.
    And you expect me to take your word for it? Because to me all of what you've said is "I hate trump but...".

    I am a human behavioural psychologist and after thorough analysis of Trump I have concluded that there is no doubt that this was mocking. Do you believe me now?

    There are plenty who say they hate Trump but still sympathise with him.


    (Original post by macromicro)

    The audience laughing is irrelevant. The movement he has done in the past is obviously to mock people, i.e. he is attempting to be funny in his childish way. The audience laughing is to be expected and it is equally expected that Trump would like this reaction - it's the entire point he's doing it.
    Not really, it should be an indication that what he was doing was nothing short of mockery and he should have stopped and apologised. He's attempting to be funny by mocking his disability.

    (Original post by macromicro)


    He reads what the reporter has written - you don't have to know what a reporter looks like to read their report. However, he also says "you should see this guy" rather than "hear/read this guy" so as I said I'm not certain. I just find it hard to believe that he would intentionally do that. He comes across as ignorant and untactful but I don't think he would purposely sabotage his campaign, and it seems like too much of a coincidence that he's often doing odd hand movements. He does something similar here too, though not as extreme.
    Exactly, he's indicating to the audience that he has seen him. That is enough evidence to show that he did know about the disability. He also never made any statement that he didnt know of his disability. And why would in a professional election campaign would Trump choose to attack a reporter hes never seen in real life?

    You find it hard to believe but then again hes said a lot of dumb things. But I think he's smart. He knows he can get away with things like this because there are people like you vehemently defend him no matter what, trying to find tiny details that may mean that hes innocent. But he isnt.

    I've already explained why saying that he makes similar movements is not an argument.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thatswrong.)
    If you're going to look at the face of it all, Trump was visibly shaking his hand in a motion similar to that of the disabled reporter. That is mockery, added to the distorted voice.
    Coincidentally similar. My point is that Trump has made done this before - same as the voice.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    Coincidentally similar. My point is that Trump has made done this before - same as the voice.
    In the original post where you replied, I rebutted this point.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    Meryl sounds stupid for her self-importance, like anyone should consider a luvvie's view particularly worth listening too.

    Trump sounds stupid for descending to teasing an actress. How petty for a president elect to do that!
    I'd call him the president of lala-land, but I don't want to demean the movie.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thatswrong.)
    In the original post where you replied, I rebutted this point.
    You did nothing of the sort - well, at the very least, you tried and failed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thatswrong.)
    And you expect me to take your word for it? Because to me all of what you've said is "I hate trump but...".

    I am a human behavioural psychologist and after thorough analysis of Trump I have concluded that there is no doubt that this was mocking. Do you believe me now?

    There are plenty who say they hate Trump but still sympathise with him.
    https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=4314454

    (Original post by thatswrong.)
    Not really, it should be an indication that what he was doing was nothing short of mockery and he should have stopped and apologised. He's attempting to be funny by mocking his disability.

    Exactly, he's indicating to the audience that he has seen him. That is enough evidence to show that he did know about the disability. He also never made any statement that he didnt know of his disability. And why would in a professional election campaign would Trump choose to attack a reporter hes never seen in real life?

    You find it hard to believe but then again hes said a lot of dumb things. But I think he's smart. He knows he can get away with things like this because there are people like you vehemently defend him no matter what, trying to find tiny details that may mean that hes innocent. But he isnt.
    It's mockery for comedic effect but we are trying to ascertain the object of the mockery, so the laughter and his reaction to the laughter is irrelevant. He's attempting to be funny regardless of his target.

    I don't think it's evidence enough; it's difficult to say with any certainty or strength of opinion. This is the only thing I've "defended" Trump on; I advise you click on the above link considering how adamant you are in labelling me a Trump apologist. As for him being smart - well, we'll have to disagree on that too I'm afraid. He's a buffoon.

    (Original post by thatswrong.)
    I've already explained why saying that he makes similar movements is not an argument.
    No you haven't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    You did nothing of the sort - well, at the very least, you tried and failed.
    I didn't expect a better response from someone of your education background. You had a chance to prove you had some brains, but you failed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't care about yet another actress coming out against Trump, nor about his infantile response. Why Meryl's comment in particular was so widely reported is beyond me - if anything, Hugh Laurie's snipe was a lot more elegantly made than her failure of a rant.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thatswrong.)
    I didn't expect a better response from someone of your education background. You had a chance to prove you had some brains, but you failed.
    :toofunny:

    You're absolutely pathetic.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    There's a school of thought that all this Hollywood opposition contributed to Trump's success. People just see super rich and famous actors and singers laying into Trump for things which are largely irrelevant to them.

    There was an example of this during the election. To try and appeal to the black vote, Trump just goes "you've had 8 years of Obama, yet you've got crap lives, no jobs, crap schools - why would you think Hillary is going to change that?" In response, Hillary goes and gets Jay-Z. His polling with black people went up. Not a lot, but it did go up. And think about what he's said - they just had a black president and their lives suck. The person they're all expected to vote for wheels out a guy even richer than her, and that's supposed to be a show of empathy.

    For large numbers of people who voted for Trump, Meryl Streep laying into him is just typical sour grapes. After Obama won, did a bunch of Republican supporting celebs constantly dig at him before he'd even taken office?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    :toofunny:

    You're absolutely pathetic.
    Im the pathetic one when you've just ignored my points by saying its a fail?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    In a democracy she is free to say what she wants but it doesn't mean everybody has to agree with her saying it.

    It's like like if a teacher spent the whole of parents evening talking about Trump rather than children the parents had come to talk about. Is it legal? Yes. Are teachers free to express their opinions publicly? Yes. Is it unprofessional and inappropriate? Yes. There is a time and a place.

    I do think celebrities should keep quiet on politics in general though. She should be humble enough to recognise that she has her platform for her acting. Everybody has got an opinion and hers is no more important than the next person's. I've got an opinion but I understand that the whole world doesn't give a **** what I think.

    What she has said has been said before. What is she hoping to achieve by this intervention? What makes her think she is so important that the world is going to sit up and listen now that it has been said by her? It's a display of grandiosity that I find deeply unpleasant.
    I think your teacher example is quite strange because talking in front of two people about Trump is not the same thing as talking about him in front of millions of people. Both are public platforms, yes, but you're not going to have much of an impact if you're discussing him randomly with a couple of people. Speaking in front of millions across the world - now that's going to have a powerful impact, be it positive or negative.

    And you have every right to disagree with her about how she did it, but I think she handled herself pretty well. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

    I don't think that anyone believes that Streep's opinion is more important than anyone else's, least of all Streep herself. However, it cannot be denied that she is a lot more successful than the average person so when she speaks publicly about something it's going to have a lot more of an impact in society, because more people are going to be interested in what she has to say. She knew this and played it to her advantage. And fair play to her, because the whole world did give a **** about it. YOU might find it unpleasant, but the world DID sit up and listen to her. Hence why Trump threw a tantrum about it and why this story has dominated the headlines today. Along with the tube strike of course. 😉
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    For large numbers of people who voted for Trump, Meryl Streep laying into him is just typical sour grapes. After Obama won, did a bunch of Republican supporting celebs constantly dig at him before he'd even taken office?
    Yes. Donald Trump, for example.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why should anyone care what this woman says?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnGreek)
    I don't care about yet another actress coming out against Trump, nor about his infantile response. Why Meryl's comment in particular was so widely reported is beyond me - if anything, Hugh Laurie's snipe was a lot more elegantly made than her failure of a rant.
    I always feel it is a bit presumptuous for a foreigner like Laurie to make a snipe like this. If he doesn't like what the American President is doing it is always open to him to move back home.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    There's a school of thought that all this Hollywood opposition contributed to Trump's success. People just see super rich and famous actors and singers laying into Trump for things which are largely irrelevant to them.

    There was an example of this during the election. To try and appeal to the black vote, Trump just goes "you've had 8 years of Obama, yet you've got crap lives, no jobs, crap schools - why would you think Hillary is going to change that?" In response, Hillary goes and gets Jay-Z. His polling with black people went up. Not a lot, but it did go up. And think about what he's said - they just had a black president and their lives suck. The person they're all expected to vote for wheels out a guy even richer than her, and that's supposed to be a show of empathy.

    For large numbers of people who voted for Trump, Meryl Streep laying into him is just typical sour grapes. After Obama won, did a bunch of Republican supporting celebs constantly dig at him before he'd even taken office?
    Republican celebs did not attack Obama before he took office because there is such a small amount of them. You could probably name all the Republican supporting celebrities on two hands...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fayeztheman)
    Why should anyone care what this woman says?
    Well, to be fair, you probably do. Seeing as you clicked on this thread, read the comments and then commented yourself...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    Well, to be fair, you probably do. Seeing as you clicked on this thread, read the comments and then commented yourself...
    No I only clicked because it had Trump in the title
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 11, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.