Comedian Michelle Wolf sparks fury, debate with roast at correspondents' dinner

[Ridgerunner]

He got caught, but you don’t seem to think it’s his to own. Rather you make excuses and seek to shift blame.

If my son tried that, he’d lose his phone & PS4 for a week.

Yes. Trump said some bad words in a private conversation that he didn’t know would go public. He hasn’t denied that.

Your proposed punishment of your son is proof positive that you too think it’s a big nothing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t for an instant doubt Wolf is proud of herself. Nor do I doubt that most Democrats approve of every word she said.

 

[dvdjs]

don’t for an instant doubt Wolf is proud of herself. Nor do I doubt that most Democrats approve of every word she said.

Your speaking for Democrats is funnier than much of Wolff’s routine.

 

[pnewton]

Her comedy would have rang more true as comedy and not propaganda had she not been 95% insulting of Republicans and 5% joking lightly about Democrats. I counted one real jab (at Hillary) toward Democrats, and that wasn’t even of the personal type of insults. Then there is that assumption in her abortion jokes that her opinion was the only reasonable one. She was a servant of Satan that night and his agenda for America.

 

[dvdjs]

Her comedy would have rang more true as comedy and not propaganda had she not been 95% insulting of Republicans and 5% joking lightly about Democrats.

It is true that she focused mainly on the administration, with a few other Republican notables thrownin.
But that was, by my count, roughly half of her jokes.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Likewise, people on here have seen you and your fellow disingenuous posters pretend you haven’t had the “mocking the disabled” mantra debunked repeatedly.

But by all means, continue to fake outrage over made up events that didn’t occur as you pretend.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

In almost every case, folks who supported Trump said while they didn’t appreciate the Billy Bush video, or wished he would lay off twitter, it didn’t mean they didn’t think he was the best choice for the job of President in November 2016, or even now.

I find it hard to believe people would contort themselves to defend Trump’s language (they didn’t) and find it equally hard to believe folks will defend Wolk’s nastiness and mean-spirited direct attacks on say, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and yet, here we are.

 

[pnewton]

I find it hard to believe people would contort themselves to defend Trump’s language (they didn’t) and find it equally hard to believe folks will defend Wolk’s nastiness and mean-spirited direct attacks on say, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and yet, here we are.

That’s a pretty broad brush (almost in every case???). Do you know anyone who both defended Trump’s language and then attacked Wolf, outside of political pundits and spin artist? I never saw anyone who did. Trump’s character was attacked by most of the Republicans here when that video came out. “What about…” is a terrible defense. Wolf was a flaming hypocrite over her “defense” of women while belittling women; over her immoral and lewd criticism of immorality and lewdness. Did she not just metaphorical grab women by there womanhood?

The only good to come from this might be the idiocy of asking highly partisan comedians to take the stage at this dinner. If I was Trump, I would cancel association of the Administration from all future dinners. Let the Democrats gather in their own circle if they insist on going forward.

 

[pnewton]

Lest we forget what this woman is about and who she serves:

“Mike Pence is also very anti-choice. He thinks abortion is murder, which, first of all, don’t knock it till you try it. And when you do try it, really knock it. You know, you got to get that baby out of there.

“And, yes, sure, you can groan all you want. I know a lot of you are very anti-abortion. You know, unless it’s the one you got for your secret mistress. It’s fun how values can waver. But good for you.”

“Mike Pence is a weirdo, though. He’s a weird little guy. He won’t meet with other women without his wife present.

Since when did we excuse such bullying? And yes, before you say, I know Trump does the same thing, but then he is also a bully by every definition of the word I know.

 

[dvdjs]

Likewise, people on here have seen you and your fellow disingenuous posters pretend you haven’t had the “mocking the disabled” mantra debunked repeatedly.

As a simple matter of fact, Trump mocked a disabled man.
That is what @Sy_Noe posted.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

All one has to do is look at a topic with 300+ posts, some of which are dedicated to arguing over what percentage of the woman’s barbs were directed as republicans versus democrats to realize some folks doth protest to much. On a Catholic message board, every response should be the same - her words and jokes were crude and vile, and have no place in decent society. The same could be said for any vulgarity uttered by the President or anyone else.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

No he didn’t. Unless you have some proof, which would amount to an admission from Trump. Since he denied it, it is the opposite of truth, which means you are lying, deliberately, or inadvertently.

It has been posted numerous times over the years him using the same gestures on multiple other occasions in regards to folks who were not disabled.

 

[dvdjs]

I find it hard to believe people would contort themselves to defend Trump’s language (they didn’t) and find it equally hard to believe folks will defend Wolk’s nastiness and mean-spirited direct attacks on say, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and yet, here we are.

People were dismissive of Trump’s language, and furthermore chose to make language the issue to deflectthe real problem which was the misogynist content of his remarks.

Wolff’s attacks on Sanders for lying or for being an “Aunt Coulter” may be considered mean by some, but they were not, arguably, unmerited. Nor were they just cheap shots on appearance, as she did make against McConnell and Christie - against no protests.

 

[dvdjs]

No he didn’t. Unless you have some proof, which would amount to an admission from Trump. Since he denied it, it is the opposite of truth, which means you are lying, deliberately, or inadvertently.

Trump mocked Serge Kovaleski.
Serge Kovaleski is a disabled man.
Therefore, Trump mocked a disabled man.

 

[dvdjs]

All one has to do is look at a topic with 300+ posts, some of which are dedicated to arguing over what percentage of the woman’s barbs were directed as republicans versus democrats to realize some folks doth protest to much

You are entitled to protest what you wish.

I happen to think that people should stick the truth.
I realize that sometimes people’s arguments opinions are not contingent on the"facts" they use in expressing them. But sometimes they are - in which case it is valuable to adjust one’s perspective to align with the facts,

In any case, it is always good to correct the record.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Technically, I wouldn’t even say he mocked him, or anyone he used those gestures towards. How is it mocking, if he used the same gesture note shared by multiple people of different backgrounds and mannerisms? It isn’t.

But let’s pretend he was mocking the person.

We could then also say it would be technically true, yet utterly meaningless and stated as such to be provocative. I congratulate you on your ability to be so honest and wholly irrelevant at the same time.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I wouldn’t say it always good to correct the record, and I am not sure where that is written as fact. As with anything, we know our motivation in saying or doing something drive whether or not it displays the virtue of prudence.

 

[pnewton]

Trump mocked Serge Kovaleski.

Serge Kovaleski is a disabled man.

Therefore, Trump mocked a disabled man.

Exactly. He has been terrible in tweets. He is not the topic here though, so is this said as a defense against Wolf said? And how are you then able to say the following consistently?

People were dismissive of Trump’s language, and furthermore chose to make language the issue to deflectthe real problem which was the misogynist content of his remarks.

Right or wrong are not separate things for you any more than they are for those who would defend Trump’s character while criticizing Wolf.

 

[dvdjs]

We could then also say it would be technically true, yet utterly meaningless and stated as such to be provocative

On a Catholic message board, every response should be the same - his mockery is out of place, even if it were not directed to his disability per se.

You made an accusation against @Sy_Noe on and fellow disingenuous posters, whomever they might be. But the accusation, at least against Sy_Noe was false. What he said was true; what you said he said was not true.

 

[dvdjs]

He is not the topic here though, so is this said as a defense against Wolf said?

Not at all. It was offered as a response to the baseless charge that i was lying, and the attack against @Sy_Noe

Right or wrong are not separate things for you any more than they are for those who would defend Trump’s character while criticizing Wolf.

I am not sure that I am following you here, sorry.