Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
That's wouldn't be an interview. That would be a campaign op.
Assuming there was an agreement to avoid topics that might embarrass him. Not something a legitimate newsperson would agree to.
Sounds very unlikely. Can you show a national democrat party platform that endorses all those things?
But you can't show us? Why is that?
Many years ago, I was posting where there were many atheists. One of them told me that I just didn't understand how "barbaric" Christianity is. I replied, "so call me the barbarian, then." He wasn't amused, but a lot of other people there were, and the name stuck.
You made the claim; up to you to prove it. Or we'll draw the inevitable conclusion. Your move.
She is no interviewer, she is paid opposition.
Her boss had already taken steps to appease Trump before the interview. You have it backwards:
That, in a free society, includes asking hard questions. The press is not supposed to be a cheerleader for the president.
No. You just made the claim, and now you're refusing to support it with evidence. We all know why.
I expressed skepticism. You made the claim; up to you to prove it. If you can't, we'll draw a conclusion from that.
Actually, barbarian societies tend to be polite societies. Being rude can get one killed. I'm peaceful, myself. So angry and verbally abusive discourse doesn't bother me. But we were talking about your claim, that you're apparently unwilling to support.
Actually, I vote libertarian. Chase Oliver, last time around. But again, you're a lot better at imagining ideas for other people than you are at supporting your claims. Since you've again failed to support your claims, we'll just conclude that you made it all up, and we'll go on.
Well, you know how unsuccessful barbarians can be...
I think he's not actually deranged, most of the time. Properly, it looks like dementia.
I don't remember declaring whether or not Biden was completely senile in office. Could you show us where I wrote that? Oh, wait; you don't support your claims. Sorry. Did you know that confabulation is one early sign of dementia?
If you think so, you don't know much about a free press.
That's how it works in North Korea. Not in a free society.
The one being interviewed can stop the interview for any reason whatever. For example, if the interviewer asks a hard question, or one that the interviewee finds uncomfortable. Freedom works both ways.
Generally an unwise tactic. It almost inevitably makes the interviewee look dishonest, as it did this time. Getting angry and calling names makes it worse.
See above. Freedom works both ways. But people draw conclusions from behavior. It's not just this interview. People are concerned about his behavior, even with a network that has always been loyal to Trump:
Except for your last line--which is just misunderstanding--that's all good--I mean of Trump. It means he has had enough and we'll probably be seeing more good measures taking place as a result.
What you actually just saw was someone who knows he has won, saying "Take that--and that!" after years of playing their game and beating them at it. The op was for you who have been blind to it.
Maybe Trump is playing 4D chess and it will reverse the continuing loss of public support. But I don't think so.
Okay, fair enough. But what do you know that is not just public drama generated by his opponents and media? Have you even met the man?
That's not what he says.
"Integrity" is not a word that comes to mind when Donald Trump is the subject:
And lots of politicians have bailed on interviews when an interviewer asked troubling questions.
I'm thinking you'd be more effective if you dealt with the issue rather than personal attacks. Given how this has worked out for us, perhaps the discussion would be better if we stopped responding for a bit.
Yeah, it's possible that Trump's private persona is alert, reasonable, and respectful. But I'm skeptical.
You know, a long time ago, there was something like that. Barry Goldwater was notoriously easy to goad into saying things that made him look unstable or unwise, while he was one of the most sane people in Congress. It was so bad that the "Goldwater Rule" was adopted by mental health professionals making it unethical to diagnose public figures without actually testing them. Goldwater, after about a year of that, became more careful. Trump seems unable to learn to manage himself. And yes, while Trump seems to be experiencing symptoms of dementia, there have been a few mental health professionals who have unethically diagnosed him as such. All we can say is that his behavior is consistent with dementia.
