Donald Trump calls Meryl Streep overrated

[Willie Oleson]

You'd be surprised how many Americans aren't aware of how the electoral system works.

Does anyone really know. It exists, that's enough.

 

[McGarrett]

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."

 

[Sarah]

Trump has got to reign it in if he has any hope of being taken seriously. He is just coming across as a total, irresponsible idiot.

 

[Angela Channing]

Meryl Streep can deal with criticism in a classy manner. Donald Trump should take lessons from her rather than ludicrously implying that she isn't a great actress,

 

[Toni]

This is all so very childish.
She's a well-known actress and he is going to be president. These people should know that public/online bickering and insults are not going to improve anything.

Unless there's a way to undo the results of the election, it's "over and out". He's won, he IS going to be the president. It's what the majority of the voters wanted.

What US people doesn´t seem to realize is, IMHO, that:

1) You can survive to the victory of such a jerk, but only it you get active to stop him and work so nothing like that can happen again. Be more clever than him, which should not be difficult at all. The louder he talks, the harder he falls.

2) The President charge is and has also been "overrated", as the country itself has been. We are not at the Roman age, and if people really think US if the most powerful country in the world, they shouldn´t be surprised that you get a Nero meets Caligula version of a President. Be humble and become an example, otherwise this will happen over and over.

3) In Spain we have spent this whole part of 21st Century run by right-left bigots who are as stupid (if not more) as Mr. "Tramp", and they seem to be glued to the chair. We all should do something to use democracy and stop this once and for all. Blank vote or non-voting at all is an easy way out, and they have taken profit of that.

4) Don´t take anybody for granted. Hillary has been and there she goes. To those like me who think that women in powerful charges should be as many as men (at least), just think there is a motive that Hillary didn´t win. She probably is not the right person after all. Don´t be pessimistic, all the countries are aboard the same boat, but extreme way of thinking can take us straight to (political) hell.

5) And about my dear Meryl: She has always been an opinionated woman and a caring human being, just read her first ever interviews. We just have to be coherent with ourselves like she has been.

​

 

[Angela Channing]

I have really been struggling to think of a single performance that Meryl Streep has given that hasn't been good. Even in films I have hated e.g. August: Osage County, her performance was very good in them. I think she deserves all the awards and plaudits that she has received during her career. Arguably, the best actress in my lifetime.

 

[James from London]

Trump has got to reign it in if he has any hope of being taken seriously. He is just coming across as a total, irresponsible idiot.

But he always did. It didn't stop him getting elected president. Slagging off Meryl Streep is neither here nor there.

 

[Toni]

Respectfully, the majority of voters (54%) voted against Trump and almost 3 million more voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for him. Regardless of that, in a democracy voters should be allowed to continue to express their opinions and shouldn't just morph into sycophantic supporters of a bigot. Donald Trump is soon to be the most powerful man in the world and he is upset by a comment made by a Hollywood actress? Vice-President Joe Biden was right, Trump should "grow up". Hillary's words may turn out to be more true than anyone realised at the time when she said "A man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his hands anywhere near the nuclear codes".

What's interesting is that Meryl Streep didn't refer to Trump by name, she just spoke generally against hate directed at different sections of society but Trump recognised himself in what she said.

I applaud Ms Streep for calling out Trump over mocking a man's disability. Trump claims he never did but the video suggests otherwise:

The kind of hate and intolerance displayed by Trump should be challenged whenever it occurs regardless of whether or not he is President of the USA or President of the Kool-Aid drinkers society.

I've always loved Meryl Streep and now I love her just that little bit more.

:fantastic::girl:

 

[Willie Oleson]

I have really been struggling to think of a single performance that Meryl Streep has given that hasn't been good

That's beside the point. Even if she is an overrated actress then he still shouldn't have tweeted that tweet. The campaign is over, there's no need to "defend" himself anymore.
But I don't think he actually meant what he said (tweeted), he just lashed out at her.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Дональд Трамп's response was predictably petulant and infantile - Twitter users had anticipated his reaction including the word 'overrated' hours before he posted it.

For someone who loves cliffhangers and being unpredictable, his instant need to lash out when faced with any criticism is embarrassingly predictable. The manchild's tiny Twitter-fingers simply can't help their uber-sensitive selves.

The tiring talking point on the right re. people from Hollywood being a spoiled elite who live in a bubble (an easy target given their line of work being production of make-believe) who don't get how the 'real people' live is beyond hypocritical.

The Annoying Orange from a vulgar 5th Avenue penthouse is the epitome of elite as are the swamp billionaires he's filling his cabinet with, who couldn't give a rat's ass about the 'real people' and how they live.

As for "not getting it" how the country feels, he is not only the popular vote loser (63 million vs. Clinton's 66 million), but his electoral college win was one the worst in the history of the United States.

When a miniscule 80,000 votes from 3 swing states combined - given the 130+million votes cast across the US - are capable of causing a seismic shift in the outcome (had they instead voted for Hillary she'd risen from 232 to 278 votes, he'd fallen from 306 to 260) that's not a movement. That's a Russian-sponsored fluke.

 

[McGarrett]

Democrats have not been this bitterly angry since Lincoln freed the slaves.

 

[Frank Underwood]

People keep bringing up Hillary's slim loss in three states. Perhaps if she had campaigned there and hadn't been in favor of job killing trade deals, she would have done better. I agree that the electoral college is an antiquated system, but you can't campaign like it doesn't exist. If Democrats hadn't sold out to Wall Street, corporations, and the military industrial complex, they wouldn't have gotten their asses handed to them so badly.

There was a Democratic candidate who disavowed all that, so naturally his campaign needed to be sabotaged by the establishment. So now we're about to have a president who is more concerned with insulting celebrities and the media on Twitter than he is with receiving intelligence briefings. But just remember that it wasn't just the racists, sexists, and xenophobes that got him elected. It was also the failure of neoliberalism. When a guy like Trump does a better job convincing people that he will protect their jobs, Social Security, and Medicare, you are doing something wrong as a Democrat. People are fed up with the status quo, which is all Hillary offered us.

Liberal and conservative elites both live in a bubble. The difference is that liberal elites supposedly lean left, but usually support the establishment. George Clooney certainly didn't host a six figure dinner for Bernie.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Oh, nothing matters on earth except humbling Hillary.

Well, for my money, I can take Trump's urolagnic tongue flapping any day to the endless, 24/7 whore-'splainin' of that horrible KellyAnne Conway.

Was she literally discovered under the tables of a roadside diner servicing truckers for the cost of a plate of fries and a diet Coke?

 

[Frank Underwood]

Oh, nothing matters on earth except humbling Hillary.

Outside of a few progressive voices on the Internet, the general consensus among Democrats is that sexists, racists, Comey, and even Russia handed the election to Trump. But it's not as simple as that.

As long as Democrats refuse to acknowledge their own shortcomings, I don't see much changing any time soon.

Well, for my money, I can take Trump's urolagnic tongue flapping any day to the endless, 24/7 whore-'splainin' of that horrible KellyAnne Conway.

Was she literally discovered under the tables of a roadside diner servicing truckers for the cost of a plate of fries and a diet Coke?

Sounds about right.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Outside of a few progressive voices on the Internet, the general consensus among Democrats is that sexists, racists, Comey, and even Russia handed the election to Trump. But it's not as simple as that.

As long as Democrats refuse to acknowledge their own shortcomings, I don't see much changing any time soon.

Well, I've always acknowledged Hillary's shortcomings. But that's not the only thing that matters --- it's probably not even why she "lost".

 

[Angela Channing]

My analysis is that the Democrats didn't lose because Hillary was not a good enough candidate but because of a wider discontent amongst voters that "the establishment" in general and politicians in particular had failed them for many years. Trump cleverly presented himself as an anti-establishment candidate and that resonated with a large number of disenchanted voters. Any candidate, whether they were from the left or the right, would have found it difficult when people weren't prepared to listen to facts, policies or reality of the situation and instead preferred the simplistic, popularist rhetoric of an "anti-politician". Trump rode an anti-establishment, far right-wing wave that is sweeping across many parts of the world and he did that well.

I'm not convinced that Bernie would have done any better than Hillary because I question whether his campaign had broad enough appeal to attract enough voters that eventually went for Trump.

What the Democrats now have to do is focus a lot more on the needs of their core supporters while still reaching out to Republican voters who will find themselves to be worse off under Trump. This will not be an easy balance to achieve and right now it's difficult to identify a candidate that would be able to do this but I'm sure by 2020 he or she will emerge, probably from a younger generation of Democratic Party candidates.

"Disrespect invites disrespect, violence incites violence and when the powerful use their position to bully others we all lose." - Meryl Streep

 

[Frank Underwood]

Well, I've always acknowledged Hillary's shortcomings.

Yes you have, but I'm referring to Democratic Party insiders. Nancy Pelosi, for example, said she believes Democrats aren't looking for a change in direction. I'm sure that's true of the establishment, but is it true of the voters? Compromised Democratic elites don't want anything to change because it would mean losing their power and their corporate backers, but they're screwing us over by selling out like that.

My gripe is not with Hillary alone, but with what the party has become as a whole.

But that's not the only thing that matters --- it's probably not even why she "lost".

It's not the only thing that matters, but it does matter. Hillary's staffers were warned about her stance on trade deals and her lack of campaigning in the rust belt before the election, and those concerns were brushed off.

I can't say that it's the only reason Hillary lost, but I do believe it was a contributing factor. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were states Obama won in 2008 and 2012. Clinton performed worse among middle and low income voters, which totally makes sense to me. Obama's 2008 campaign was based on change and making life better for the poor. Hillary's campaign, on the other hand, felt centered on preserving the status quo.

 

[Frank Underwood]

My analysis is that the Democrats didn't lose because Hillary was not a good enough candidate but because of a wider discontent amongst voters that "the establishment" in general and politicians in particular had failed them for many years. Trump cleverly presented himself as an anti-establishment candidate and that resonated with a large number of disenchanted voters. Any candidate, whether they were from the left or the right, would have found it difficult when people weren't prepared to listen to facts, policies or reality of the situation and instead preferred the simplistic, popularist rhetoric of an "anti-politician". Trump rode an anti-establishment, far right-wing wave that is sweeping across many parts of the world and he did that well.

There's a lot of truth in what you said, although I disagree that people didn't pay attention to policy. Progressive media showed us that Hillary had been a war hawk for years, that she supported mass incarcerations, anti-gay legislation, the gutting of welfare, and the Patriot Act. She originally said she didn't need to adopt any of Bernie's policies because she was "winning," then did so when she realized she needed the progressive vote too.

Those are terrible polices that are usually attributed to neocons. Trump had some extremist views on immigration, Muslims, and foreign policy. And yet he also did a better job of convincing people in the rust belt states that he would protect their jobs, Social Security, and Medicare. I see Trump as a bullshit artist, but he gave people what they were desperate to hear in a way Hillary did not.

I'm not convinced that Bernie would have done any better than Hillary because I question whether his campaign had broad enough appeal to attract enough voters that eventually went for Trump.

We'll never know for sure, but I believe Sanders would have easily beat Trump. His lead over Trump during the primaries was in the double digits, while Hillary was only a few points ahead. There's also some overlap between Trump and Bernie supporters in that Social Security, Medicare, and jobs are issues both sides care about. Some Trump supporters denounced his rhetoric towards Muslims, and would likely have voted for Sanders.

What the Democrats now have to do is focus a lot more on the needs of their core supporters while still reaching out to Republican voters who will find themselves to be worse off under Trump. This will not be an easy balance to achieve and right now it's difficult to identify a candidate that would be able to do this but I'm sure by 2020 he or she will emerge, probably from a younger generation of Democratic Party candidates.

"Disrespect invites disrespect, violence incites violence and when the powerful use their position to bully others we all lose." - Meryl Streep

Yes. Bernie is leading the charge as of now, and is using Trump's own words to hold him accountable.

He will likely be too old to run in 2020, so hopefully another genuine progressive will arise in the next four years. Unfortunately, defeating the Democratic establishment won't be an easy task.

 

[Angela Channing]

We'll never know for sure, but I believe Sanders would have easily beat Trump. His lead over Trump during the primaries was in the double digits, while Hillary was only a few points ahead. There's also some overlap between Trump and Bernie supporters in that Social Security, Medicare, and jobs are issues both sides care about. Some Trump supporters denounced his rhetoric towards Muslims, and would likely have voted for Sanders.

You're not the only Bernie supporter that likes to hold on to the thought that your candidate would have beaten Trump had he been chosen over Hillary but I really don't think he would have. Other candidates that were sympathetic to Bernie's views also failed to get elected. For example, Russ Feingold who ran for US senate in Wisconsin was a champion of Bernie’s issues and was endorsed by Bernie who also fundraised for him. Feingold lost to his big business Republican rival by 3.4% in a state that was nearly 90% white which was a demographic that went for Bernie was supposedly able to reach better than Hillary. Hillary also lost in Wisconsin but by only 0.8%, so I don't think there was much evidence there that Bernie would have done better than her. The swing was against the Democratic Party as much, if not more than, it was as it was against Hillary personally and I don't think that Bernie could have turned the tide.

 

[Frank Underwood]

You're not the only Bernie supporter that likes to hold on to the thought that your candidate would have beaten Trump had he been chosen over Hillary but I really don't think he would have. Other candidates that were sympathetic to Bernie's views also failed to get elected. For example, Russ Feingold who ran for US senate in Wisconsin was a champion of Bernie’s issues and was endorsed by Bernie who also fundraised for him. Feingold lost to his big business Republican rival by 3.4% in a state that was nearly 90% white which was a demographic that went for Bernie was supposedly able to reach better than Hillary. Hillary also lost in Wisconsin but by only 0.8%, so I don't think there was much evidence there that Bernie would have done better than her. The swing was against the Democratic Party as much, if not more than, it was as it was against Hillary personally and I don't think that Bernie could have turned the tide.

There's stats to support both positions, although I'm not sure an election in one state is an indication of the outcome on a national level.

I keep going back to Bernie's double digit lead over Trump during the primaries, and this video from the Young Turks helps to support my belief that Bernie would have won:

Michael Moore told Don Lemon that he believes Bernie would have won too.