Here is the entire interview. Quite a difference when he is questioned, rather than being fawned over by Hannity etc. The interview speaks for itself. Yes, I’ll take Biden gaffes over what I see in this interview.
AXIOS Interview
- Thread starter DCDAVID
- Start date
Jonathan Swan has no clue about positive thinking. I then heard him muck it up worse in a post interview interview.
I refuse to listen to the man speak. It's word vomit that means absolutely nothing, and leaves one with nothing but a headache.
If I want to hear gibberish, I'll listen to my two year old tell me a story. At least she's cute about it.
A friend of mine used to work in the Elkhart County Prosecutor's office. Curtis Hill (current Indiana AG) REQUIRED all the administrative assistants to use a screensaver that said "CURTIS IS KING".
Probably not coincidentally, he's gotten into deep trouble for grabbing anatomies.
Ah okay, I just found it interesting that your takeaway was the competence of the journalist.
I haven't been able to listen to this yet. Saw an extended excerpt with subtitles. That was frightening enough. I know I'll have to watch it, but I'm apprehensive about it. When I listen to him for any length of time I find myself becoming frightened. Seriously. Knowing this guy is wielding power is truly terrifying.
Competent journalist ms are vital. The way Swan described positive thinking ruined everything. I don’t know if he really doesn’t know what it is, or he concocted it in order to build his Trump narrative.
Interesting maybe, but not surprising. Yet another diversion away from having to face the fact that Trump is an imbecile and that he has COH's support.
Well, as far as applying positive thinking is concerned, Trump was not the imbecile in the interview.
According to our president in this interview the U.S. saved "millions of lives" with it's approach to the pandemic.
No other country's leader is making such a claim to my knowledge.
The man is simply amazing.
No other country's leader is making such a claim to my knowledge.
The man is simply amazing.
This is exactly why I can’t take you seriously anymore. This is almost as bad as your defense of Bill Barr post.
Rather than being fawned over by Fox and Friends or Hannity Trump went into the deep end and actually agreed to interviews with Chris Wallace and Axios. He reconfirmed
his ignorance in both. It’s laughable, but not unexpected, that your takeaway is your opinion of the journalist while listening to Trumps answers and obvious lack of knowledge.
Trumps view of how great he his handling the pandemic is just one of many baffling assertions he made. At least he had his brightly colored 3rd grader bar charts to help him try to prove his points.
Is this a lawyer thing where the argument is Trump was not competent to stand for an interview because he was clearly, yet voluntarily, drugged up with a variety of pills?
I don’t think bad journalism or bad interviews should be given a pass. It provides no legitimate basis for average citizens to form opinions. I think public officials should call out journalist’s bullshit. The idea that you don’t pick a fight with those who by ink in 55 gallon drums is obsolete. Trump should have corrected Swan on the spot. But he didn’t.
Every interview; including those with Fox and Friends or Hannity; could be used to make a 25th Amendment argument.
Oddly, actual professional journalists are widely applauding Swans interview. But what would they know right?
Last edited:
I would much prefer to have VanPastorMan as POTUS, and he is the most fuzzy-thinking, illogical, dishonest poster I have ever encountered on the internet. Trump is the same in many aspects, but you must add in evilness, corruption, and a more overt and intense hatred of women and POC.
While one might quibble with your reasoning on Swan's interview abilities, one thing is glaringly obvious...Trump is not capable of doing what you think he should have done.
That’s just crazy. Right, when you truly start believing the hype, most times ones thinking is “above the law”.
Can we live in a world where the journalist and the interviewee are both not given passes? It just seems like the president should be held to a high standard, but it's being disregarded because you don't like how the journalist questioned the President.
I can only watch a little but at a time. It’s seriously like trying to argue with your drunk uncle at Christmas. And the faces Swann makes when Trump refuses to understand his point about the Covid numbers. It’s like they feed Trump one line to say no matter what they ask about a subject and he just repeats it over and over. And again, those graphs he had... my goodness.
We really should ALL put him on ignore. With his level of dishonesty he is no longer with the effort. I'm going to right now. Life is too short to deal with people like him.
You, nor anybody else has defended Swan's take about positive thinking. If Lutz is correct, then Swan did that deliberately, which is not to be admired.
Not to be admired:
"Listening to answers, thinking on his feet, and asking relevant follow-up questions. (Rather than moving on after an answer is completed.)"
Those are of really secondary importance. Instead, let's focus on the awesome new experts in applying positive thinking advising the administration on Covid policy. Here they are demonstrating techniques for maneuvering that UV light you swallowed into the correct position for maximum effectiveness.
The whole positivity deal was stupid.
Now your turn to admit that the reporter helped show the world how deeply screwed the US is
Swann argued with Trump about the relevance of Covid deaths per capita. Trump clumsily tried to point out that the deaths per case is a more relevant statistic. That part wasn't an interview. That was Hannity and Carlson territory. When an interviewer argues with the subject, that's my cue that the interviewer has an agenda apart from gaining information. I suppose any professional journalist would agree with another journalist who argues with Trump.
We agree about that "Positivity" starting point for the interview was stupid and irrelevant to anything we need to know. I have no idea why Swan would open with that.
That's because you don't understand how news interviews work and how professional journalists think.
But I totally get why you are trying to change the focus from the President's poor performance in the interview to a mistaken perspective on the interviewer.
Similar threads
