Comment by tw04 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tw04 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There's a reason the statement "acting presidential" exists. We generally hold people in power to a higher standard in this country, and rightly so. "We need to fight against special interests" has no context. If the preceding 10 minutes was talking about the civil war - then yes I would be extremely concerned that the President went from talking about war to starting a "fight" with someone.

If the previous 10 minutes was talking about financial reforms, then IN CONTEXT, the president is talking about a very different kind of fight.

I have no time for people who try to dodge responsibility by claiming the context of a statement doesn't matter, on the flip side I have no time for someone who takes a one-sentence snippet out of context to try to hang someone out to dry either.

IMO that's the problem with what I can only describe as the 'twitter generation' we're currently experiencing. Everything is a 140 character snippet and context is completely lost or discarded.

Presidents have always acted unpresidential but the difference is that Twitter and TV didn't exist then. Lincoln was notorious for using profanity, more than a few (Including Jackson) killed someone in a duel. While some presidents have been more controversial, and outspoken than others, the idea that there is a "well mannered" presidential archetype is a myth.

None of your examples are on a public stage for a mass audience.

It's different.

What you say to the crowd has distinctly different impact than what you say "in the locker room" to an acquaintance.

But if you then brag about your locker room conversation to a journalist while on the record, that then become in the public stage.

also, the issue with the access hollywood tapes wasn't that it was "locker room talk" that got public, it was that what he said was morally pretty disgusting. people were mad about what he said, not the manner or forum in which he said it

profanity isn't a real conduct issue, though, unless the president is using it in speeches or in diplomacy in such a way that it makes the country look bad.

and I doubt many people who dislike trump would accept jackson as an archetype of acceptable presidential behavior.

I tend to agree but there are exceptions such as the Philippine foreign minister, Teddy Locsin, who told the Chinese Navy to "get the fuck out" of their waters via Twitter.

> There's a reason the statement "acting presidential" exists. We generally hold people in power to a higher standard in this country, and rightly so

When did "we" turn into the current governing structure of Facebook?

Exactly. The product never gets a say in what is done to/with it.

They hate our freedoms led to 20 years of war.

It didn't lead to 20 years of war, it was used to sell 20 years of war.

I stand corrected! You are absolutely right, wrong choice of words.

Acting presidential went out with the Clinton administration- it was widely commented on at the time (see the commentary around him appearing on Arsenio Hall), but the media loved the cachet/ attention too much to let it get beyond the Sunday morning talking head shows.

I spend too much time on r/politics.. It's mostly people getting outraged together about contextless headlines, quotes, soundbites, articles, and etc. Mostly.

It happens here too. cough basecamp cough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com