382
'Is Trump okay?' Confusion as 'exhausted' ex-president abruptly ends friendly interview
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
382 points (95.5% liked)
politics
19148 readers
1981 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I went and checked the source: https://bongino.com/ep-2353-live-with-president-donald-trump
He sits down at timestamp 33:34 and says that remark at timestamp 1:09:12. So he was there for 35 minutes.
The characterisation "a few minutes into their discussion" seems disingenuous.
Raw Story may be on the same side as us but they are still complete trash. Headline is often a straight-up lie.
35 minutes doesn't seem very long for an interview. Is expecting the presidential candidate to remain lucid and coherent for slightly more than a half hour too much to ask?
No no, that's not what I'm saying. Just that there's no need to over dramatise the events in a way that makes your point shakier than it has to be.
And what I'm saying is that in the context of an interview, 35 minutes is only a few minutes.
A few minutes is like, five minutes.
Actually, now I'm remembering all the times I've disagreed with people on their use of the phrase "a few," so I'm starting to see how this could be more a matter of opinion...
Still something I wouldn't expect a professional writer and/or editor to let slip unless they were purposely looking to embellish, though.
I think we agree here. "A few" is debatable, based on opinion, but also context matters. If I say I need a few minutes to either put on my shoes, prepare dinner, wake up, take a shower, or take dump, those are all different lengths of time. I just feel that conversation and interviews take a lot more time than the edited results we commonly see in print and on TV. Things like pauses to reflect on questions, introductions, and warm up questions never make it to publication. If I was asked to sit for an interview and it ended after 35 minutes, I would absolutely characterise that as "a few minutes". And unless I'd ended it myself, I'd be concerned that it ended too quickly. If it had ended that wuickly, I'd be worried about what insane things I had done in those few minutes to provide them with enough material for a piece or that they had cancelled the piece entirely because they quickly determined I wasn't worth continuing the interview. That is my opinion, but I feel that it's well grounded in my experience and expectations, especially for a sit down interview with a candidate. I can see how calling 35 minutes "a few minutes" could be characterised as exaggerated, but getting incensed over it in a headline (a large font single line intended to grab attention in a few words) is overcompensating a bit.
I would disagree with that, but I'm not a native speaker, so I'm on shaky ground here.
There's no context where 35 = "a few".
This entire article is sensationalized. Bongino doesn't even really seem phased when trump says he's gotta go.
that's less than a job interview though
Sure. It's also less than a train ride between Zürich and Bern.