Jump to content

Trump, The Liar


Recommended Posts

 

 

But it's Donald Trump. No one payed attention to any of the other presidents lies. Everyone seems to be hanging on everything the man does, yet still seem to not know the facts. You still canot get someone who believes he's racist to give proof. They just yell at you and call you racist. "How is Trump racist? He lied about the crowd size at the inauguration!!!!"

I don't know if I'd agree with THAT. We certainly paid attention to Nixon's lies. And both President Bushes'

 

 

What did the first Bush lie about? :hmm:

 

Also why the omission of any Democrats?

 

Wasn't he the No New Taxes, Read My Lips Bush?

 

oh, Democrats? It wasn't a campaign lie but Obama's "you can keep you doctor" BULL. ****. comes to mind...

I'm a close Guatanamo, too....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows that all politicians are liars. Calling Trump a liar is like accusing someone of pooping the bed while standing in a pile of your own ****.

YEAH, I SAID THAT. Cripes, do you know how to read and comprehend?

 

I'd like to know how everyone feels about Trump's lies; do you think he believes his own bull****? Do you think he's

capable of speaking freely without lying? Or do you think his gaslighting is a calculated strategy, done on purpose

to distract from news? And if so, is HE the mastermind or is Bannon?

 

MOST curious to hear from you on this, Carrie, and anyone else serious about politichat.

The question isn't precise enough for me to answer. You'd have to point to a specific example.

 

If you want to know my general opinion about Trump's rhetorical style though, I sorta already discussed that in the other thread with pav:

 

Well it's a bit of a half-joke, yes. The problem is, you have to stop taking Trump so literally. This is just classic Trump bluster. He comes out and says something quite ridiculous, with a tinge of humor, but that still has a kernel of truth to it. And by doing so, he moves the overton window over to what the ultimate goal actually is. It's just basic negotiating. Your opening bid is never what you'll settle for. Art of the Deal, that's all. The reason it seems so shocking to you is just because we haven't had a legit showman as president in a long time (Clinton had some of the same qualities).

 

The kernel of truth in this case is that when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, China is by far the worst offender, and it's not even close, so it begs the question of why we should even bother, since any regulation, no matter how minor, will restrict US industry at least to some degree and China will just keep doing what they're doing, probably while snickering at us behind our back. No, China obviously didn't "create" warming, but any serious discussion about global regulation needs to start with a re-focus on why the f-ck China can just sit there while we have to suffer the haircut. The goal is obviously to reach an eventual compromise, but you sure as sh-t aren't going to get it by being the first one to cave and offer the olive branch from a position of weakness. But yeah, this is just standard Trump. It's sorta like what happened with the Muslim ban. The real goal may have been (and looks like it will be) to just reduce refugees from Syria and a couple other countries, but if you started with that, we all know what the Left would say (racist). If you know that's what the Left will say no matter what you propose, might as well just go all out and then move the overton window closer to your preferred policy.

 

As to what you should do, I would wait until some actual policy occurs as opposed to just freaking out about Trump's rhetoric. And then when that policy comes out, focus on that issue.

 

Now, I'm not completely beyond understanding. I get why this bluster is a little jarring. You want a "serious" president, I assume.

 

Well, the people didn't. After all, serious politicians have had decades to do something about some of the root causes of this angst, such as the fact that wages haven't meaningfully gone up for most Americans in a generation. And instead they wasted their time with a circle-jerk of pet projects, patting themselves on the back, and celebrating popular social causes to culturally signal to other people how in vogue with the times they were. Well, you can only hold off the masses long enough before the pitchforks come out. That we would eventually get a Trump was predictable way back in the early 90s.

 

So no, I'm not sympathetic about the Left's complete mental breakdown about how un-serious our president is. As the old saying goes, you broke it, you bought it.

 

This PROBABLY covers what I was asking. If I can be any more specific, I'll come back to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see it as freaking out as people responding. Pretty much it's been nice people with signs and bringing the family pet and kids to these demonstrations. It's hard to compare because Hillary got the popular vote. So you will hear more from them because for the large part they are a big group of people. Part of history and context for the constitution is the press as the fourth estate as a way to get information and voicing our issues by protesting is still legal. The only one who's been hurt would be Richard Spencer who got nose punched a SECOND TIME!

Not so much at Berkeley huh? I know Milo can be a bit much, but damn!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah people do that if they think their constitutional rights are being removed. Rumor mill says there's an executive order on the way that's going to roll back Obama era advancement on equal rights for gays.

Dude, why do you keep freaking out about gay rights? After you wrote this, Trump extended the Obama executive order protecting gay rights...

 

An executive order protecting federal employees from anti-LGBTQ discrimination that was first signed in 2014 by President Barack Obama will continue under President Donald Trump, the White House said Tuesday.

"President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community," the White House said in a statement. "The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact."

 

So, as you said in that other thread, will you admit to being gaslit now?

 

Trump, so far, has more or less done exactly what he campaigned on. On the campaign, he said he supported gay marriage, that he supported transsexuals on the restroom issue, he came out in support of gay rights at the convention (the first Republican in GOP history to do so). He's easily the most liberal Republican on this issue, and is arguably more liberal than Clinton.

 

Yet, for some reason, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, you still irrationally thought he was going to come out and round up the gays or something? Admit that you just assumed he was bad on this issue because he was a Republican, and had no idea what his actual stance was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah people do that if they think their constitutional rights are being removed. Rumor mill says there's an executive order on the way that's going to roll back Obama era advancement on equal rights for gays.

Dude, why do you keep freaking out about gay rights? After you wrote this, Trump extended the Obama executive order protecting gay rights...

 

An executive order protecting federal employees from anti-LGBTQ discrimination that was first signed in 2014 by President Barack Obama will continue under President Donald Trump, the White House said Tuesday.

"President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community," the White House said in a statement. "The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact."

 

So, as you said in that other thread, will you admit to being gaslit now?

 

Trump, so far, has more or less done exactly what he campaigned on. On the campaign, he said he supported gay marriage, that he supported transsexuals on the restroom issue, he came out in support of gay rights at the convention (the first Republican in GOP history to do so). He's easily the most liberal Republican on this issue, and is arguably more liberal than Clinton.

 

Yet, for some reason, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, you still irrationally thought he was going to come out and round up the gays or something? Admit that you just assumed he was bad on this issue because he was a Republican, and had no idea what his actual stance was.

 

My fears on Gay rights were based more on Mike "put them in camps" Pence.

 

And I've never been afraid to say when I've been gaslit. This one issue was diffused. There's more.

 

I'm not going to get into it with you-- you're already doing that thing where you remind us how much smarter and knowledgable you are about things, which makes it hard to actually want to listen to you. You know I'm not an idiot, but I am admittedly over-passionate about civil rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, that reminds me.

 

MG, I guess it's time for you to admit that Trump did another thing you don't think is evil.

 

Unless, of course, you are now anti-gay rights. :)

OH, NO, I'm VERY good on this. The letters didn't flow but he did promise to support the LGBTQ community in his campaign once. THIS has been

a pleasant surprise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yeah people do that if they think their constitutional rights are being removed. Rumor mill says there's an executive order on the way that's going to roll back Obama era advancement on equal rights for gays.

Dude, why do you keep freaking out about gay rights? After you wrote this, Trump extended the Obama executive order protecting gay rights...

 

An executive order protecting federal employees from anti-LGBTQ discrimination that was first signed in 2014 by President Barack Obama will continue under President Donald Trump, the White House said Tuesday.

"President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community," the White House said in a statement. "The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact."

 

So, as you said in that other thread, will you admit to being gaslit now?

 

Trump, so far, has more or less done exactly what he campaigned on. On the campaign, he said he supported gay marriage, that he supported transsexuals on the restroom issue, he came out in support of gay rights at the convention (the first Republican in GOP history to do so). He's easily the most liberal Republican on this issue, and is arguably more liberal than Clinton.

 

Yet, for some reason, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, you still irrationally thought he was going to come out and round up the gays or something? Admit that you just assumed he was bad on this issue because he was a Republican, and had no idea what his actual stance was.

 

My fears on Gay rights were based more on Mike "put them in camps" Pence.

 

And I've never been afraid to say when I've been gaslit. This one issue was diffused. There's more.

 

I'm not going to get into it with you-- you're already doing that thing where you remind us how much smarter and knowledgable you are about things, which makes it hard to actually want to listen to you. You know I'm not an idiot, but I am admittedly over-passionate about civil rights.

 

Tank I'm not trying to say I'm smarter and more knowledgeable than you. Nor am I saying it's silly to be passionate about gay rights.

 

What I am saying, is that there was no indication on the campaign that Trump would be a hard-liner on gay rights, so it just doesn't seem like something to get worked up about. God knows there's plenty of other things Trump has done that deserve attention.

 

Now that being said, it would be unfair if I didn't also mention that the rumor has re-surfaced, this time in the guise of an executive order upholding religious freedom.

 

However, it also states that "hundreds" of EOs are circulating right now, so who knows if Trump will actually look at it. But all the same, I want to be fair to both sides here.

 

If this new draft is circulating, I smell Pence on this one. What I think is likely happening, is every GOP faction out there is getting their pet project in front of Trump, since we know he's got an itchy trigger finger on the executive orders. I don't think this is a big issue for him, based on everything he's said, his cultural background, and so on... I doubt he gives a flying f-ck about gay rights one way or another. I also doubt people like Bannon give a f-ck as well. But Pence could get in Trump's ear and he may be thinking at some point he's gotta throw a bone to the religious right.

 

If that happens, I'm hoping it's one of those symbolic moves that actually doesn't do much (not that there's a whole lot Trump can do anyway, after the Supreme Court ruling). Of course, I'd advise Trump not to throw the bone, at least not on this issue, since this past election has shown that the religious right is going to vote GOP anyway and this is a dead issue. That reminds me, I've seen some comments out there from liberals talking about how they wish Trump would get impeached and so on. But here's the thing... Pence is next in line. As angry as Trump may make some people on immigration, he's never believed in say... gay conversion therapy.

 

So you gotta be careful what you wish for sometimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that being said, it would be unfair if I didn't also mention that the rumor has re-surfaced, this time in the guise of an executive order upholding religious freedom.

 

I find it to be a disgrace that something as basic as saying that a person shouldn't be compelled via government enforcement to choose between violating their religious conscience or no longer being allowed to make a living is treated as extreme.

 

This shouldn't even be controversial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now that being said, it would be unfair if I didn't also mention that the rumor has re-surfaced, this time in the guise of an executive order upholding religious freedom.

 

I find it to be a disgrace that something as basic as saying that a person shouldn't be forced via government enforcement to choose between violating their religious conscience or no longer being allowed to make a living.

 

This shouldn't even be controversial.

 

I completely agree, and I'm an atheist. I don't go into every business and advertise it though, and if someone knew I was an atheist and declined to do business with me on that basis, my opinion of them would change drastically, but I wouldn't try to force them to do business with me. The times they are a changin'. If they miss the train it ain't no skin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a difference between refusing to service an entire group and refusing to participate in something that violates one's religion. To go back to the old cake bakers example, I'd be less inclined to defend someone who just kicks all gays out of the store as opposed to one that doesn't want to make the wedding cake. And, in most of these cases, that's what we're talking about.

 

Religious conscience exemptions have been typical in our country for a long time. They've only become controversial recently as a method for enforcing compliance with the new social norms. It's more akin to using the government for the purpose of bullying than actual worry that someone's rights are being violated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.