• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
How does that say what you said it said?

In the context of the thread's previous posts, it implies it strongly. He has a huge problem with Hillary's dishonesty, but is okay with Trump's dishonesty because Trump's lies are much easier to see.
 
In the context of the thread's previous posts, it implies it strongly. He has a huge problem with Hillary's dishonesty, but is okay with Trump's dishonesty because Trump's lies are much easier to see.

I'm sorry but the post in question says nothing of the sort, nor does it imply it.

Perhaps Sunmaster himself can clarify this.
 
Ok, then tell me how I'm been irrational by pointing out that deliberately misleading people by telling untruth is lying.

You're the one playing with words, not I.

Didn't you participate in the thread where Harry G. Frankfurt's On BS was discussed? I have to say that I didn't read it completely, but it has been very illuminating because not only proposes a methodical approach on the subject but it also does that deeply rooted in the "American" culture. It is available online both from bookshops and off the back of a lorry. It's very short, less than 80 tiny pages. It's a little notebook of wisdom.

Really, didn't you participate in that thread?

***********************************************
I'll continue to qualify these threads as "effervescent" out of politeness. The point is that the debate has passed yet polls show Trump increasingly closer to Clinton. That has stirred up the Democrat hornet's nest and bile has flown up and down and all around. Just look at Cl1mh4224rd's. All of this is not a sane basis for discussion.

I for one, continue to learn. On BS taught me or confirm to me several aspects that provide a point of views to analyse the Trump phenomenon. And English vocabulary (joshing, bawl, slovenly, inapposite, gentility, perspicuous, procrustean, etc.). Always English vocabulary, which I'll continue to use, sometimes wrongly, and always in the wrong places
 
I'm sorry but the post in question says nothing of the sort, nor does it imply it.

Perhaps Sunmaster himself can clarify this.

My position is slightly more nuanced than thaiboxerken's summary, but he is essentially correct. I would prefer Donald Trump didn't lie so much. I would prefer he was different in many ways. However, I think his lies are less worrisome than Hillary's for three reasons:

(1) Trump's lies seem to be designed for rhetorical effect. Although they're more extreme than inaccurate generalization or hyperbole, they are not meant to be taken literally. Somebody linked before to an article in The Atlantic which explained that the media takes Trump's words literally but not seriously, and Trump's supporters take his words seriously, but not literally. I think that is the most eloquent explanation of this point. I wish I had thought of it first. Many of Hillary's lies, by contrast, are not only about consequential things but are also very effective in shaping the actual beliefs of tens of millions of people. I think Trump doesn't shape beliefs so much as evoke beliefs which are already present.

(2) Even though Trump doesn't admit his mistakes or retract his lies, he clearly is still rooted enough in reality to understand when he has repeated a falsehood (or conjured one out of thin air himself) and does in fact back off. Thus, I am not worried about him delusionally clinging to a false reality. Admittedly, he won't make a good role model for our kids, but I don't think the President has ever really functioned as a role model.

(3) The media will be on Trump's ass from day one of his administration. They will poke and prod and investigate everything he does. Additionally, he will be constrained by a Congress in which he has few political allies. He will be on a short leash, which I think is good because I think the executive branch has grown too powerful and has usurped many of the powers of the legislative branch (particularly under Obama). Hillary, like Obama, will be propped up by the mainstream media rather than constrained by it. She, like Obama, will also have the absolute support of all of the Democrats in Congress. We have already seen concrete evidence of this in the way that Congressional Democrats, as well as those embedded in the State Department and Justice Department bureaucracy have obstructed investigations of her wrongdoing and essentially acted as her defense lawyers. Hillary will feel almost complete freedom to continue her pattern of deception and corruption. There is no doubt in my mind that she has learned the wrong lessons from the email scandal. If she could get away with egregious violations of the law when she was simply a candidate for President, how can she be held to account once she's President?
 
Last edited:
aleCcowaN said:
Ok, then tell me how I'm been irrational by pointing out that deliberately misleading people by telling untruth is lying.

You're the one playing with words, not I.

Didn't you participate in the thread where Harry G. Frankfurt's On BS was discussed? I have to say that I didn't read it completely, but it has been very illuminating because not only proposes a methodical approach on the subject but it also does that deeply rooted in the "American" culture. It is available online both from bookshops and off the back of a lorry. It's very short, less than 80 tiny pages. It's a little notebook of wisdom.


I'm with aleCcowaN and Cain on this. The following is from a review on Harry Frankfurt's essay "On ********":

Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for telling the truth in the same way that ********ting tends to. ...The ********ter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, ******** is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

********, Frankfurt notes, is an inevitable byproduct of public life, "where people are frequently impelled—whether by their own propensities or by the demands of others—to speak extensively about matters of which they are to some degree ignorant." But politics is not a creation of the modern era; it's been around for centuries.

Why should ******** be so prevalent now? The obvious answer is the communications revolution. Cable television and the Internet have created an unending demand for information, and there simply isn't enough truth to go around. So, we get ******** instead. Indeed, there are some troubling signs that the consumer has come to prefer ********. In choosing guests to appear on cable news, bookers will almost always choose a glib ignoramus over an expert who can't talk in clipped sentences.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2005/03/defining_********.html


Google "On ********" if you want to read Frankfurt's original essay. Highly recommended.
 
My position is slightly more nuanced than thaiboxerken's summary, but he is essentially correct. I would prefer Donald Trump didn't lie so much. I would prefer he was different in many ways. However, I think his lies are less worrisome than Hillary's for at three reasons:

(1) Trump's lies seem to be designed for rhetorical effect. Although they're more extreme than inaccurate generalization or hyperbole, they are not meant to be taken literally. Somebody linked before to an article in The Atlantic which explained that the media takes Trump's words literally but not seriously, and Trump's supporters take his words seriously, but not literally. I think that is the most eloquent explanation of this point. I wish I had thought of it first. Many of Hillary's lies, by contrast, are not only about consequential things but are also very effective in shaping the actual beliefs of tens of millions of people. I think Trump doesn't shape beliefs so much as evoke beliefs which are already present.

(2) Even though Trump doesn't admit his mistakes or retract his lies, he clearly is still rooted enough in reality to understand when he has repeated a falsehood (or conjured one out of thin air himself) and does in fact back off. Thus, I am not worried about him delusionally clinging to a false reality. Admittedly, he won't make a good role model for our kids, but I don't think the President has ever really functioned as a role model.

(3) The media will be on Trump's ass from day one of his administration. They will poke and prod and investigate everything he does. Additionally, he will be constrained by a Congress in which he has few political allies. He will be on a short leash, which I think is good because I think the executive branch has grown too powerful and has usurped many of the powers of the legislative branch (particularly under Obama). Hillary, like Obama, will be propped up by the mainstream media rather than constrained by it. She, like Obama, will also have the absolute support of all of the Democrats in Congress. We have already seen concrete evidence of this in the way that Congressional Democrats, as well as those embedded in the State Department and Justice Department bureaucracy have obstructed investigations of her wrongdoing and essentially acted as her defense lawyers. Hillary will feel almost complete freedom to continue her pattern of deception and corruption. There is no doubt in my mind that she has learned the wrong lessons from the email scandal. If she could get away with egregious violations of the law when she was simply a candidate for President, how can she be held to account once she's President?

I am very certain that you made up this logic ex post facto to justify the fact that Donald is actually the crooked pathological liar but you still want him to win. You wouldn't believe it if Trump was a Democrat and Hillary was a Republican.

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 11
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Add "malapropism" if you don't have it already. ;)
I use to point those as a sign of moral turpentine (search my posts)

Oh, yeah! I'm in the stage of "the hell with looking it up in a dictionary to confirm; type what you have in your head", no more learner wheels in my bike, it's time for scratches and bruises.

I'll add "malapropism" to my database next time I'm under the son, on the beech.
 
I am very certain that you made up this logic ex post facto to justify the fact that Donald is actually the crooked pathological liar but you still want him to win. You wouldn't believe it if Trump was a Democrat and Hillary was a Republican.

If Trump were a Democrat, and Hillary were a Republican, Trump would be far more likely to get away with his lies, and Hillary would be facing trial for mishandling classified information.

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 11 & response to same
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The last time this many campaign insiders were running to the media to spill the beans on campaign dysfunction Paul Manafort's head rolled.

During the primaries, the group briefing him for debates was small and closely held. By the weekend before the debate on Monday at Hofstra University, there were nearly a dozen people preparing Mr. Trump, including the retired Army generals Michael Flynn and Keith Kellogg, neither of whom has experience in presidential debates.

There were early efforts to run a more standard form of general election debate-prep camp, led by Roger Ailes, the ousted Fox News chief, at Mr. Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, N.J. But Mr. Trump found it hard to focus during those meetings, according to multiple people briefed on the process who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. That left Mr. Ailes, who at the time was deeply distracted by his removal from Fox and the news media reports surrounding it, discussing his own problems as well as recounting political war stories, according to two people present for the sessions.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and a friend of Mr. Trump’s who has been traveling with him extensively, took over much of the preparation efforts by the end. But with Mr. Trump receiving so much conflicting advice in those sessions, he absorbed little of it.

The team had primed Mr. Trump to look for roughly a dozen key phrases and expressions Mrs. Clinton uses when she is uncertain or uncomfortable, but he did not seem to pay attention during the practice sessions, one aide said, and failed to home in on her vulnerabilities during the debate.
 
My position is slightly more nuanced than thaiboxerken's summary, but he is essentially correct. I would prefer Donald Trump didn't lie so much. I would prefer he was different in many ways. However, I think his lies are less worrisome than Hillary's for three reasons:

(1) Trump's lies seem to be designed for rhetorical effect. Although they're more extreme than inaccurate generalization or hyperbole, they are not meant to be taken literally. Somebody linked before to an article in The Atlantic which explained that the media takes Trump's words literally but not seriously, and Trump's supporters take his words seriously, but not literally. I think that is the most eloquent explanation of this point. I wish I had thought of it first. Many of Hillary's lies, by contrast, are not only about consequential things but are also very effective in shaping the actual beliefs of tens of millions of people. I think Trump doesn't shape beliefs so much as evoke beliefs which are already present.

The only difference is that Trump hasn't been in a position like Hillary. Are you seriously willing to give Trump, as currently constituted, the power to shape our society with his lies? Are you willing to give the keys to the kingdom so to speak, to a person so devoid of empathy, compassion and intelligence?

(2) Even though Trump doesn't admit his mistakes or retract his lies, he clearly is still rooted enough in reality to understand when he has repeated a falsehood (or conjured one out of thin air himself) and does in fact back off. Thus, I am not worried about him delusionaly clinging to a false reality. Admittedly, he won't make a good role model for our kids, but I don't think the President has ever really functioned as a role model.

Well that's just a joke. Of course the President is a role model. "I hear you, the world hears you, and the people who took down these buildings will hear ALL of us soon."
One of the most poignant moments I've ever seen from a President. Donald J. Trump would not only not go to Ground Zero, he'd be in his bunker wondering how he could personally profit from it.

(3) The media will be on Trump's ass from day one of his administration. ~snip

Ah.. the old trusted standby. Don't worry about him being President. He won't actually do anything!

Listen, I know the do nothing congress has been doing a bang-up job in the eyes of the (alt) right, but lets maybe put a stop to do - nothing Government for the next 4 years just for ***** and giggles. See what happens.
 
Last edited:
Back to this discussion of lies, it's one thing to make up things about which you are ignorant, or likely ignorant. In that respect, you could argue that his assertion (or joke if you will) that global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese is not a lie.

But we are talking about his contradictions in the debate. "He thinks that global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese." He didn't respond with "I don't remember," it was "I didn't say that!"

Yes, he did say that, and denying it is a lie, regardless of whether he "forgot" he said it or not. Because HE said it, and therefore contradicts himself.

The correct answer, of course, is "I don't remember" saying it, and that could be true. But when you pretend to know the answer, when you don't know the answer? That's lying.

BTW, take a look at the "fact-checking" that has been done. Every single time Donald said, "I didn't do that" and "That's wrong", he was wrong. I've seen criticisms of Clinton that said she distorted information, but every time she said something and he contradicted her, she was right.

And yet, this debate is being graded on who "acted Presidential" and "demeanor." Apparently, getting all your information wrong and flat out lying about what you have said in the past*** is not part of your demeanor?

Every time he claimed she was wrong, she was right. He never caught her on a mis-statement.

***Including pretending that you know the answer when you don't
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom