Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[pgwenthold]

Sure. But that's not what Trump has said. It reveals plenty about his character and judgment that he insists he "never" supported the Iraq war, contradicting actual evidence. It would have been easy and sensible for him to say something like "When the issue first came up, I stood firmly behind our President and our troops, like most Americans. But as I later studied the matter, I came to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to invade a foreign country under the circumstances we faced at that time." But Trump needs to insist "I was always right!" It's also significant that Trump, who was certainly a prominent public figure at the time, hasn't produced any evidence that he ever spoke against the war before it began..

You know, in this respect, he is a lot like Hillary Clinton, isn't he?

And completely unlike Pence, who still thinks it was a good idea.

 

[Belz...]

The scary part is that the bar is so low that no one even bats an eye over the fact that he lies. It wasn't even part of the metric of assessing the debate. No one said, "They will be judged on the quality of their proposals and their ability to realistically address the issues." No, it was whether she would have the "stamina" and who could lobby the best zingers, without Trump resorting to calling her a bitch.

The content of what they said? Irrelevant. That's what this has been reduced to.

A nice demonstration of the weakness of democracy when voters aren't well informed or invested in the process.

 

[Belz...]

Technically, he didn't say it. He tweeted it.

That's hardly a lie. It was a misstatement.

It's not a particularly meaningful claim

Once again, it's probably a silly, unproven claim, but it's equally difficult to prove that he's lying.

Probably a lie, although I can see if his statement was stripped out of context, he might have thought it was reasonable to claim he never said it since context could reasonably be seen to be part of the statement.

You really should stop. Any remaining credibility you might have had left on this topic is long gone, now.

Obviously, you can't really tell the difference between a lie and conventional political rhetoric.

Doesn't this apply to Clinton as well?

 

[Tony Stark]

He didn't say it. You're absolutely wrong. What he said on Fox & Friends was completely different from what Hillary claimed. What he said actually on F&F is what I believe, to tell you the truth.

You're embarrassing yourself.

He lied about it in front of tens of millions of people. End of story.

 

[NoahFence]

Pick three. Most of the so-called lies are not lies. I want to see if you can tell the difference.

You want an opportunity at being pedantic. YOU KNOW he lies through his teeth.

Why don't you take that list and tell the class why they're not lies.

 

[Tony Stark]

You know, in this respect, he is a lot like Hillary Clinton, isn't he?

And completely unlike Pence, who still thinks it was a good idea.

And Mike Pence cosponsored the resolution. But that's OK because he's a Republican.

 

[NoahFence]

Technically, he didn't say it. He tweeted it. I realize that's Clintonesque parsing of the English language, but it works for both of them. Also, he claims he was joking. And, IIRC, Hillary claimed that Trump believes it is a hoax. Trump did not say that he believed it was. Also, perhaps a bit of hyper-technical parsing, but actually defensible.



That's hardly a lie. It was a misstatement. Is he lying also if he mispronounces somebody's name? His point, which virtually everybody understood, was that Hillary has been in positions of governmental power for decades, so her claim that she has some new ideas or wants to change things is disingenuous. Otherwise, she would have already implemented those changes.



It's not a particularly meaningful claim, but no doubt he had an opinion on the Iraq War shortly before it began, while it was going on, and also after the initial phase was over. What he said on Howard Stern many months before was not necessarily is final opinion on the subject. People change their minds, and there was certainly plenty of time to do it.



Once again, it's probably a silly, unproven claim, but it's equally difficult to prove that he's lying. Just because he may have voiced support at one particular point in time, it doesn't mean that he didn't change his mind later (whether before or after the intervention started).



The number of murders in New York City for 2015 was higher than for 2014. Nationally, the number of murders was much higher in 2015 than 2014.



Probably a lie, although I can see if his statement was stripped out of context, he might have thought it was reasonable to claim he never said it since context could reasonably be seen to be part of the statement.



If Ford has the choice between building a new plant in Mexico and in the US, and it chooses Mexico, then that's clearly moving jobs to Mexico from the US. Perhaps not existing jobs, but potential future jobs, which I think makes the statement sufficiently true. I bet that existing jobs get moved too, since although there probably won't be layoffs, there will probably be downsizing in the US through attrition. That is, people who resign or retire will probably be less likely to be replaced. And the jobs (not necessarily Ford's employees) existing to support that infrastructure will also disappear over time.



And a pretty big failure. Obviously, you can't really tell the difference between a lie and conventional political rhetoric.

Boy oh boy. you showed us.

 

[sunmaster14]

You really should stop. Any remaining credibility you might have had left on this topic is long gone, now.



Doesn't this apply to Clinton as well?

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

 

[pgwenthold]

And Mike Pence cosponsored the resolution. But that's OK because he's a Republican.

I still don't understand why republicans think that his opposition to the war was a GOOD thing, even if he had been?

Are they admitting the war was a mistake? I asked that before, and didn't see the answer. Of course, the most hardcore right-wingers are on ignore, so I wouldn't see if they responded.

But I want to know: do Republicans think that Trump was/is right to oppose the war in Iraq? So much, that they accept him lying about the fact that he did?

 

[pgwenthold]

I still don't understand why republicans think that his opposition to the war was a GOOD thing, even if he had been?

Are they admitting the war was a mistake? I asked that before, and didn't see the answer. Of course, the most hardcore right-wingers are on ignore, so I wouldn't see if they responded.

But I want to know: do Republicans think that Trump was/is right to oppose the war in Iraq? So much, that they accept him lying about the fact that he did?

Oh wait - I get it. It's because they KNOW he is lying that they accept his claim that he was against the war. They know it isn't true, and that he really did support the war, and is just lying about it in order to draw support from independents. Two negatives make a positive for them, and his lying doesn't hurt him, so we can ignore that.

 

[Rare Truth]

As seen on Facebook:

"Palin to Advise Trump on Improving Sentence Structure

NEW YORK—In an admission that his message might have gotten lost in Monday night’s debate, Donald J. Trump has enlisted the former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to advise him on improving his sentence structure. Campaign officials stressed that bringing Palin on board was not a sign of panic, but merely an acknowledgement that the Alaskan’s communication skills could be Trump’s “secret weapon.” “We would be silly to have a resource like this available to us and not use it,” said Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway. “No one debates like Sarah Palin."


:lol:

 

[pgwenthold]

Seen on Twitter: "This just in: accused rapist and confirmed adulterer praised for not pointing out his opponent's husband had previously been unfaithful."

 

[Bob001]

.....
The number of murders in New York City for 2015 was higher than for 2014. Nationally, the number of murders was much higher in 2015 than 2014.
....

If the murder rate is up for one year, it's at least partly because the rate has dropped so far in the previous three decades.

But not so fast. While an almost 11 percent jump in murder rate undeniably sounds concerning, 2015 actually had the third-lowest murder rate of any year since 1991, when the rate stood at 9.8 murders for every 100,000 people. In 2015, 5,696 people were murdered in the US, at a rate of 4.9 per 100,000 people. In 2014, stats showed that 14,164 were murdered, a rate of 4.4.

https://news.vice.com/article/murde...ore-than-10-but-thats-not-as-bad-as-it-sounds

And almost all of the increase was in just three cities. It's not like a massive crime wave is engulfing the nation. But Trump is better at promoting fear than reporting facts.

 

[sunmaster14]

If the murder rate is up for one year, it's at least partly because the rate has dropped so far in the previous three decades.

https://news.vice.com/article/murde...ore-than-10-but-thats-not-as-bad-as-it-sounds

A better way of looking at it is that the uptick is more worrying. The trend was down, yet the murder rate was up significantly. That means that compared to the trend, the murder rate was up even more than reported. It should have dropped, but it went up by 11% instead. Now, I can think of many reasons why the murder rate has been on a decades-long downward trend: better medical care which turns potential homicides into aggravated batteries; better policing methods; more ubiquitous security video; longer prison sentences for violent offenders; the use of computer algorithms to track and preempt crime; better treatment of mental illness, depression, and anger problems; higher standards of living generally which reduces rates of deprivation and desperation for resources. Why would the murder rate jump so much? Is it a complete coincidence that it would happen at the same time that the police have been under political attack by Democrats for brutality and racism? I doubt it.

And almost all of the increase was in just three cities. It's not like a massive crime wave is engulfing the nation. But Trump is better at promoting fear than reporting facts.

There was a recent study where a "Ferguson Effect" skeptic was turned into a believer by the data. I think Trump's implication that law and order is breaking down because of Democratic political expediency is reasonable.

 

[Tony Stark]

A better way of looking at it is that the uptick is more worrying. The trend was down, yet the murder rate was up significantly. That means that compared to the trend, the murder rate was up even more than reported. It should have dropped, but it went up by 11% instead. Now, I can think of many reasons why the murder rate has been on a decades-long downward trend: better medical care which turns potential homicides into aggravated batteries; better policing methods; more ubiquitous security video; longer prison sentences for violent offenders; the use of computer algorithms to track and preempt crime; better treatment of mental illness, depression, and anger problems; higher standards of living generally which reduces rates of deprivation and desperation for resources. Why would the murder rate jump so much? Is it a complete coincidence that it would happen at the same time that the police have been under political attack by Democrats for brutality and racism? I doubt it.



There was a recent study where a "Ferguson Effect" skeptic was turned into a believer by the data. I think Trump's implication that law and order is breaking down because of Democratic political expediency is reasonable.

So the Democrats should take the Republican approach and just let the police do whatever they want with no accountability?

 

[Bob001]

....
Is it a complete coincidence that it would happen at the same time that the police have been under political attack by Democrats for brutality and racism? I doubt it.
....

Are police really "under attack" by Democrats or anyone else? Or does the fact that everybody has a camera in his pocket make it possible to document police violence and misconduct in circumstances where previously their claims would stand unchallenged? Or do you just think cops are always right?

 

[Tony Stark]

Seen on Twitter: "This just in: accused rapist and confirmed adulterer praised for not pointing out his opponent's husband had previously been unfaithful."

Eric Trump: It Took “Courage” For My Dad To Not Mention Bill Clinton’s Infidelity

lol

 

[thaiboxerken]

Dude. Just stop it.

If there was something with teeth there, she would have been doomed a long time ago. All these investigations have been led by REPUBLICANS.

Yet nothing turns up.

Maybe that's because there's nothing there?

That's why they keep looking in obscure places. Soon they will investigate her sewer pipes and place her garbage collectors on trial.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You can. You are just equally spineless as my namesake. And it probably is not a wise or moral move to insult someone's integrity who is actually making an accountable claim.

I don't agree with your political views but admire the fact that you don't buy into the conspiracies. You have valid reasons not to vote for Hillary even though I don't agree with them.

 

[Darat]

Eric Trump: It Took “Courage” For My Dad To Not Mention Bill Clinton’s Infidelity

lol

The lack of self awareness in that family is stupefying.