Classic


Trump and Putin Share Joke About Election Meddling, Sparking New Furor

United States and Japan and a pillar of American foreign policy. On Wednesday, asked about the treaty on Fox News, Mr. Trump sneered, “If Japan is attacked, we will fight World War III.” Then he added: “But if we’re attacked, Japan doesn’t have to help us at all. They can watch it on a Sony television.” (I guess he doesn't understand the concept of scale or treaties )

or “U.S. companies can sell their equipment to Huawei,” Trump said at a news conference. “We’re talking about equipment where there’s no great national security problem with it.”

The Trump administration has previously said Huawei is a national security issue, not a trade problem.

which is it???


And to suggest there isn't a better choice for POTUS is basic :faga:

That was really bad. I don't like it and it concerns me a lot.

I wonder if he'll have more flexibility after the election.

You guys on the right love comparing things that are no where close to being the same.. it must help with rationalization Trumps our bet option. It bothers you but but Obama
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Classic

Trump and Putin Share Joke About Election Meddling, Sparking New Furor

Everyone seems to know it was a joke since it is being referred to as such. What was the joke, by the way? In the meantime, Trump puts sancions on Russia, frees up oil drilling which hurts Russia's oil profits. Warns Russia not to meddle in our elections. Puts sanctions on Russia ally Iran, pretty much crippling its economy, Puts tariffs on Russia's number one military ally China. etc. Sanctions and economic warfare. Jokes. Which is it? Both. He can walk and chew gum at the same time.

United States and Japan and a pillar of American foreign policy. On Wednesday, asked about the treaty on Fox News, Mr. Trump sneered, “If Japan is attacked, we will fight World War III.” Then he added: “But if we’re attacked, Japan doesn’t have to help us at all. They can watch it on a Sony television.” (I guess he doesn't understand the concept of scale or treaties )

More typical Trump sarc/joke. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew more about scale or treaties than you do. And he has more "expert" advisers available to him than you do. And, despite the fascist that he is made out to be, he won't stop you from expressing your ill informed opinion.

or “U.S. companies can sell their equipment to Huawei,” Trump said at a news conference. “We’re talking about equipment where there’s no great national security problem with it.”

The Trump administration has previously said Huawei is a national security issue, not a trade problem.

which is it???

As Spence would say, it depends on the context.

And to suggest there isn't a better choice for POTUS is basic :faga:

There's always, in someone's opinion, a better choice. Trick is in finding him/her/it. And making sure that it meets all the specs required by wdmso.

That was really bad. I don't like it and it concerns me a lot.

I wonder if he'll have more flexibility after the election.

very very bad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey he welcomed the help once, he is just letting one of his strong man loves know, he wouldn’t object if they went for it again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

very very bad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It sparked furor!

Hey he welcomed the help once, he is just letting one of his strong man loves know, he wouldn’t object if they went for it again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When he, openly, on national TV, before the world "welcomed help once," as you put it, and it was obvious to all of us who don't have TDS that he was being sarcastic, joking, not really asking for help, you guys with TDS adamantly insisted that he was really and actually "asking for Russia's help"--that he was conspiring with Russia.

But now, when he tells Putin not to meddle in the election, it is obvious to those with TDS that Trump is joking, not really telling Putin to not meddle, but somehow actually telling him to meddle.

You TDS guys have it really bad.

Blinders firmly in place as expected, history tends to repeat, especially when help comes from the top.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's always, in someone's opinion, a better choice. Trick is in finding him/her/it. And making sure that it meets all the specs required by wdmso.

What's a joke it that's your rationalization .. that its was just a joke .. and you know this how?? Is this the line on fox or you tube ..this doesn't phase you but the communists are helping the Democrats post .. does ????
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Blinders firmly in place as expected, history tends to repeat, especially when help comes from the top.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When can't respond rationally, Confucius say: make fortune cookie gibberish.

What's a joke it that's your rationalization .. that its was just a joke ..

Which time are you referring to? It was joking sarcasm both times. But for TDS folks it was a joke only when it suits them. Not my rationalization. Very obviously so.

and you know this how??

It was obvious. And you know differently how??

Is this the line on fox or you tube ..

Don't watch Fox. Do you? Didn't get it from youtube either. Actually, the leftist press called this recent one a joke.

So, if you think that I have to depend on some media source to tell me how to think, does that mean you do? Or are you special?

this doesn't phase you but the communists are helping the Democrats post .. does ????
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What am I supposed to be phased about? Some ill-mannered so called "journalist" tries to embarrass Trump in the middle of his conversation with Putin by yelling out if he was going to tell Putin not to meddle in our election, and so Trump sarcastically does so? I am supposed to take this as some meaningful evidence that Trump is conspiring, that he has a bromance with Putin, that he is going to betray America? Really???

And the Communists actually being in cahoots with the Democrats, NO JOKING, really and truly and openly and sincerely, and the Dems not disavowing them, doesn't phase you? And you can go on and on about Trump colluding with Russia when there is no real evidence that he is or was? And you can't say nary a peep about the undisputed aid the Commies give the Dems?

You guys on the right love comparing things that are no where close to being the same.. it must help with rationalization Trumps our bet option. It bothers you but but Obama
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device




I'm not on the right. I was and remain center left / center right on most things. I am an independent for 2 decades. I can go the last 20 years and call major issues both parties and few pluses both parties.

You can't get out of one party.

gotta love Trumps latest historical propaganda moment with Kim :kewl:

Sure it was last minute:kewl: .. imagine if the last POTUS pulled such a stunt conservatives would be like :lossinit:

What am I supposed to be phased about? Some ill-mannered so called "journalist" tries to embarrass Trump in the middle of his conversation with Putin by yelling out if he was going to tell Putin not to meddle in our election, and so Trump sarcastically does so? I am supposed to take this as some meaningful evidence that Trump is conspiring, that he has a bromance with Putin, that he is going to betray America? Really???

And the Communists actually being in cahoots with the Democrats, NO JOKING, really and truly and openly and sincerely, and the Dems not disavowing them, doesn't phase you? And you can go on and on about Trump colluding with Russia when there is no real evidence that he is or was? And you can't say nary a peep about the undisputed aid the Commies give the Dems?

you need to keep your conspiracies straight your all over the map :kewl::kewl:

Maybe the journalist asked the question we all think (well not some of course) needs to be asked repeatedly until he actually does it and not like it’s some fing joke.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Donald Trump joked with Vladimir Putin about getting rid of journalists



the US president lightheartedly sought common ground with Putin at the expense of the journalists around them in Osaka.
“Get rid of them. Fake news is a great term, isn’t it? You don’t have this problem in Russia but we do,” Trump said.

Twenty-six journalists have been murdered in Russia since Putin first became president

but ya its only a joke so its 100% ok for Trump supporters :faga:

I'm not on the right. I was and remain center left / center right on most things. I am an independent for 2 decades. I can go the last 20 years and call major issues both parties and few pluses both parties.

You can't get out of one party.
This won’t get a second look
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you need to keep your conspiracies straight your all over the map :kewl::kewl:

As is quite often the case, you make no sense. What conspiracies? What map? Are you dog whistling?

Whatever nonsense your peddling here, you haven't responded to what I said . . . of course, that's not unusual for you.

Maybe the journalist asked the question we all think (well not some of course) needs to be asked repeatedly until he actually does it and not like it’s some fing joke.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the "journalist" could choose a better time and place to belligerently shout out the question that is used as a talking point, dog whistle, mantra, to make Trump look bad.

What is Trump supposed to do, threaten Putin if he meddles in our elections? Would that have any effect? Are we going to stop meddling in other countries affairs? This sort of meddling has been going on forever and will continue forever. Trying to negotiate cooperation on various international problems with someone will not go well if it is done belligerently.

Trump's Secretary of State, has warned Russia not to meddle in our 2020 elections. Trump has not repudiated that warning. Message sent. He doesn't have to confront Putin personally about it while trying to establish a ground on which the two can manage to cooperate on other Matters.

The "journalist" was putting on a show. A show that you applaud. A stupid show.

And that sir is why meddling shouldn’t happen, thank you for helping clarify, tip of the hat!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And that sir is why meddling shouldn’t happen, thank you for helping clarify, tip of the hat!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Shouldn't"? How do you go about eliminating meddling? You want to go to war? Slap on the wrist? Huff and puff about how mad it makes you and if you don't stop we'll do something really bad to you?

When Pompeo warned the Russians that meddling would damage our attempts at improving relations, was that too soft? Should he have included a physical threat of some kind?

Should Trump, every time he speaks to Putin, tell him to stop meddling or he'll do something really bad to Russia, even worse than what he has done such as pumping more oil to hurt Russia's main source of foreign income, creating or strengthening military alliances with Eastern European countries on Russia's border, supplying weapons to Ukraine, maintaining the Ukraine related sanctions until Crimea is returned to Ukraine, expelling Russian diplomats, sanctioning Russians who were indicted by Mueller, putting tariffs on goods from Russia's main military ally China, putting economic sanctions on Iran, one of Russia's strongest allies in the Middle East thus severely crippling its economy?

If none of that has gotten Russia's attention that we are not pleased with its actions including meddling, what exactly will? Should he do more of the same, or worse? And how will that worse affect our ability to get any kind of beneficial deal re arms, denuclearization, cooperation against terrorism, a better relation with the West in general, including economic and political?

Trump may be naïve in thinking he can "make a deal" with countries like Russia, or China, or North Korea. On the other hand, if he does walk softly but carries a really big stick, and can put enough of an economic squeeze on those big, bad, meddlers, maybe they will come to the table with an agreement in the right direction.

And maybe if the U.S. stops meddling in the affairs of other countries, we would actually have the high moral meddling ground.

And if We Americans stopped meddling in the affairs of fellow Americans in order to defeat them, such as creating fake dossiers provided by foreign entities in order to defeat an opposing presidential candidate, maybe we can talk about how meddling shouldn't happen.

Fat chance.

What am I supposed to be phased about? Some ill-mannered so called "journalist" tries to embarrass Trump in the middle of his conversation with Putin by yelling out if he was going to tell Putin not to meddle in our election, and so Trump sarcastically does so
Just what would you consider appropriate press behavior with the current administration having less press conferences than any other.
This administration started its first press conference with a lie and has been consistently lying in press conferences and all media for its term to date.
Since when is it none of the presses business what Trump says to Putin?
Perhaps another of Trump’s sarcastic jokes was how Putin doesn’t have problems with fake news, just how many Russian reporters have died since the start of Putin’s regime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just what would you consider appropriate press behavior with the current administration having less press conferences than any other.

This administration started its first press conference with a lie and has been consistently lying in press conferences and all media for its term to date.

There has been enough discussion on this forum about who starts what when it comes to Trump, his opponents, and the press. I haven't seen many instances where Trump has been rude to the Press when they've been as nice to him as they have been with his predecessor. It seems that those who do not have TDS have been the ones on this forum to point out positives about Trump, which, apparently, the TDS folks have not heard much about in the mainstream notFox media. No doubt you believe every negative thing that has been reported or written about Trump. No doubt you haven't been privy to much notFox press that reports positive things about him. No doubt the wonderfully behaved, fair and balanced, objective press that you allow to inform you just can't find things to say about Trump other than that he is a liar and a pussy grabber. And that he obstructed justice. And that he loves Putin and conspired with him to win the election. Yada, yada, yada and the daily CNN and New York Times breathlessly reporting some new factoid or investigation, or rumor, or accusation that supposedly exposes or is about to prove what a, how did you put it, what a horror Trump is.

I can't fault you for seeing Trump as an irredeemable horror if that's the only information you get.

Right from the beginning of the Mueller investigation, there have been alternative media outlets that consistently and daily got it right. And you're beloved leftist press got it wrong. They kept getting it wrong until the very last crescendo of hope and accusation and phony innuendo bubbles were burst by Mueller's report.

That kind of consistent error, when coming out of the mouth of Trump, would be called lying. When the standard for lying applied by left wing press to Trump's words is applied to the Press, it makes the Press to be a consistent and daily liar.


Since when is it none of the presses business what Trump says to Putin?

See, by press standards for Trump lies, you're lying. Your making a straw man supposition.

Perhaps another of Trump’s sarcastic jokes was how Putin doesn’t have problems with fake news, just how many Russian reporters have died since the start of Putin’s regime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many American reporters have died since the start of Trump's regime? See, you're concocting a slick kind of lie that Trump is going to get American reporters killed. Well, if the tons of negative abuse heaped on Trump hasn't gotten him killed, I guess the reporters who dump it shouldn't worry.

Funny Trumps harder on a country with no nukes but plays buddy's with the one with them? And has more fake news and no real journalist ... but call Trump out on his comments and actions your accused of having TDS.. that's the new defense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This won’t get a second look
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was read. independent yes center left /center right? clearly not in right field like some but clearly not in center field either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So he claims it but you dismiss the claim. He must be a Trumplican plant who is lying again because unless he is in lockstep with the radicals then surely he is the enemy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was read. independent yes center left /center right? clearly not in right field like some but clearly not in center field either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



Haha, from where you sit, just about everyone is in right field.

The term “left field” suits him to a T.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny Trumps harder on a country with no nukes but plays buddy's with the one with them? And has more fake news and no real journalist ...

It appears that you're trying to say something here.

but call Trump out on his comments and actions your accused of having TDS.. that's the new defense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Welcome to the other side in the world of labels. Your friends in the anti-Trump media regularly cast racist, Nazi, homophobe, sexist, and various other judgmental labels on Trump. So do you. Goose/gander.

How many American reporters have died since the start of Trump's regime? See, you're concocting a slick kind of lie that Trump is going to get American reporters killed. Well, if the tons of negative abuse heaped on Trump hasn't gotten him killed, I guess the reporters who dump it shouldn't worry.
Are you claiming that Trump has not lied or that all politicians lie. One of those statements is true, but no politician has lied to the extent Trump has.
Start with his early life and look at his great high school grades, his excellent performance at Wharton, his excellent tax returns. You can't because he hid them, he is not what he claims to be. It is the common thread in all of Trump's history. How did he get on the Forbes list? Who is John Barron? John Miller? David Dennison? Who's the liar?

The point of Trump liking Putin not having fake news is not that american reporters have been killed, it's that Trump finds Putin's approach acceptable and worth joking about.
You spin it into something else and find this acceptable. How dare they question the king, it's treasonous. The founders closely defined treason so that it was not the same as England, where if you spoke out against the king it was treason.
He was not elected King, he is the President of all the american people and took an oath to uphold the Constitution. He needs to start acting like it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T1EUtcAX98

Clearly the greatest president of our lifetime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clearly the greatest president of our lifetime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m an Ike man, but that's before
my lifetime. If you measure “greatness” as the ability to inspire true, genuine madness in your political adversaries, no one comes close.

Paul Krugman said the economy would not survive a trump presidency. the dow will likely break records today. and msnbc still pays paul krugman to come
and tell us what he thinks.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m an Ike man, but that's before
my lifetime. If you measure “greatness” as true genuine madness, no one comes close.

Paul Krugman said the economy would not survive a trump presidency. the dow will likely break records today. and msnbc still pays paul krugman to come
and tell us what he thinks.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed it for you, and it ain't over yet...... Give him time to perform true to form, he has a history. But we are not allowed to see it.

Fixed it for you, and it ain't over yet...... Give him time to perform true to form, he has a history. But we are not allowed to see it.

yes you did, that was very amusing, please stop my stomach hurts from laughing so hard.

he does have a history. so you’re suggesting that this market run up is some kind of shell game, a con? all those people aren’t really back to work? do you have ANY evidence whatsoever, to support that?

we’re due for a correction, sure, that’s coming. that doesn’t mean this isn’t real.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe a few numbers would help you understand the magnitude of the Trump lies, but of course it was easy for Obama.
Dated May 13th 2019 by Eric Black in the MinnPost

Under which president did the stock market rise more during the first 27 months of his presidency? Donald J. Trump or Barack H. Obama? Under which did the unemployment rate decline more? How about GDP growth per president?

If it wasn’t for obnoxious braggadocio of the current incumbent — his incessant pitiful compulsion to exaggerate his own accomplishments and disparage those of all others (but most especially those of his immediate predecessor) — I would say the idea that economic indices reflect the wisdom and skill of the incumbent president is dumb. But if those are measures the self-glorifying Trump wants to use, let’s go there and review some actual, you know, facts.

On January 20, 2017, the day Trump took office, the Dow Jones industrial average was at 19,827. It’s had a good run during his first two plus years, and it closed Friday at 25,942. That’s an impressive gain of 30.8 percent, but let’s not be stingy. Let’s call it 31 percent. (Note: as of publication of this story Monday morning, the Dow was down more than 600 points, or 2.4 percent.)

Some find Trump’s policies despicable, racist, even (or perhaps especially) planet-threatening. But some argue that the good economy during Trump’s first two-plus years is a powerful offset against those factors. The movement of the Dow is not the best measure of economic performance, nor certainly of the overall cost/benefit analysis of his presidency. GDP growth would be better and, in terms of impact on ordinary Americans, unemployment would be better. And those have done well under Trump, too. But the Dow is very specific and often celebrated by Trump praisers.


But here’s the thing. During the same period of Barack Obama’s first term, from Inauguration Day 2009, until the close on May 12, 2011, the closest equivalent date during his presidency, the Dow rose from 8,280 to 12,696, a growth of 65 percent.
The stock market is not the best measure of economic performance, of course, and I’m not going to go through all the economic measures. And it would be hard to statistically measure the staggering (but non-monetary) decline in U.S. leadership in the world under Trump. How would one quantify the impact of the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to combat global warming? Or from the U.S.-brokered deal to head off an Iranian nuclear weapon, which has now caused Iran to announce it will no longer abide by some of the terms of the deal, which makes Mideast war and even life-on-Earth-ending nuclear war a bit more likely?

Those things can’t be measured statistically. Maybe they’ll make America great again, although I have my doubts.

But back to things that can be measured. As statistics go, a rising stock market primarily benefits a relatively small, wealthy investor class (although certainly some benefits trickle down to the economy in general). So let’s do another one more that more directly affects average Americans, especially those who really need to work for a living, namely the unemployment rate.

The administration, among others, has spent recent days celebrating the decline of the unemployment to 3.6 percent, its lowest level since 1969. Congratulations to all those who wanted work and found it thanks to the drop in that rate, and one-hand-clapping to Donald Trump who, of course, claims this as a great personal accomplishment, which further demonstrates his success especially compared to his despised predecessor.

Given all that, let’s take a look at comparison unemployment data across the Obama and Trump years in this chart, which assigns an overall unemployment rate to each calendar year. Obama inherited a plummeting economy and the worst recession in decades from his predecessor, George W. Bush.

In 2009, the first year of Obama’s presidency, unemployment hit 9.9 percent, its highest level since the Great Depression. But starting in 2010, the unemployment rate fell for eight straight years, namely the eight years when the economy was essentially under Obama policy. By 2016, Obama’s last year in office, unemployment measured 4.7 percent (down from 9.9 percent.) In 2017, the first year of Trump’s term (but before many of his policies were implemented) it fell to 4.1 percent.

In 2018, with the Trump tax cuts and other magical elements of Trumpism on the books, it fell again to 3.9 percent. So, depending on how you count those swing years, unemployment fell by a 5.8 percentage points under Obama policy over eight years and 0.2 percentage points under Trump’s policies through the end of 2018.

Just a quick look at GDP growth, for which I’ll rely on this table from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and this graph from Statista. Between 2009 and 2017, the eight years during which Obama’s policies should be blamed or credited, GDP per capita went up every year, with a total gain of $5,903. I would call that decent, maybe not great. Solid, steady but not astonishing growth of a little above or a little below two percent year with a best year of 2.9 percent in 2015 and an average of about 2.5 percent a year. (It’s “real” GDP so inflation is taken out.)


For 2018, the first full year under Trump’s policies, Statista says GDP per capita grew 2.9 percent, equal to Obama’s best year, 2015. Although it’s a per capita number, it says nothing about the distribution of the gains, and one has one’s suspicions on that score. But, for today, we’ll leave it at this: The first year under Trump showed good overall growth. (If you look at the whole Statista table, you’ll see that the golden age of recent GDP growth was under Bill Clinton.)
Among the various aspects of Trump’s moral midgetry is intellectual dishonesty. Also immodesty. But intellectual dishonesty is a quality I particularly disdain. Sure, make your argument, but don’t deny the contrary evidence. To me, that borders on lying.

For example, I would acknowledge that Obama inherited an economy and a stock market and a labor market that had crashed under his predecessor, while Trump inherited one that had thrived under his predecessor, the much-belittled-by-Trump Obama.

That might undermine the power of Obama absolutely besting, crushing, owning Trump as measured by two out of three important benchmark economic numbers during Obama’s presidency compared to Trump’s presidency so far.

I’ll consider the offsetting factor above if and when Trump acknowledges that he inherited a nation that was thriving, at relative peace (and the leader of several of the world’s most admirable and necessary multilateral agreements), and not one that was a hell-scape of carnage, dysfunction incompetence and decline he portrayed during his campaign and inaugural address.

But being intellectually honest in fairness to Donald Trump seems like unilateral disarmament. Let him try it for a while, then we’ll see. But don’t hold your breath.

PeteF. Has never posted an original or even honest thought in this forum,why would he acknowledge such?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PeteF. Has never posted an original or even honest thought in this forum,why would he acknowledge such?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Have you?

Serious question
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, I give obama credit all
the time
for helping the economy, so if you think that was a gotcha moment, think again.

with manufacturing and gdp growth, trump has done, what obama specifically said, could
not be done.

i give obama high marks for
handling the economy. i’m consistent and fair. are you as fair? can you give trump high marks for handling the economy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s also pure marxist bullsh*t to say the stock market improvement primarily helps
a small portion of the country. Many of us now have exposure to the stock market through IRAs and 401ks. that was written by someone with an occupy wall street agenda.






Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s also pure marxist bullsh*t to say the stock market improvement primarily helps
a small portion of the country. Many of us now have exposure to the stock market through IRAs and 401ks. that was written by someone with an occupy wall street agenda.






Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

According to the Commies at Goldman Sachs, stock ownership is extremely concentrated because of the growing wealth gap in the U.S., and thus the market’s performance affects households making up the wealthiest 1% of Americans much more significantly than the other 99%.
“The wealthiest 0.1% and 1% of households now own about 17% and 50% of total household equities respectively, up significantly from 13% and 39% in the late 80s,” Daan Struyven, Goldman Sachs’s chief economist said.

According to the Commies at Goldman Sachs, stock ownership is extremely concentrated because of the growing wealth gap in the U.S., and thus the market’s performance affects households making up the wealthiest 1% of Americans much more significantly than the other 99%.
“The wealthiest 0.1% and 1% of households now own about 17% and 50% of total household equities respectively, up significantly from 13% and 39% in the late 80s,” Daan Struyven, Goldman Sachs’s
chief economist said.

we’re all better off when the market rises pete. no one is inherently better off if the market crashes.

sorry, comrade, you’re not holding any cards here.

as to the gap in wealth, as i’ve said
it might not be fair, but it’s not bad either. not unless you’re dumb enough to believe that one persons wealth causes someone else’s poverty. no one would be better off if wealthy people stopped creating more wealth for themselves. Bill Gates’ net worth has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to seek financial security. Zip.

Is that all you have? Orange Man Bad, wealth inequality somehow “causes” poverty, any other liberal
bumper sticker slogans you got?

Earth to Pete...if oprah winfrey earns another million today, that does NOT mean there’s a million left for us to scrounge for. It doesn’t work that way, wealth is not finite like a pizza. Plus, she’ll pay some taxes on that million, she’ll spend some, she’ll
invest some, shell
give some to charity, ALL of which help the economy and lessen the burden on regular folk.

Take off the tin foil hat, wipe the crazed foam off your
mouth, stop
howling at the moon, and think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Have you?

Serious question
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He trademarked "snowflake"

Pete, I give obama credit all
the time
for helping the economy, so if you think that was a gotcha moment, think again.

with manufacturing and gdp growth, trump has done, what obama specifically said, could
not be done.

i give obama high marks for
handling the economy. i’m consistent and fair. are you as fair? can you give trump high marks for handling the economy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So far by manipulation of the tax code and blindly killing regulation Trump has achieved some small gains in the existing markets, that have largely benefited wealthy Americans. He has increased the national debt and because his projected growth likely doesn't occur will make it substantially worse than projected currently.

Our infrastructure is currently falling further and further behind our competitors and all Trump has done is have a couple of Infrastructure weeks and invented a plan where infrastructure would be farmed out to for profit firms. Just another transfer of wealth from most americans to those who own stocks, largely the most wealthy people in the US. Infrastructure is a worthwhile investment for Americans as a group and we have done it in the past. Thank Eisenhower for that.

His disruption of global trade and historic alliances will have an impact that will play out for many years. I don't think it will be positive.

His dilettante treatment of foreign policy is scary, it is a long term commitment that has been carried out over many years and now is questioned by our allies, much to our adversaries glee. Just taking a meeting is not diplomacy. Don't get me started on Ivanka, Jared and take your kid to work day.

As I've said before Trump already gives himself far more credit than he deserves.

When he acknowledges that, I'll gladly give him the little credit he is due.

Have you?

Serious question
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

History will be the judge
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So far by manipulation of the tax code and blindly killing regulation Trump has achieved some small gains in the existing markets, that have largely benefited wealthy Americans. He has increased the national debt and because his projected growth likely doesn't occur will make it substantially worse than projected currently.

Our infrastructure is currently falling further and further behind our competitors and all Trump has done is have a couple of Infrastructure weeks and invented a plan where infrastructure would be farmed out to for profit firms. Just another transfer of wealth from most americans to those who own stocks, largely the most wealthy people in the US. Infrastructure is a worthwhile investment for Americans as a group and we have done it in the past. Thank Eisenhower for that.

His disruption of global trade and historic alliances will have an impact that will play out for many years. I don't think it will be positive.

His dilettante treatment of foreign policy is scary, it is a long term commitment that has been carried out over many years and now is questioned by our allies, much to our adversaries glee. Just taking a meeting is not diplomacy. Don't get me started on Ivanka, Jared and take your kid to work day.

As I've said before Trump already gives himself far more credit than he deserves.

When he acknowledges that, I'll gladly give him the little credit he is due.

that wasn’t partisan at all, nope.

regular folks aren’t benefitting? blacks who are now employed? i thought people on the left claimed to care about that? you only celebrate good news for blacks, when it’s delivered by a democrat, I guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So far by manipulation of the tax code and blindly killing regulation Trump has achieved some small gains in the existing markets, that have largely benefited wealthy Americans. He has increased the national debt and because his projected growth likely doesn't occur will make it substantially worse than projected currently.

Our infrastructure is currently falling further and further behind our competitors and all Trump has done is have a couple of Infrastructure weeks and invented a plan where infrastructure would be farmed out to for profit firms. Just another transfer of wealth from most americans to those who own stocks, largely the most wealthy people in the US. Infrastructure is a worthwhile investment for Americans as a group and we have done it in the past. Thank Eisenhower for that.

His disruption of global trade and historic alliances will have an impact that will play out for many years. I don't think it will be positive.

His dilettante treatment of foreign policy is scary, it is a long term commitment that has been carried out over many years and now is questioned by our allies, much to our adversaries glee. Just taking a meeting is not diplomacy. Don't get me started on Ivanka, Jared and take your kid to work day.

As I've said before Trump already gives himself far more credit than he deserves.

When he acknowledges that, I'll gladly give him the little credit he is due.
PeteF. likes to mock and hypothesize and resents Donald for doing the same. Interesting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

History will be the judge
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Lol.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we’re all better off when the market rises pete. no one is inherently better off if the market crashes.

sorry, comrade, you’re not holding any cards here.

as to the gap in wealth, as i’ve said
it might not be fair, but it’s not bad either. not unless you’re dumb enough to believe that one persons wealth causes someone else’s poverty. no one would be better off if wealthy people stopped creating more wealth for themselves. Bill Gates’ net worth has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to seek financial security. Zip.

Is that all you have? Orange Man Bad, wealth inequality somehow “causes” poverty, any other liberal
bumper sticker slogans you got?

Earth to Pete...if oprah winfrey earns another million today, that does NOT mean there’s a million left for us to scrounge for. It doesn’t work that way, wealth is not finite like a pizza. Plus, she’ll pay some taxes on that million, she’ll spend some, she’ll
invest some, shell
give some to charity, ALL of which help the economy and lessen the burden on regular folk.

Take off the tin foil hat, wipe the crazed foam off your
mouth, stop
howling at the moon, and think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I cite an analyst at Goldman Sachs and you put words in my mouth and claim that I have a tinfoil hat and somehow revert to your usual rant that wealth inequality is good, has no effect on opportunity, a non-issue, Oprah's got money, things will trickle down or something.

If you again are off on this track to a trainwreck, explain how control of the factors of production has no consequence, perhaps you should tell the professors in Economics 101.
They would tell you that all business requires Land, Labor and Capitol.
If you control one of these you can control markets and dominate them, perhaps you have an alternate business theory?
The wealthiest people in the world are gaining more control of the capital market and it is clearly evident if you look at the data.
Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?
Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?

PeteF. likes to mock and hypothesize and resents Donald for doing the same. Interesting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he also claims
trump resorted to gimmicks to helping the economy, while
adding to the debt. Yet he gives obama
high marks, despite the fact that all obama did ( which worked, by the way) was borrow money to pump
into he economy through quantitative easing, which also added to the debt.

Brilliant when Obama did it, bad when Trump does it.

TDS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I cite an analyst at Goldman Sachs and you put words in my mouth and claim that I have a tinfoil hat and somehow revert to your usual rant that wealth inequality is good, has no effect on opportunity, a non-issue, Oprah's got money, things will trickle down or something.

If you again are off on this track to a trainwreck, explain how control of the factors of production has no consequence, perhaps you should tell the professors in Economics 101.
They would tell you that all business requires Land, Labor and Capitol.
If you control one of these you can control markets and dominate them, perhaps you have an alternate business theory?
The wealthiest people in the world are gaining more control of the capital market and it is clearly evident if you look at the data.
Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?
Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?

please. if that same
analyst gave trump credit for something, you’d say he was a racist.

a rising tide does lift all boats. i’m sorry if you only choose to celebrate that when delivered by a democrat, but that’s your bias, not mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that wasn’t partisan at all, nope.

regular folks aren’t benefitting? blacks who are now employed? i thought people on the left claimed to care about that? you only celebrate good news for blacks, when it’s delivered by a democrat, I guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Buy shoes or an appliance lately? And don't worry american manufacturers took this chance to raise their prices also, so buying American doesn't save you money.

We don’t get to set a very low bar for economic success for black workers and then applaud ourselves when we reach it.
Black unemployment is still double white unemployment, do you think he should get credit for letting them also benefit in the rising tide, since black unemployment has dropped continually since the beginning of the Obama presidency?

please. if that same
analyst gave trump credit for something, you’d say he was a racist.

a rising tide does lift all boats. i’m sorry if you only choose to celebrate that when delivered by a democrat, but that’s your bias, not mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You didn't answer my questions
Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?
Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?

You didn't answer my questions
Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?
Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?

"Buy shoes or an appliance lately?"

Both, actually. So?

"And don't worry american manufacturers took this chance to raise their prices also, so buying American doesn't save you money."

If that's true, inflation would be increasing. You appear to be the first person to have discovered it. Either that, or you are desperately grasping at straws...

"Black unemployment is still double white unemployment, do you think he should get credit for letting them also benefit in the rising tide, since black unemployment has dropped continually since the beginning of the Obama presidency? "

In other words, Obama gets credit for decreasing black unemployment, but Trump doesn't. When black unemployment drops under Obama, that's great. When it drops under Trump, all that matters is the gap between white and black unemployment.

You cannot keep your goalposts still, for two consecutive seconds. All you're doing, is shifting the goalposts.

"Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?"

I have said many times that it's changing, it's increasing. I can't answer any more directly than that, can I? Here are 2 follow-up questions...

(1) Why should I give a sh*t? As I said, if Oprah earns another billion this year, how does that hurt my family, of your family, or anyone else? Please be specific...

(2) how would you prevent it? Would you pass a law, saying that once your net worth reaches a certain amount, that you are no longer allowed to work or invest? How else could you stop it?

"Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?"

I don't think it's overly-consequential, not as long as we have the constitution and courts who follow it.

"Buy shoes or an appliance lately?"

Both, actually. So?

Same price as a few years ago?

"And don't worry american manufacturers took this chance to raise their prices also, so buying American doesn't save you money."

If that's true, inflation would be increasing. You appear to be the first person to have discovered it. Either that, or you are desperately grasping at straws...

Take fuel out of the equation

"Black unemployment is still double white unemployment, do you think he should get credit for letting them also benefit in the rising tide, since black unemployment has dropped continually since the beginning of the Obama presidency? "

In other words, Obama gets credit for decreasing black unemployment, but Trump doesn't. When black unemployment drops under Obama, that's great. When it drops under Trump, all that matters is the gap between white and black unemployment.

You cannot keep your goalposts still, for two consecutive seconds. All you're doing, is shifting the goalposts.

You're the one who is claiming that was a goalpost and Trump should get credit for it, but then again black unemployment
is up more than a percent since last November. Does he take or get credit for that?

"Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?"

I have said many times that it's changing, it's increasing. I can't answer any more directly than that, can I? Here are 2 follow-up questions...

(1) Why should I give a sh*t? As I said, if Oprah earns another billion this year, how does that hurt my family, of your family, or anyone else? Please be specific... Sooner or later you will proudly be a Morlock

(2) how would you prevent it? Would you pass a law, saying that once your net worth reaches a certain amount, that you are no longer allowed to work or invest? How else could you stop it?
There are many ways to make sure that wealth is not redistributed to the wealthiest segment of society, start with Congress

"Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?"

I don't think it's overly-consequential, not as long as we have the constitution and courts who follow it.

For the past 50 years the government has enabled the concentration of capital thru laws and regulations.

Just for Jim
Written by a "black" person

The unemployment rate among black Americans is at 6.8 percent, which means it's twice that of white people's. President Donald Trump is the reason why.

Don't try to argue this. Trump has been in office for 378 days now, long enough for him to be blamed for everything in America that isn't what it should be. Walmart announced Jan. 12 that it's closing 63 Sam's Club locations across the United States, which BusinessInsider.com says would impact about 11,000 jobs. That's Trump's fault, too.

Why wouldn't it be?

The Sam's Club announcement came the day after Carrier, the A.C. and furnace manufacturer, announced 215 more layoffs. The company had announced 340 layoffs in July 2017. Carrier's announcements were even more significant than Walmart's because Trump made a big to-do about saving employees' jobs at Carrier even before he was sworn into office.

"We all voted for him," 44-year-old Renee Elliott told NBC News. "We just thought he was going to protect our jobs. It sounded really good. And then, boom."

Coal workers also supported Trump because he made them believe that he was going to save their jobs. But the gain of 500 jobs in that industry made in 2017 are expected to be followed by the loss of 370 jobs this year at a mine owned by Mepco LLC. The mine near the border of Pennsylvania and West Virginia is being shut down, which the chairman of Greene County, Pa., county commissioners says is worse than a mere layoff. Shutting down a mine, Blair Zimmerman said, is "as bad as it gets."

Zimmerman, a former miner himself, said coal miners voted for Trump "because he said he'd bring back coal. It's not happening. There's not been any significant change in the industry since he's taken over."

We know it's appropriate to blame Trump for all of the problems in America because he gleefully takes credit for everything that he thinks is positive. Like that 6.8 percent black unemployment rate. He has boasted that the rate is as low as it is - if you consider it low - "because of my policies." So if his policies are responsible for black unemployment rate being the lowest on record, then those same policies are responsible for it being twice as high as white people's, am I right?

If you're going to take credit for Walmart boosting the starting pay for its hourly employees to $11 per hour, then you're going to take the blame for the same company shutting 63 Sam's Clubs, right?

The black unemployment rate was 12.7 percent the month President Barack Obama took office, and it was 7.8 percent the month he left, but in 2016, candidate Trump said, "We have an African-American president and what he's done for African-Americans is a shame."

As Trump sees it, he's done great things for black people, while Obama did nothing.

Black people say otherwise. In January 2017, the last month of Obama's second term, a Gallup poll showed that 92 percent of black people approved of him. According to a January 2018 Gallup poll, the percentage of black people who liked Trump was at 6.

Jarvis DeBerry is deputy opinions editor for NOLA.COM | The Times-Picayune.

Just for Jim
Written by a "black" person

The unemployment rate among black Americans is at 6.8 percent, which means it's twice that of white people's. President Donald Trump is the reason why.

Don't try to argue this. Trump has been in office for 378 days now, long enough for him to be blamed for everything in America that isn't what it should be. Walmart announced Jan. 12 that it's closing 63 Sam's Club locations across the United States, which BusinessInsider.com says would impact about 11,000 jobs. That's Trump's fault, too.

Why wouldn't it be?

The Sam's Club announcement came the day after Carrier, the A.C. and furnace manufacturer, announced 215 more layoffs. The company had announced 340 layoffs in July 2017. Carrier's announcements were even more significant than Walmart's because Trump made a big to-do about saving employees' jobs at Carrier even before he was sworn into office.

"We all voted for him," 44-year-old Renee Elliott told NBC News. "We just thought he was going to protect our jobs. It sounded really good. And then, boom."

Coal workers also supported Trump because he made them believe that he was going to save their jobs. But the gain of 500 jobs in that industry made in 2017 are expected to be followed by the loss of 370 jobs this year at a mine owned by Mepco LLC. The mine near the border of Pennsylvania and West Virginia is being shut down, which the chairman of Greene County, Pa., county commissioners says is worse than a mere layoff. Shutting down a mine, Blair Zimmerman said, is "as bad as it gets."

Zimmerman, a former miner himself, said coal miners voted for Trump "because he said he'd bring back coal. It's not happening. There's not been any significant change in the industry since he's taken over."

We know it's appropriate to blame Trump for all of the problems in America because he gleefully takes credit for everything that he thinks is positive. Like that 6.8 percent black unemployment rate. He has boasted that the rate is as low as it is - if you consider it low - "because of my policies." So if his policies are responsible for black unemployment rate being the lowest on record, then those same policies are responsible for it being twice as high as white people's, am I right?

If you're going to take credit for Walmart boosting the starting pay for its hourly employees to $11 per hour, then you're going to take the blame for the same company shutting 63 Sam's Clubs, right?

The black unemployment rate was 12.7 percent the month President Barack Obama took office, and it was 7.8 percent the month he left, but in 2016, candidate Trump said, "We have an African-American president and what he's done for African-Americans is a shame."

As Trump sees it, he's done great things for black people, while Obama did nothing.

Black people say otherwise. In January 2017, the last month of Obama's second term, a Gallup poll showed that 92 percent of black people approved of him. According to a January 2018 Gallup poll, the percentage of black people who liked Trump was at 6.

Jarvis DeBerry is deputy opinions editor for NOLA.COM | The Times-Picayune.

well that’s good
enough for me.

pete, if i post an article
written by someone who hated obama, would that convince you that obama was bad?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just for Jim
Written by a "black" person

The unemployment rate among black Americans is at 6.8 percent, which means it's twice that of white people's. President Donald Trump is the reason why.

Don't try to argue this. Trump has been in office for 378 days now, long enough for him to be blamed for everything in America that isn't what it should be. Walmart announced Jan. 12 that it's closing 63 Sam's Club locations across the United States, which BusinessInsider.com says would impact about 11,000 jobs. That's Trump's fault, too.

Why wouldn't it be?

The Sam's Club announcement came the day after Carrier, the A.C. and furnace manufacturer, announced 215 more layoffs. The company had announced 340 layoffs in July 2017. Carrier's announcements were even more significant than Walmart's because Trump made a big to-do about saving employees' jobs at Carrier even before he was sworn into office.

"We all voted for him," 44-year-old Renee Elliott told NBC News. "We just thought he was going to protect our jobs. It sounded really good. And then, boom."

Coal workers also supported Trump because he made them believe that he was going to save their jobs. But the gain of 500 jobs in that industry made in 2017 are expected to be followed by the loss of 370 jobs this year at a mine owned by Mepco LLC. The mine near the border of Pennsylvania and West Virginia is being shut down, which the chairman of Greene County, Pa., county commissioners says is worse than a mere layoff. Shutting down a mine, Blair Zimmerman said, is "as bad as it gets."

Zimmerman, a former miner himself, said coal miners voted for Trump "because he said he'd bring back coal. It's not happening. There's not been any significant change in the industry since he's taken over."

We know it's appropriate to blame Trump for all of the problems in America because he gleefully takes credit for everything that he thinks is positive. Like that 6.8 percent black unemployment rate. He has boasted that the rate is as low as it is - if you consider it low - "because of my policies." So if his policies are responsible for black unemployment rate being the lowest on record, then those same policies are responsible for it being twice as high as white people's, am I right?

If you're going to take credit for Walmart boosting the starting pay for its hourly employees to $11 per hour, then you're going to take the blame for the same company shutting 63 Sam's Clubs, right?

The black unemployment rate was 12.7 percent the month President Barack Obama took office, and it was 7.8 percent the month he left, but in 2016, candidate Trump said, "We have an African-American president and what he's done for African-Americans is a shame."

As Trump sees it, he's done great things for black people, while Obama did nothing.

Black people say otherwise. In January 2017, the last month of Obama's second term, a Gallup poll showed that 92 percent of black people approved of him. According to a January 2018 Gallup poll, the percentage of black people who liked Trump was at 6.

Jarvis DeBerry is deputy opinions editor for NOLA.COM | The Times-Picayune.

"The unemployment rate among black Americans is at 6.8 percent, which means it's twice that of white people's. President Donald Trump is the reason why."

But Obama wasn't the reason why black unemployment was higher than white unemployment, from 2009-2016?

It's Trump's fault that young black men make babies and don't help raise them?

"Don't try to argue this"

I don't have to, it's absurd on its face.

"We know it's appropriate to blame Trump for all of the problems in America because he gleefully takes credit for everything that he thinks is positive."

I don't give him credit for everything good. I don't know anyone who does. I know lots of people, Pete included, who can't ever say anything good about him. That's the extremism I see, except for Sean Hannity I guess.

It's Trump's fault that young black men make babies and don't help raise them?

"Don't try to argue this"

I don't have to, it's absurd on its face.



I'll let you carry on this argument all by yourself.

I'll let you carry on this argument all by yourself.

pete, every post i’ve seen from you here, can be summarized thusly...

Orange Man Bad.

we get it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll let you carry on this argument all by yourself.

i’m sorry if you don’t like to hear it, but race isn’t the deciding factor, family is. White kids from poor, dysfunctional, single-parent homes struggle. while black kids from stable, loving , two-parent households, do just fine.

it’s not race.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m sorry if you don’t like to hear it, but race isn’t the deciding factor, family is. White kids from poor, dysfunctional, single-parent homes struggle. while black kids from stable, loving , two-parent households, do just fine.

it’s not race.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Race isn't the only thing, but it does hit black kids harder across all socioeconomic strata than white kids.

A white kid from from a single mom family in the Projects is going to have a harder time than a black kid from a two parent stable household in suburbia.

Having grown up in two diametrically opposed places: One of 4 white kids in the Projects with a single mom and the stable family house in professional communities with the remarried dad (Army base overseas, all kids of all races that got along surprisingly well) I can compare both groups. No panacea but I lived it.

Haha, from where you sit, just about everyone is in right field.

It's not hard to be left here ..your considered left .. if you don't kiss Trumps ring 24/7....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Race isn't the only thing, but it does hit black kids harder across all socioeconomic strata than white kids.

A white kid from from a single mom family in the Projects is going to have a harder time than a black kid from a two parent stable household in suburbia.

Having grown up in two diametrically opposed places: One of 4 white kids in the Projects with a single mom and the stable family house in professional communities with the remarried dad (Army base overseas, all kids of all races that got along surprisingly well) I can compare both groups. No panacea but I lived it.

race matters, not nearly as
much as family. not even close. yet we never stop talking about race, and never talk about the benefits of encouraging family values which develop happy children.

that white kid in a single
family home in the projects will
struggle more than a black
kid i’m a two parent family in suburbia. He will also struggle more than a black kid with two
loving parents who lives next door to him in the same project.

sure, theres white privilege and wealth privilege. But i’ve seen it all, and none of them offers nearly as
much privilege, as love/stability/support privilege. i’m wrong on a lot of things, not on that. it’s not a panacea, but it’s close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you claiming that Trump has not lied or that all politicians lie.

No. That's a silly response to what I said. I didn't come close to saying or implying either. This is a sort of shadow lie. You insert the shadow of an idea that doesn't exist. It's like the great fiction/lie, the huge cloud of suspicion that media has created about Trump

no politician has lied to the extent Trump has.

That notion is part of the cloud. I don't know how many lies Washington, or Jefferson, or Lincoln, or either Roosevelt, or either Bush, or Clinton, or Obama, or any President or politician of the past or present, has told. If the few samples of what are called Trump lies that I am familiar with are representative as to what is considered a lie, then many, many of the huge number of lies attributed to him are not really lies.

Stating something that has not been verified as truth, is a sort of lie. Claiming something that is unverified as truth is not honest.

You don't actually know that no politician has lied to the extent that Trump supposedly has. If you say you do know, then you are lying.

Start with his early life and look at his great high school grades, his excellent performance at Wharton, his excellent tax returns. You can't because he hid them, he is not what he claims to be. It is the common thread in all of Trump's history. How did he get on the Forbes list? Who is John Barron? John Miller? David Dennison? Who's the liar?

I don't know much about the early life of our Presidents and politicians. Much of what is written, whether it is negative or positive about past politicians who matter enough to talk about, is disputed. Biographers, historians, journalists, are all too human in their bias and tend to paint overly rosy, or overly dark, pictures of those they write about.

Nor has it occurred to me to care about the early lives of politicians. Maybe I should care, but I don't. Maybe, unconsciously, because I not only suspect that much of what has been said to be their past is greatly fiction, but I don't see my own past history as relevant to how I handle new adventures. I have changed, several times and in fundamental ways, and every new adventure changes my perspective.

I saw the way Trump handled the Repubs in the debates, and how he handles the pressure of being strongly opposed by powerful media, business, political, and social forces. His stated goals, his handling of the economy, and his appointment of judges (which was the most important thing to me in this last presidential election) are, as you would put it, "acceptable" to me. I judge him on all that, not on what is said about him by his opponents and by the Progressive press which I have pretty much despised for a long time.

The point of Trump liking Putin not having fake news is not that american reporters have been killed, it's that Trump finds Putin's approach acceptable and worth joking about.

See, there you go, making that fictive cloud of suspicion about Trump just a bit larger by adding this tidbit that Trump finds Putin's approach acceptable. You're the one who insinuated dying jounalists as part of Putin's "approach" to not having to deal with fake news. Thus implying, if not actually stating, that Trump would find dying American journalists as being acceptable. You expand the horror, constantly, in every little to large way, of what Trump is. And it's the trick that anti-Trumpers and media do. You're simply a part of it.

You spin it into something else and find this acceptable. How dare they question the king, it's treasonous. The founders closely defined treason so that it was not the same as England, where if you spoke out against the king it was treason.
He was not elected King, he is the President of all the american people and took an oath to uphold the Constitution. He needs to start acting like it.


There you go, spinning off into another fiction. I didn't say that dead Russian journalists are acceptable. Nor did Trump. You're the one who inserted them into the discussion. But you somehow wanted to connect them to Trump (and now me?), other wise why did you bring them up?

Nor did I say that they could not question Trump. And you find another little niche to insert the notion floating around in the great manufactured cloud that Trump is a totalitarian like those lying labels describing him as fascist, Nazi, and now King. You never fail to throw in these horror zingers. And you're unequivocal about it. For you, they are all certainties. For you, this fabricated cloud of horror referred to as Trump is a solid reality.

I don't see Trump trampling the Constitution as much as past Presidents, if at all. His choice of judges beats what Hillary, or probably any Democrat would choose.

And I don't understand why you would oppose any political opinion about the Constitution since you believe that judges are not constrained by the original language of the Constitution, and that they can interpret those words, and the Constitution in general, in light of what they personally understand current conditions and realities to be. That is, judges can interpret the Constitution any way they want.

I guess the 10,000 plus lies are just Trump being confused and his misstatements aren't really lies, but how can that be, he has professed to be the smartest president of all time he can’t possibly be confused😂😂😂😂😂😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess the 10,000 plus lies are just Trump being confused and his misstatements aren't really lies, but how can that be, he has professed to be the smartest president of all time he can’t possibly be confused😂😂😂😂😂😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess you actually researched and verified those 10, 000 and that they were actually lies. And none were repeats of the same "lie." And then you researched and found that no other politician told as many.
And I guess you just didn't merely repeat what you read or heard and accepted it as true. You are a very good man. And you wouldn't lie about it.

There you go, spinning off into another fiction. I didn't say that dead Russian journalists are acceptable. Nor did Trump. You're the one who inserted them into the discussion. But you somehow wanted to connect them to Trump (and now me?), other wise why did you bring them up?

Nor did I say that they could not question Trump. And you find another little niche to insert the notion floating around in the great manufactured cloud that Trump is a totalitarian like those lying labels describing him as fascist, Nazi, and now King. You never fail to throw in these horror zingers. And you're unequivocal about it. For you, they are all certainties. For you, this fabricated cloud of horror referred to as Trump is a solid reality.

I don't see Trump trampling the Constitution as much as past Presidents, if at all. His choice of judges beats what Hillary, or probably any Democrat would choose.

And I don't understand why you would oppose any political opinion about the Constitution since you believe that judges are not constrained by the original language of the Constitution, and that they can interpret those words, and the Constitution in general, in light of what they personally understand current conditions and realities to be. That is, judges can interpret the Constitution any way they want.
Just keep believing Trump has a clue about foreign policy, he obviously has a vast knowledge of political theory, like western style liberalism being obsolete in west coast cities.
Meanwhile the rest of the worlds leaders shook their heads and took note of his lack of understanding.
The stable genius is going to leave the poker table naked and you’ll be extolling the beauty of his wardrobe.
For the last 30+ years NK has said they will consider denuclearization and never have. Now maybe having Trump in love with him will make him agree to total denuclearization, Trump has already given him far more than any prior President and gotten zip for it. Maybe Kim is his type. Today’s Rodong Sinmun headlines extol the ability of their leader and his meeting with the President of the USA.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, every post i’ve seen from you here, can be summarized thusly...

Orange Man Bad.

we get it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I prefer to call him Generalissimo Donnie Bonespurs the Fabulist and yes, he’s bad for America.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clearly the greatest president of our lifetime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just keep believing Trump has a clue about foreign policy, he obviously has a vast knowledge of political theory, like western style liberalism being obsolete in west coast cities.
Meanwhile the rest of the worlds leaders shook their heads and took note of his lack of understanding.
The stable genius is going to leave the poker table naked and you’ll be extolling the beauty of his wardrobe.
For the last 30+ years NK has said they will consider denuclearization and never have. Now maybe having Trump in love with him will make him agree to total denuclearization, Trump has already given him far more than any prior President and gotten zip for it. Maybe Kim is his type. Today’s Rodong Sinmun headlines extol the ability of their leader and his meeting with the President of the USA.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, you keep fighting little battles with me that don't exist. I have not said that he knows a great deal about foreign policy or political theory.

And then you go off into reveries of poker tables, nakedness, beautiful wardrobes (ooooooohhh, the emperor has no clothes, is this another sneaky metaphor to fortify the manufactured image of Trump as king, Nazi, fascist, dictator, destroyer of constitutions?), and of sexual innuendo--attraction to Kim (like the so-called Putin bromance and the fake characterization of Trump being aligned with, in love with, favorable to, our enemy dictators).

Perhaps I give you too much credit for constantly lying about Trump. Telling the massive, well-woven lies that you seem to do takes a certain amount of mental acuity.

But, it seems more that instead of telling potent lies, you are fighting with crazy mirages. Rather than a crafty liar, you remind me more of a Don Quixote--tilting at windmills. As in this passage from the novel:

Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."

"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."

Boy you are sure full of yourself, or wait I know what your full of😬
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Boy you are sure full of yourself, or wait I know what your full of😬
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That you profess to "know" anything personal about me, which you don't, reveals what you consider "knowing" to be--as in your knowing that Trump has told 10,000 lies and no other politician has told as much.

At least the honest media is calling them lies now.
And then you have Fox
https://twitter.com/thedailyshow/status/1145693544910327814?s=21
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At least the honest media is calling them lies now.
And then you have Fox
https://twitter.com/thedailyshow/status/1145693544910327814?s=21
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All 10,000? And do they say that no other politician has told 10,000 lies? This is another little lie by you. The lie of sliding from the parameter of 10,000 and no other politician into the less definitive parameter of "them lies," whatever that is--any shifty slant that gives the impression of truth to that which is not, nor can be, verified.

The Daily Show is "honest media"?

they are just yelling at the padded walls as this point :hs:

These will go down in history as 8 happy, hysterical years!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All 10,000? And do they say that no other politician has told 10,000 lies? This is another little lie by you. The lie of sliding from the parameter of 10,000 and no other politician into the less definitive parameter of "them lies," whatever that is--any shifty slant that gives the impression of truth to that which is not, nor can be, verified.

The Daily Show is "honest media"?

Many people say Donald Trump has lied more than 10,000 times. I mean a lot of people have told me that.
Here is a small sampling:
"The Obama administration was begging for a meeting" with Kim Jong Un.
California "admitted" there were "a million" illegal votes in the 2016 presidential election.
"There has never been, ever before, an administration that’s been so open and transparent."
The Russia investigation "was a coup. This was an attempted overthrow of the United States government."
"In the ‘old days’ if you were president and you had a good economy, you were basically immune from criticism."
"The noise (from windmills) causes cancer."
Says his father, Fred Trump, was "born in a very wonderful place in Germany."
When Congress sought documents from President Barack Obama, the White House "didn’t do anything. They didn’t give one letter of the request. Many requests were made. They didn’t give a letter."
Says former Sen. Harry Reid "got thrown out."
"The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia."
Says troops recently received "one of the biggest pay raises" ever, and that it was the first pay increase in "more than 10 years."
Says 19,000 text messages exchanged between former FBI officials that were "purposely and illegally deleted ... would have explained (the special counsel investigation) hoax."
"If you buy, you know, a box of cereal, if you do anything, you have a voter ID. … The only thing you don’t is if you’re a voter of the United States."
"Democrats let him (cop killer Luis Bracamontes) into our country," and "Democrats let him stay."
Says a recent opioid bill that reached his desk had "very little Democrat support."
Saudi Arabia has ordered $450 billion, "$110 billion of which is a military order," producing "over a million jobs."
Says Democrats "want to give (undocumented immigrants) cars."
"Some of the Democrats have been talking about ending (coverage for) pre-existing conditions."
Sen. Kamala Harris is "supporting the animals of MS-13."
Says Wisconsin "hadn’t been won by a Republican since Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1952. And I won Wisconsin. … Ronald Reagan, remember, Wisconsin was the state that Ronald Reagan did not win."

Mexico will pay for the wall
China pays tariffs
There has never been a president who passed more legislation
I came up with the expression Priming the Pump
Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest — and you all know it!,
I know words, I have the best words, Look, if I were a liberal Democrat, people would say I’m the super genius of all time. The super genius of all time,
We have a lot of smart people. I tell you what. One thing we’ve learned. We have, by far, the highest IQ of any cabinet ever,
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,
I would use the greatest minds. I know the best negotiators. I’m in New York — I know the good ones, the bad ones. I always say: ‘I know the ones people think are good.’ I know people you’ve never heard of that are better than all of them.”
“I’m the most militaristic person.
“Nobody in the history of this country has known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump.”
With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office.
Throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Not smart, but genius.
“Just — and so — so I was successful, successful, successful. I was always the best athlete, people don’t know that. But I was successful at everything I ever did…”
I love the First Amendment. Nobody loves it better than me. Nobody. I mean, who uses it more than I do?
“I just realized the other day, they told me… when we won the state of Wisconsin, it hadn’t been won by a Republican since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952. Did you know that?”
“Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.” Trump went on to assert that winning an election everyone was certain he’d lose proved: “I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius….and a very stable genius at that!”


The Daily Show is more honest than The Trump Tweets

With Donald at the helm and Ivanka and Jared handling foreign policy how can we loose🤮
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With Donald at the helm and Ivanka and Jared handling foreign policy how can we loose🤮
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so why aren’t we losing, h
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With Donald at the helm and Ivanka and Jared handling foreign policy how can we loose🤮
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so why aren’t we losing, then? Sure not everything is perfect, far from it. but you claimed several times that our standing in the world has diminished, i kept asking for proof, and i kept failing to see any.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so why aren’t we losing, then? Sure not everything is perfect, far from it. but you claimed several times that our standing in the world has diminished, i kept asking for proof, and i kept failing to see any.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they aren't having a conversation they are just yelling at the sky...it's pretty funny and a little sad

they aren't having a conversation they are just yelling at the sky...it's pretty funny and a little sad

that is literally what they’re doing. I remember hating everything about bill clinton, he made
my skin crawl. but gradually, i had to admit that as repulsive as i found him personally, that he was making things better.

These people cannot begin to do that. When the congressional black caucus all sits down during the state of the union, while the republicans celebrate low black unemployment, you know that you’ve officially entered the twilight zone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they aren't having a conversation they are just yelling at the sky...it's pretty funny and a little sad

Not as funny as all those pictures you use to put up about Obama.

You still have those?

Go read some of Pew Research Center’s world wide surveys on how 25+ countries view us and report back on how well we are doing. I don’t need to prove anything it’s all pretty evident.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Go read some of Pew Research Center’s world wide surveys on how 25+ countries view us and report back on how well we are doing. I don’t need to prove anything it’s all pretty evident.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, it's not evident. I have no doubt that most people like Trump less than they liked Obama. But what harm does that cause? Have we been invaded? Did we get excluded from the Olympics? Have we been kicked out of the UN? Does no one want to buy our bonds? Does no one want to buy our goods? Do former allies refuse to return our phone calls now? Are we getting any less help from anyone, to do the things we have to do?

How are you or I worse off on the global stage?

More NATO countries are kicking in a lot more money for defense, reducing our bill.

Mexico is finally sending troops to its southern border.

If he cements a trade deal with China, you'll really have no leg to stand on.

Many people say Donald Trump has lied more than 10,000 times. I mean a lot of people have told me that.

"A lot of people" is not verification. A "lot of people" are wrong about a lot of things. A "lot of people" don't know what they are talking about. "A lot of people" is the type of thing that Trump might say as proof of one of his supposed lies.

I read your list of, 36 I think, Trump "lies." As I suspected, most, probably all, were not actually or necessarily lies. Many may simply be wrong, error, ignorance. Several are probably hyperbole, exaggeration, conjecture. A couple may not actually be provable one way or the other. Some are dependent on what he meant by loosely delivered language such as in his "China pays tariffs." Some may actually be true as in his averring that Reagan didn't win Wisconsin--he said, in a fuller quote that he had "recently learned" that Reagan didn't win Wisconsin in his second term. He may have truly "learned" something that wasn't true.

I suspect that if Trump were to take a lie detector test on each "lie," he would probably pass the test as being truthful on all counts.


The Daily Show is more honest than The Trump Tweets

I wouldn't say "more honest." Perhaps it is just as wrong but is also equal in believing it is right.

I would say that you are not that different from Trump in these regards. You certainly are as sarcastic as he is, I would say even more so. From the tenor of your posts, it seems to me that you are more rude and offensive than he is. And you certainly are prone to the same kind of "lying" that you accuse Trump of--as I have been pointing out.

Maybe that gives you some kind of authority to point fingers and accuse.

Not as funny as all those pictures you use to put up about Obama.

You still have those?

"a picture is worth a thousand words"...it would be great if Pete would start using pictures :uhuh:

“I suspect that if Trump were to take a lie detector test on each "lie," he would probably pass the test as being truthful on all counts.”
I believe it was Barbra Rez that said something very similar to that.
Pretty scary to have a pathological liar as President.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They aren't lies, Detbuch hit it on the head, it's due to total ignorance, he's just to damn dumb to know better.

you two are confusing each other :huh:

Pretty scary to have a pathological liar as President.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet another of your Trump-like lies. Maybe you're pathological.

They aren't lies,

That's correct.

Detbuch hit it on the head, it's due to total ignorance, he's just to damn dumb to know better.

Not total, by any stretch. He is ignorant of some things. Everybody is. Like you.

you two are confusing each other :huh:
They're usually in lockstep. One of them must have made a mistake. like Trump sometimes does. Wonder how many thousands of lies were told by Hillary or Bill or Biden, if someone cared to research and use the same standard of what a lie is which is applied to Trump.

By that standard, every campaign speech, every metaphorical poem, just about any political statement by a Progressive, would be full of lies. Thousands and thousands, actually millions if not billions of "lies" told by politicians in our history.

A little research though not what some want.
I would assume some Trump supporter is making a comparable list of other politicians lies, it would be interesting to see.


By BELLA DEPAULO
| SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON POST |
DEC 08, 2017 | 2:35 PM

I study liars. I've never seen one like Donald Trump.

I spent the first two decades of my career as a social scientist studying liars and their lies. I thought I had developed a sense of what to expect from them. Then along came President Donald Trump. His lies are both more frequent and more malicious than ordinary people's.

In research beginning in the mid-1990s, when I was a professor at the University of Virginia, my colleagues and I asked 77 college students and 70 people from the nearby community to keep diaries of all the lies they told every day for a week. They handed them in to us with no names attached. We calculated participants' rates of lying and categorized each lie as either self-serving (told to advantage the liar or protect the liar from embarrassment, blame or other undesired outcomes) or kind (told to advantage, flatter or protect someone else).

At The Washington Post, the Fact Checker feature has been tracking every false and misleading claim and flip-flop made by Trump this year. The inclusion of misleading statements and flip-flops is consistent with the definition of lying my colleagues and I gave to our participants: "A lie occurs any time you intentionally try to mislead someone." In the case of Trump's claims, though, it is possible to ascertain only whether they were false or misleading, and not what the president's intentions were.

I categorized the most recent 400 lies that The Post had documented through mid-November in the same way my colleagues and I had categorized the lies of the participants in our study.

The college students in our research told an average of two lies a day, and the community members told one. (A more recent study of the lies 1,000 U. S. adults told in the previous 24 hours found that people told an average of 1.65 lies per day; the authors noted that 60 percent of the participants said they told no lies at all, while the top 5 percent of liars told nearly half of all the falsehoods in the study.) The most prolific liar among the students told an average of 6.6 lies a day. The biggest liar in the community sample told 4.3 lies in an average day.

In Trump's first 298 days in office, however, he made 1,628 false or misleading claims or flip-flops, by The Post's tally. That's about six per day, far higher than the average rate in our studies. And of course, reporters have access to only a subset of Trump's false statements — the ones he makes publicly — so unless he never stretches the truth in private, his actual rate of lying is almost certainly higher.

That rate has been accelerating. Starting in early October, The Post's tracking showed that Trump told a remarkable nine lies a day, outpacing even the biggest liars in our research.

But the flood of deceit isn't the most surprising finding about Trump.

Both the college students and the community members in our study served their own interests with their lies more often than other people's interests. They told lies to try to advantage themselves in the workplace, the marketplace, their personal relationships and just about every other domain of everyday life. For example, a salesperson told a customer that the jeans she was trying on were not too tight, so she could make the sale. The participants also lied to protect themselves psychologically: One college student told a classmate that he wasn't worried about his grades, so the classmate wouldn't think he was stupid.

Less often, the participants lied in kind ways, to help other people get what they wanted, look or feel better, or to spare them from embarrassment or blame. For example, a son told his mother he didn't mind taking her shopping, and a woman took sides with a friend who was divorcing, even though she thought her friend was at fault, too.

About half the lies the participants told were self-serving (46 percent for the college students, 57 percent for the community members), compared with about a quarter that were kind (26 percent for the students, 24 percent for the community members). Other lies did not fit either category; they included, for instance, lies told to entertain or to keep conversations running smoothly.

One category of lies was so small that when we reported the results, we just tucked them into a footnote. Those were cruel lies, told to hurt or disparage others. For example, one person told a co-worker that the boss wanted to see him when he really didn't, "so he'd look like a fool." Just 0.8 percent of the lies told by the college students and 2.4 percent of the lies told by the community members were mean-spirited.

My colleagues and I found it easy to code each of our participants' lies into just one category. This was not the case for Trump. Close to a quarter of his false statements (24 percent) served several purposes simultaneously.

Nearly two-thirds of Trump's lies (65 percent) were self-serving. Examples included: "They're big tax cuts — the biggest cuts in the history of our country, actually" and, about the people who came to see him on a presidential visit to Vietnam last month: "They were really lined up in the streets by the tens of thousands."

Slightly less than 10 percent of Trump's lies were kind ones, told to advantage, flatter or protect someone else. An example was his statement on Twitter that "it is a 'miracle' how fast the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police were able to find the demented shooter and stop him from even more killing!" In the broadest sense, it is possible to interpret every lie as ultimately self-serving, but I tried to stick to how statements appeared on the surface.

Trump told 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind ones. That's a much higher ratio than we found for our study participants, who told about double the number of self-centered lies compared with kind ones.

The most stunning way Trump's lies differed from our participants', though, was in their cruelty. An astonishing 50 percent of Trump's lies were hurtful or disparaging. For example, he proclaimed that John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey, all career intelligence or law enforcement officials, were "political hacks." He said that "the Sloppy Michael Moore Show on Broadway was a TOTAL BOMB and was forced to close." He insisted that other "countries, they don't put their finest in the lottery system. They put people probably in many cases that they don't want." And he claimed that "Ralph Northam, who is running for Governor of Virginia, is fighting for the violent MS-13 killer gangs & sanctuary cities."

The Trump lies that could not be coded into just one category were typically told both to belittle others and enhance himself. For example: "Senator Bob Corker 'begged' me to endorse him for reelection in Tennessee. I said 'NO' and he dropped out (said he could not win without my endorsement)."

The sheer frequency of Trump's lies appears to be having an effect, and it may not be the one he is going for. A Politico/Morning Consult poll from late October showed that only 35 percent of voters believed that Trump was honest, while 51 percent said he was not honest. (The others said they didn't know or had no opinion.) Results of a Quinnipiac University poll from November were similar: Thirty-seven percent of voters thought Trump was honest, compared with 58 percent who thought he was not.

For fewer than 40 percent of American voters to see the president as honest is truly remarkable. Most humans, most of the time, believe other people. That's our default setting. Usually, we need a reason to disbelieve.

Research on the detection of deception consistently documents this "truth bias." In the typical study, participants observe people making statements and are asked to indicate, each time, whether they think the person is lying or telling the truth. Measuring whether people believe others should be difficult to do accurately, because simply asking the question disrupts the tendency to assume that other people are telling the truth. It gives participants a reason to wonder. And yet, in our statistical summary of more than 200 studies, Charles F. Bond Jr. and I found that participants still believed other people more often than they should have — 58 percent of the time in studies in which only half of the statements were truthful. People are biased toward believing others, even in studies in which they are told explicitly that only half of the statements they will be judging are truths.

By telling so many lies, and so many that are mean-spirited, Trump is violating some of the most fundamental norms of human social interaction and human decency. Many of the rest of us, in turn, have abandoned a norm of our own — we no longer give Trump the benefit of the doubt that we usually give so readily.

Clearly the best president of our lifetime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A little research though not what some want.
I would assume some Trump supporter is making a comparable list of other politicians lies, it would be interesting to see.


Yeah, it was very little--one article. A study that compared Trump to the limited number of participants in the research, not a study of all the other politicians in the same manner. And Yeah, the examples of lies were, as usual, not really lies, certainly not on the basis of what your social scientist considers a lie to be. The most significant line in your article was this by its author "A lie occurs any time you intentionally try to mislead someone. In the case of Trump's claims, though, it is possible to ascertain only whether they were false or misleading, and not what the president's intentions were." That is an admission that your author cannot verify his examples to be lies. Being wrong (false) is not a lie unless you know that what you say is not true.

And I wouldn't value a similar count of "lies" told by other politicians for the same reason. And, mostly, because I value actual political philosophy and practice more than political speechmaking--most of which is self-serving (which is how your author describes most of Trump's "lies."

BTW, I consider social science, as it is practiced, to be very biased toward leftist thought and don't put much stock in it.

Yeah, it was very little--one article. A study that compared Trump to the limited number of participants in the research, not a study of all the other politicians in the same manner. And Yeah, the examples of lies were, as usual, not really lies, certainly not on the basis of what your social scientist considers a lie to be. The most significant line in your article was this by its author "A lie occurs any time you intentionally try to mislead someone. In the case of Trump's claims, though, it is possible to ascertain only whether they were false or misleading, and not what the president's intentions were." That is an admission that your author cannot verify his examples to be lies. Being wrong (false) is not a lie unless you know that what you say is not true.

And I wouldn't value a similar count of "lies" told by other politicians for the same reason. And, mostly, because I value actual political philosophy and practice more than political speechmaking--most of which is self-serving (which is how your author describes most of Trump's "lies."

BTW, I consider social science, as it is practiced, to be very biased toward leftist thought and don't put much stock in it.

So are you claiming that Trump doesn't lie, but just gives us Fake News.

So are you claiming that Trump doesn't lie, but just gives us Fake News.

I'm not claiming either. You can read my words as written to see what I claim. One of the things I claim is that you are guilty of what you accuse Trump of doing. Telling lies (without intending to). Just as described in your social science article, this post by you is misleading, but only you would know if you intend it to be.

🎯
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not claiming either. You can read my words as written to see what I claim. One of the things I claim is that you are guilty of what you accuse Trump of doing. Telling lies (without intending to). Just as described in your social science article, this post by you is misleading, but only you would know if you intend it to be.

I did read your words.
Just how do you determine actual political philosophy without listening to politicians speak? Is it only thru the written word or hearsay?

Some would treat it like the Bible and interpret as they choose to,enjoy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did read your words.
Just how do you determine actual political philosophy without listening to politicians speak? Is it only thru the written word or hearsay?

Just like Trump, you can't help yourself. Again, as just about every time you post about Trump, you do what he does, this time you falsely imply that I don't listen to politicians speak. I didn't say that I didn't listen to them speak. I said that "I value actual political philosophy and practice more than political speechmaking--most of which is self-serving". That is, the principles upon which, for instance, Progressivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism are established and how they are actually practiced are more valuable to me for making choices than the self-serving political speechifying meant to look good and get votes and money while making the opposition look bad.

I do listen to the speechifying (which is mostly lies, especially when held to the standard of Trump "lies"), but it's value to me is miniscule compared to what the true aim and practice of the party is.

So, again, you create a Trump-like "lie," a false narrative, or an error, or a mistake, and only you can know if you intended it. Like Trump, you probably didn't.

When you accuse Trump of "lying," you might want to check the internal mirror first.

Just like Trump, you can't help yourself. Again, as just about every time you post about Trump, you do what he does, this time you falsely imply that I don't listen to politicians speak. I didn't say that I didn't listen to them speak. I said that "I value actual political philosophy and practice more than political speechmaking--most of which is self-serving". That is, the principles upon which, for instance, Progressivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism are established and how they are actually practiced are more valuable to me for making choices than the self-serving political speechifying meant to look good and get votes and money while making the opposition look bad.

I do listen to the speechifying (which is mostly lies, especially when held to the standard of Trump "lies"), but it's value to me is miniscule compared to what the true aim and practice of the party is.

So, again, you create a Trump-like "lie," a false narrative, or an error, or a mistake, and only you can know if you intended it. Like Trump, you probably didn't.

When you accuse Trump of "lying," you might want to check the internal mirror first.
Perhaps my question was not clear enough, it certainly inspired you to go on another bout of pontification
I’ll phrase it in a simple manner
Prior to trump’s election how did you determine he was a viable candidate since he had zero political history to demonstrate his actual political philosophy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps my question was not clear enough, it certainly inspired you to go on another bout of pontification
I’ll phrase it in a simple manner

A la Trump, you have to clarify what you meant by your inartful (actually incorrect) implication of what I said. And then, like Trump and most other politicians, you put a negative spin, pontification, on my pointing out how you were wrong but, like Trump, not intentionally--how, you told a Trump-like "lie.

Prior to trump’s election how did you determine he was a viable candidate since he had zero political history to demonstrate his actual political philosophy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this a Trump-like, sloppy use of diction? What do you mean by political history? You mean actually being an elected politician? And that only previously elected politicians can be viable candidates? The Constitution does not say that. Trump was absolutely constitutionally viable as a candidate.

And we all have political histories if we vote or discuss politics or contribute to political campaigns. All the candidates, including the ones I disagree with, were "viable." Perhaps, rather than a legal, constitutional view of viability, you prefer the Progressive view of rule by "experts," expertise being defined by Progressives? That is, in my opinion, an elitist, totalitarian view, but you may think it is a perfectly viable one.

For that matter, Trump had actual executive experience that was more so than most of the other candidates. And he had shown the ability to succeed, even to rise from and correct failure and error. And he was, as demonstrated in the debates, tenacious, fearless, insightful, and, for all your notion of what he didn't have, he did not have the anti-American political baggage of the Progressives. Of course, by "anti-American," I mean something that is probably different than what you would mean, but your question was how did I determine he was viable, not how you did you determine that he wasn't. If that is what you determined.

Trump’s political history as shown in his tv appearances, tweets, draft dodging, party switching, concealment of any school grades from grade school thru college, tax returns, non disclosure agreements and his use of alias to inflate his public persona lead me to believe he is not quite what he claims to be. I certainly do not see him as fearless and insightful, but as paranoid and narrow minded.
After failing as a real estate developer, he now runs a business that is largely compromised of selling his brand. He was very successful at that, largely because of his affiliation with The Apprentice. He has had several books ghost written for him, each time he has gotten lots of press by getting sort of involved in politics. He ran for President once before and has apparently since forgotten about that since he non-lies and claims he didn’t.
The source of his wealth after his failure as a developer is sketchy at best, Russian at worst. His sons have both said they get all the funding they need from Russia.
I will give him credit for running the greatest con of all time. I’m not willing to concede to him this country.
Happy 4th
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I will give him credit for running the greatest con of all time.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

silver lining

Trump’s political history as shown in his tv appearances, tweets, draft dodging, party switching, concealment of any school grades from grade school thru college, tax returns, non disclosure agreements and his use of alias to inflate his public persona lead me to believe he is not quite what he claims to be. I certainly do not see him as fearless and insightful, but as paranoid and narrow minded.
After failing as a real estate developer, he now runs a business that is largely compromised of selling his brand. He was very successful at that, largely because of his affiliation with The Apprentice. He has had several books ghost written for him, each time he has gotten lots of press by getting sort of involved in politics. He ran for President once before and has apparently since forgotten about that since he non-lies and claims he didn’t.
The source of his wealth after his failure as a developer is sketchy at best, Russian at worst. His sons have both said they get all the funding they need from Russia.
I will give him credit for running the greatest con of all time. I’m not willing to concede to him this country.
Happy 4th
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So now you go from "zero political history" to your canned version of anti-Trump talking points as his political history. So did you lie the first time or this time. Or was this just a Trumpian shift.

Thanks, I guess, for giving us your version. Personally, I didn't ask for it. I expected it to be pretty much along the lines of what you say here. Half truths, innuendo, irrelevance, and really nasty personal opinion. You actually outdo Trump when you gear yourself up to it.

silver lining

More YouTube for PeteF.!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device