Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1117284)

Well, if you don't accept someone's explanation of exactly what he meant, how do you have confidence that he meant anything else . . . or anything at all? Oh . . . that's right . . . Trump is a liar . . . so his explanation must be a lie. But, then, in that case, how can you have confidence that he even meant exactly what he said in the first place when he said what he said?

Originally Posted by Ian (Post 1117294)

Just out of curiosity, are you defending Trump's statements here or just picking apart Paul's?

Explaining his statement. I don't see that as defending it. Don't think it needs to be defended. If it does, then I'm defending it. (see my post just before yours here).

Because I'll let you guys duke it out if we can all agree that he is an idiot and shouldn't have lumped in a Fox News story while talking about refugee related violence.

I don't think he is an idiot. And I think the Fox news story is relevant to refugee related violence, and pointedly so in Sweden. (see my post just before yours here).

Otherwise, I think we need to stop giving this clown a break for being ambiguous on such serious topics.

I don't think he is a clown. I agree that he could do much better in how he speaks. But, his unpolished, sometimes unclear (not so much ambiguous) speechifying may be part of his charm to his base, most of whom are probably disillusioned with truly evasive politicians and prefer a get it done manager to a mesmerizing smooth talker. (I don't think Trump is that evasive, that's why he gets into so much trouble about what he says.)

On one hand, politicians are famous for being general in their responses and full of crap, but typically they skillfully dodge questions or just give remarks that neither incriminate or say anything (see Devos's confirmation hearings.)

What Trump is doing is combining a lingering distrust of the media with lies and inciting false fear.

I don't think he tries to incite fear, false or real, so much as bluntly pointing out what he sees as dangerous, wrong, or incompetent. And I think there is a lot of incitement of false fear about Trump.

Let's be clear: his statement which included the reference to Sweden was covering violence and attacks by immigrants, he wasn't mincing words. To say that he innocently injected an op-ed from a Fox News story mentioning the fact that Sweden has a bunch of refugees is preposterous...

Actually, it was not preposterous. It was on point. (See my post just before yours here, and the ones before that.)

He either:
a) Knew what he was doing and was following the pattern of false references to attacks by his cabinet. (Which by the way is only working because the public has gotten so used to attacks now that when someone say "Sweden, can you believe it) half of us just assume someone attacked Sweden. A point the Trump administration is simultaneously using to their advantage and berating the media for...)

I don't know that the Fox interview was a false reference. There has been a lot of falseness in trying to deny what has been happening in Sweden and Europe re the immigrants. (See my post just before yours here.)

Or b) He didn't know that the Fox News story wasn't about an attack, and was only half paying attention... and as a citizen of this country I hope to effing god it was the former, because if this one is true, it means that not only does he not prepare for anything, but he also draws his own quick assumptions on topics he is ill informed about in a very power hungry way. And that's not a guy I want orchestrating American foreign policy.

He didn't say it was about an attack. Paul said he meant that it was about an attack. (See my post just before yours here)

He's already the laughing stock of the world...

That was also said about Obama. And about Bush. And about several other Presidents. Seems to be standard fare for opponents to say.

"From this point forward, it will be only America first"

"We stand behind Japan 100%"

"NATO, you have our 100% commitment"

World leaders know he doesn't know what he's doing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Ian (Post 1117303)

What he's doing isn't managing though... the fact that we're defending statements he's making a rallies 5 weeks into his presidency is crazy

His statements wouldn't have to be explained or defended if they weren't criticized almost every day of that 5 weeks. It might not seem so to you, but it is apparent to others that there is an intensive and continuous assault either on him, his family, his ideas, the way he speaks--there is nothing good said about him, so he and his staff have to constantly remind us that he got elected in an electoral landslide, etc., etc. just so he isn't successfully defined as an irrelevant "idiot" or a "clown."

He needs to stop the talk and start doing, and doing means more than a bunch of executive orders repealing stuff other people have done.

Just shut the f up and start doing some stuff.

That's the problem with how Progressives have transformed our understanding of what a President is legally, constitutionally, supposed to do. Mostly the President is not supposed to "do" much on his own volition other than foreign relations and treaties (with consent of the Senate), and oversee military matters, even start some wars that officially are not called war but foreign police actions. (Congress has the power to declare "war," not the President.)

The main duty of the President other than those few items, is to execute what Congress "does." We have made the President into some imperial autocrat who is constantly supposed to be "doing" stuff. Appointing and overseeing his cabinet and agency heads is one of the few things he is supposed to "do." And that has been stalled to a painful snails pace by the opposition. He is supposed to nominate judges to the SC, which he has done. But he better get busy and nominate about 100 inferior court judges. OMG. How long will the opposition stall all of his judges?

But we have this notion of the President taking care of the environment, the economy, our health and welfare, and all manner of things that we should be doing ourselves.

We the People should be doing most of those essential things. What is left to do, after that, should be done by our elected local and state representatives, then by our federal elected representatives--in that order. The more that government does those things, the more power it has over us. And the more that the President "does," the more he becomes the king.

Another thing the President can do is use the so-called bully pulpit. Seems that he has been doing a fair amount of that. He certainly has done some bullying of corporations with seeming good effect.

What is it that you think he should be "doing."

Edit: And before anyone tries to say this stupid immigration executive order was him "doing something" it wasn't... it was just another "I'm gonna get rid of something" tactic.

It is important for a "good" President to "get rid" of detrimental stuff that he is in charge of. It is in good faith to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution that he eliminates excessive executive power.

In that vein, executive orders are also some of his limited powers. Unfortunately, the President-as-king monster we have created treats executive orders as expansive imperial powers which can stretch well beyond the limited directives he is authorized to give within the small scope of power enumerated in the Constitution. Trump would do well to limit his use of EO's, keep them within the scope of his actual constitutional powers, not those imagined imperial ones. Certainly, getting rid of past executive orders which overreach is a Presidential duty to the people and to our Constitution. It seems that he is busy doing that.

We haven't seen one new Trump idea come out of this White House yet... and I think that's the way they like it... they get to defend being attacked by the media while they neglect actually doing anything.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1117306)

I guess its to much for the America people to expect their POTUS to convey things clearly and concisely when asked a question or presents a policy

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1117306)

No one on your sided minded when this was happening to Obama for 8 years Just because it was Obama

Did you mind when it was happening to Obama? Did your side defend Obama when it was happening?

And you don't really know what side I'm on. Let me clarify, if I haven't conveyed things clearly and concisely. I am on the side of the U.S. as constitutionally founded. I am on the side of that Constitution as the basis of government, and am opposed to the side which considers that Constitution irrelevant, outdated, and an impediment to government.

That is the side I'm on whether, on the political forum, I discuss Islam, or Obama, or Obamacare, or the EPA, or anything concerning political policies.

And I do have concerns about Trump in that regard. Not so much about his personal foibles or the way he speaks.

Also if you don't say things that are not factual there is no need for them to be explained ... this happened all through the Campaign

What the hullabaloo is about in this thread is his statement re Sweden. The statement was not unfactual. It had to be explained because, as he is prone to, he wasn't "clear." It needed to be explained because of the supposed shock it created and because it was unfactually misrepresented and overplayed. It was, in essence, lied about. He didn't mention an attack. (I take it that it is OK to add words, make things up, be unclear, when ridiculing Trump.) Even the government in Sweden knew that what was later explained by Trump was essentially true. The Swedish government and the Swedish people knew exactly the immigrant problem to which Trump referred existed. Watch the video in post #20 and read post #30 in this thread--for "clarification" regarding Sweden and its government.

As for what happened throughout the campaign, a lot of that was the same kind of stuff. When and if he outright lied rather than just misspeaking or not knowing the facts, he deserved to be criticized

he would make a statement and his staff and supports like yourself would then go on to tell us what he really ment to say....

And that was never good enough for his detractors, like yourself. Y'all still carried on about how he "lied."

I guess its to much for the America people to expect their POTUS to convey things clearly and concisely when asked a question or presents a policy

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1117327)

Well, if Trump succeeds, he may well turn out to be on your "side" of presidential power. But you probably won't like the results. That, however, is the result of the way your side governs.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1117330)

Trump has an odd affinity for succeeding against great odds and.... winning bigley...


there is a pattern to the narrative

Regan= idiot and clown
Clinton= brilliant
Bush= idiot and clown
Obama= brilliant
Trump= idiot and clown

the left tends to want their presidents to be gods...remember the greek columns and Obama looking down on the masses watching them adore him?

I'm still trying to figure out of Trump is brilliant and playing the press and masses masterfully as he destroys the universe while they are distracted or if he's and idiot who's buffoonery renders him incapable of completing simple tasks like destroying the universe :hihi:

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1117333)

That "idiot and clown/brilliant" pattern gives insight on how clearly, precisely, and truthfully the left speaks. I think Trump being a bit of the Progressive authoritarian has learned from them that messaging technique. It's just that he's not as eloquent about it.

But I think that Trump is more honest about his intentions than the left is.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1117339)

pretty good assessment below...the critics are far nuttier that the nut they are critiquing and seem determined to prove it on a daily basis

Compared with Obama in 2009, at the same point in his young administration, Trump has issued about the same number of executive orders. For all his war on the press, Trump has so far not ordered wiretaps on any reporter on the grounds that he is a “criminal co-conspirator,” nor has he gone after the phone records of the Associated Press — Barack Obama’s Justice Department did both, to little notice in the media.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-assassination

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1117341)

No doubt that those anti-Trumpers here who actually do read the article wont find anything convincing in it, and will continue their idiotic and clownish remarks against Trump.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1117350)

Was that Friday night?

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1117356)

Trump is the most inarticulate President we have ever had. He lies more than any other politician ever. It is hilarious watching the apologists trying to explain his thought process or cover for his lies.

His statement was either extremely inarticulate or an out and out lie. Either way it just shows what type of person he is.

Chris - how many times was it brought up that Obama said he visited 57 states or the constant crying like little girls about Obama's executive orders? Now when it is pointed out he lied, the response is who cares or what different does it make. The hypocrisy here is amazing.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1117356)

Chris - how many times was it brought up that Obama said he visited 57 states The hypocrisy here is amazing.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1117356)

Trump is the most inarticulate President we have ever had.

If they are going to be rated, one of them has to be the most whatever. But the "ever had" is not verified. And it is very small and angry of you to make such a statement.

He lies more than any other politician ever.

Again, another small minded, angry thing to say. And certainly not verified. Is there an official, verifiable, objective count of the number of lies ever told by every President. Oh, wait, that would be impossible to do. Not nice of you to tell such a lie when you know that it can't be verified. And, very, very, angry. And resorting to unverified extremes such as "we have ever had" and "more than any other" is a sign of some sort of unbalance.

It is hilarious watching the apologists trying to explain his thought process or cover for his lies.

Causing people to laugh is better than making them angry, right? Well, maybe not when an anger-ridden person laughs, it's usually an evil, angry laugh. It's not nice of you to laugh at anyone with such anger. You should get that taken care of.

His statement was either extremely inarticulate or an out and out lie. Either way it just shows what type of person he is.

OOOOhhh . . . out and out lie! Such anger. Settle down, you might burst some organ or other. Not healthy. And casting aspersions on the type of person someone is. . . my, my . . . very rude and angry. Not healthy. Really . . . get it checked.

Chris - how many times was it brought up that Obama said he visited 57 states or the constant crying like little girls about Obama's executive orders? Now when it is pointed out he lied, the response is who cares or what different does it make. The hypocrisy here is amazing.

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1117361)

If you find a single reference I made to prove your point I will be shocked. Sorry,but I only speak for myself. Search is your friend here
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1117365)

Seriously why do you think I have anger? Are you using that totry getting back at me? You're the one who says people's comments are idiotic and clownish. the anger to do that must be eating you up inside. Would you do that to their face? Or are you one of those internet tough guys? Are you going to send me another apology?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1117368)

So are you going to p.m. me your apology?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device