Originally Posted by Pete F.
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.
|