Trump and his nicknames

[Ridgerunner]

You don’t like Trump. We get it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I do not fear that I will be judged harshly for refusing to vote for someone who habitually spreads lies.

Better to promote killing than lying. I get it.

why they feel they have to make excuses for inexcusable behavior. That is a mystery to me. It seems to me that they ought to feel morally-bound to stand up to the

Some of what the Dems call “inexcusable” isn’t, just as most of what they call “lying” isn’t. But since Trump supporters know he’s really the symbol to the left of the citizens they dislike intensely, sometimes the “excusing” goes beyond reason.

 

[PetraG]

You don’t like Trump. We get it.

I’m sorry. I went on and on and somehow buried my actual point.

Fake is fake. No matter who is telling the lies, fake is fake. We know who the Father of Lies is.

What is the excuse for defending the propogation of lies? There isn’t one! Nobody’s falsifications are hiding Anne Frank in their attic here!

His nastiness is bad. When he makes up things or uses rumors to attack others, it is even worse.

Why be complicit in that? Why tacitly approve it or pretend that it is unimportant? Because someone else does it? I think we rose above that level of “morality” in about first grade, don’t you?

 

[PetraG]

Better to promote killing than lying. I get it.

False dilemma, particularly when the question is why no other Republican is going to be allowed to challenge him in the primaries.

I am being denied the chance to support someone who both opposes abortion AND who lacks a regular falsification habit. Why?

Some of what the Dems call “inexcusable” isn’t, just as most of what they call “lying” isn’t. But since Trump supporters know he’s really the symbol to the left of the citizens they dislike intensely, sometimes the “excusing” goes beyond reason.

Quit dodging. I listed clear falsehoods Donald Trump told. I could list many, many, many more, and you and I both know it.

I explained why people vote for him in spite of his lies and nastiness. I do get that. You have yet to explain why his supporters can call him someone who “tells it like it is” with a straight face. I do not get that, not unless Christians have added “win at any cost” to the moral code and I missed it somewhere.

 

[Ridgerunner]

His nastiness is bad. When he makes up things or uses rumors to attack others, it is even worse.

Why be complicit in that? Why tacitly approve it or pretend that it is unimportant? Because someone else does it? I think we rose above that level of “morality” in about first grade, don’t you?

I’ll readily stipulate that he’s crude and harsh in his tweets and sometimes in his spoken word. Since many people are no different (including Truman and LBJ, the latter who far outdid Trump) we have to decide whether we’re going to focus on manners or actions.

Trump’s actions so far have been prolife. He has reversed much of what Obama did in promoting aboriton. We have to decide which matters more to us; childrens’ lives or bad manners.

 

[PetraG]

I’ll readily stipulate that he’s crude and harsh in his tweets and sometimes in his spoken word.

You’re not stipulating that the things I listed are both (a) spread by Donald Trump and (b) were known to him to be false when he spread them?

He is crude and harsh but not dishonest? He doesn’t resort to false attacks? No. That doesn’t cut it.

He has knowingly spread falsehoods and he has done it a lot of times. Why not stipulate that?

The man should NEVER be allowed to accuse anyone else of faking news. Never. The hypocrisy of it stinks to high heaven.

 

[Ridgerunner]

He has knowingly spread falsehoods and he has done it a lot of times. Why not stipulate that?

because I can’t read his mind.

The man should NEVER be allowed to accuse anyone else of faking news.

I think the first Amendment still exists. But he has called out fake news that has been proved fake before. Sometimes the media has even admitted it.

 

[PetraG]

because I can’t read his mind.

Oh, so you think maybe he was honestly mistaken about whether he had people in Hawaii who couldn’t believe what they were finding about Barack Obama?

Do you think he honestly misunderstood that the President of Finland told him that they rake their forests? He said that, but he didn’t know it was false? Or do you think the President of Finland told Trump that even though they don’t do that in Finland?

I could go on and on, but at some point you have to ask why someone who has found he has been “mistaken” so many times doesn’t take the trouble to check his facts in the future.

More to the point, why would someone who has made so many honest mistakes himself be so free about accusing other people of being fakes? Wouldn’t he know how hard it is to get facts straight?

I think the first Amendment still exists. But he has called out fake news that has been proved fake before. Sometimes the media has even admitted it.

I mean you, his supporter, shouldn’t be deflecting and excusing and rationalizing it when he says so many things that have been demonstrably false, things he had no excuse for saying when he had no evidence that the attacks he was making were true.

Why accuse people rescued by the Coast Guard of being “out in their boats to watch the hurricane” when there was zero evidence that anyone rescued was in that position? Why would someone who is so upset by fake news ever say something like that?

I don’t know, but it is reasonable to wonder if it is all of the news that he dislikes and all of the news outlets he doesn’t like that he is trying to discredit.

I mean, you know, a lot of people are saying…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Oh, so you think maybe he was honestly mistaken about whether he had people in Hawaii who couldn’t believe what they were finding about Barack Obama?

Do you think he honestly misunderstood that the President of Finland told him that they rake their forests? He said that, but he didn’t know it was false? Or do you think the President of Finland told Trump that even though they don’t do that in Finland?

I have no idea, but I think it’s possible he thought it or was speaking hypberbolically. I am reminded of my wife telling me that they dont allow so much as a fallen twig to remain on the forest floors in Germany. I don’t imagine that’s literally true, but it is true that Germans keep their forests uncommonly clean of detritus.

Why accuse people rescued by the Coast Guard of being “out in their boats to watch the hurricane” when there was zero evidence that anyone rescued was in that position? Why would someone who is so upset by fake news ever say something like that?

If he really said that, he simply might have thought it. Part of the problem with all of this is that one can’t believe the Democrat media to tell any story about Trump straight.

But no matter what, your choice this election is between a person you think lies about trivia and a person who is entirely serious in promoting abortion. Your choice will tell you more about yourself than I ever could.

 

[pnewton]

PetraG:

There are former Nazis who can tell you that her attitude was not empathetic.

Enough …

Godwin’s law.

Then there is my CAF corollary to Godwin’s Law, everything is abortion.

if that is the price to pay for a reduction in funding of abortion, it’s worth it.

 

[Maximus1]

You ignore Bolton and Whistleblower retribution. Jailing Americans on an enemy list. Making it obvious that it is a fate worse than death if any Whisleblowers come forward.
You can include Ed Rollins who described Susan Collins as ," Dead Woman Walking." That retribution fate for Daring to say witnesses are ok at trials. A 250 year Impeachment precedent.
Authoritarianism is coming if he stays in office. I am sure he has support.
I recall something like the Sisters. Insurance companies offered to provide condom coverage for free.
It would be," available" not mandatory to buy.
I don’t know how I feel about that. A faith idea I understand, and the statistical certitude of pain, suffering, and sometimes death from spreading disease. Ultimately, only people who really cannot afford contraception are involved here.
Everyone paying taxes benefitted is slight of hand. Anyone who can count knows that.
Maddox had to resign to bring attention and protect the Troops.
Fake Whisleblower is an incredible example of how use of fake is nonsense. The Inspector General said the allegations were credible.
The independant voice.
Bolton has documents and proof. See the beauty of all of this is how it works. It gets denied, a document proves the denial untrue. Then repeat again and again. So it never leaves the news.

 

[Maximus1]

Is that a new Gospel.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You ignore Bolton and Whistleblower retribution.

What did he do to Bolton? What did he do to the fake whistleblower?

Rollins meant politically, and you know it. Tough to be a RINO and remain in office nowadays.

The Little Sisters did not find the Mandate “compromise” acceptable because they would still have to approve coverage for abortifacients. Obama could have easily let them off that, but he wouldn’t because he wanted to force them to violate Church teaching or withdraw from their ministry.

Maddox had to resign to bring attention and protect the Troops.

Opinions are like nose hairs. Everybody has them. ISIS is still not resurgent.

Bolton has documents and proof.

He can still produce them if he has them. But he won’t because he hasn’t.

 

[PetraG]

I have no idea, but I think it’s possible he thought it or was speaking hypberbolically. I am reminded of my wife telling me that they dont allow so much as a fallen twig to remain on the forest floors in Germany. I don’t imagine that’s literally true, but it is true that Germans keep their forests uncommonly clean of detritus.

Germany? Who said anything about Germany?
Instead of deflecting, why don’t we look at what his actual statement was:
“I was with the president of Finland and he said, ‘We’re a forest nation.’ He called it a forest nation, and they spend a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things. And they don’t have any problem. Or what it is it’s a small problem.”

If he really said that, he simply might have thought it. Part of the problem with all of this is that one can’t believe the Democrat media to tell any story about Trump straight.

Well, you can watch the video:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/06/07/trump-texas-people-watched-hurricane-in-boats-sot.cnn

Do you just say anything you think as if it is the truth?

But no matter what, your choice this election is between a person you think lies about trivia and a person who is entirely serious in promoting abortion. Your choice will tell you more about yourself than I ever could.

I think someone who will lie to me about trivia is someone who will lie to me. When it is the Clintons, you know that, right? Somehow, though, when it is Donald Trump, it isn’t?

Somehow, when he lies, it is trivial, even when he lies about whether people are voting illegally or whether the National Weather Service is telling the truth or whether the national news media are more careful about getting their facts straight than the President himself is? No, those are not trivial matters. He’s trying to make himself look good by undermine the credibility of other people. That is NOT trivial.

But no matter what, your choice this election is between a person you think lies about trivia and a person who is entirely serious in promoting abortion. Your choice will tell you more about yourself than I ever could.

I’m not going to vote for someone who lies as much as he does, and I really do not care what you think. If that means writing somebody in, so be it.

I won’t get my choice in this election, because Donald Trump has made certain that there will be no other Republicans allowed to run for President except for him, so don’t lecture me about who I want to vote for, please.

Trump statements are nasty and mean-spirited and attack others for being fake all while allowing himself to say whatever flies out of his mouth.

I can respect those who admit his faults and yet vote for him because they feel they need to choose the lesser of two evils but I have no time to be lectured to by those who want to continue to make excuses for him. Done.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Germany? Who said anything about Germany?

You didn’t get it but that’s ok.

No, those are not trivial matters. He’s trying to make himself look good by undermine the credibility of other people. That is NOT trivial.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Ridgerunner:

You have made your moral position clear. No need to say much more.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I would like to remind you and others that Hillary Clinton did NOT call all Trump supporters “deplorables.” I read her speech and she says, IIRC, about one-third are hopeless, not even half. Then there are about one-third whom we (the Democratic leaders) can help, and another third who have good intentions. Her speech has been so often misquoted that it has taken on a life of its own, but, as Trump himself might say, it is FAKE NEWS.

 

[PetraG]

I would like to remind you and others that Hillary Clinton did NOT call all Trump supporters “deplorables.”

I don’t think anyone said she did. She said roughly half. I don’t find that anymore “redemption” of the remark than Trump’s weak qualification of Mexican immigrants that “some, I assume, are good people.”

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? [She got laughter and applause at this point!] The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

That’s a direct quiute. It was an obnoxious an inexcusable thing to say.

The other half of the quote, by the way, is just plain patronizing [boldface mine, obviously]
"But the other basket, the other basket, and I know because I see friends from all over America here. I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas, as well as you know New York and California. But that other basket of people who are people who feel that government has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they are just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

Oh, so the people who are not for Hillary Clinton are deplorables and people so desperate for change it doesn’t really even matter to them where it comes from? Ah, and she has empathy for that. Ah.

You may not like that direct criticism of what she actually said, but I’d say that the President also has to answer for whole paragraphs of what he said as a candidate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think I said she called ALL Trump supporters “deplorables”. What she did say was that “half” of his supporters were a “basket” of “deplorables”.

She later said she overstated it, but she’s a practiced speaker and I don’t doubt she intended what she said.

 

[PetraG]

She said “I understand how some of what I said upset people and can be misinterpreted" and other versions that did not say “I don’t know what I was thinking to reduce another human being to ‘deplorable’ and ‘irredeemable.’ That was un-called for and I should have never said anything like that.”

We’re talking about name-calling, here. She did not call herself out for that, she really didn’t.

 

[Maximus1]

When Bolton produces them you will forget you typed that.
Obama wanting to do something to the sisters is a far fetched guess.