The Myth of The Lying President

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Mate if I starved my pet then gave it food once a week or maybe twice if it's good I'd be locked up.

I'd deserve to be.

I do not call giving vital aid or even blocking others giving it for that matter appeasement.

It's far from it.

As I've always said, we need to be humane about Korea, calling aid supplies appeasement is down right offensive to anybody who's had to accept aid before.

I'm not talking food stamps either...

North Korea is not our pets. They are a sovereign nation (as flimsy as that may be for them).

If you are going to get offended about my choice of words, im not sure we can really conversate here. Im not interested in tiptoeing around your personal mine field.

originally posted by: RAY1990

But that's his own decorum I guess... How about no aid for those unwilling to support Israel?

He does say gaffes but I can't say he is all wrong with these other countries that seems to want our aid all the time, but then they have some kind of anti American attitude too. I don't mind that, but its like they hold out their hand and we give them aid and they say thanks Fers and flip us off... or something along those lines.

It would be nice if they supported us with something that President Clinton signed and other Presidents didn't have the balls to actually act on it.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Mate if I starved my pet then gave it food once a week or maybe twice if it's good I'd be locked up.

I'd deserve to be.

I do not call giving vital aid or even blocking others giving it for that matter appeasement.

It's far from it.

As I've always said, we need to be humane about Korea, calling aid supplies appeasement is down right offensive to anybody who's had to accept aid before.

I'm not talking food stamps either...

At this point, the best course of action is liberation.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm not offended, I've always had food, water and a roof over my head, to my knowledge nobody has personally inhibited my ability to live... So I'm not sure what you mean about tiptoeing around my personal minefield?

I even mentioned I didn't mean foodstamps, if someone is starving to death in the West I'm jaded enough to say that something shady exists about their background. Or is that common sense?

Either way I think you misinterpreted my point.

Yes, North Korea is a sovereign nation. A one filled with malnourished and starved people. As a human in the 21st century I believe that such circumstances are unacceptable.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It's about the location of embassies, it would depend on the type of aid but in all honesty it's in bad taste isn't it?

I see where this is going with regards to aid though... Should we feel obligated? Who should get it? Who should give it?

The world is a propaganda machine, and we are all so opinionated (me too) but I don't believe politics should ever get in the way of basic human requirements.

It often does though.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I could get behind such a thing and in all honesty the world never needs a powerful and capable dictatorship... It never ends well.

The West cannot be the ones to do it though and I can't see China doing it.

But then, NK could always cross a line with China and liberating the North could be spun in a brilliant way.

It could all go wrong.

China loves stability, even if it's at face value. I can't see them declaring any wars anytime soon.

originally posted by: RAY1990


Yes, North Korea is a sovereign nation. A one filled with malnourished and starved people. As a human in the 21st century I believe that such circumstances are unacceptable.

Agreed.

As a taxpayer I think it would also be unacceptable to just keep shoveling money at the problem while accepting the leadership of that nation is unwilling to make any efforts to feed its own people. Even NK's allies rolls their eyes at them, treating them like a "touched" cousin that has a big mouth, little fists, and a troubled past.

Appeasement has nothing to do with the people. Our governments do not interact with individuals, they interact with other governments (barring individuals being involved as vessels of office, anyway). The appeasement is appeasing the government, not the people. We do not go in and issue the relief, we give it to the government. To appease them. What they do with it is, as far as I can tell, mostly a mystery (surrounded in rumor).

Appeasing the people, incidentally, is what governments in the west tend to do within their own borders. I don't really dispute social programs for the most part, as its such a small percentage of what we spend annually. And typically saves even larger costs elsewhere in the future.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Mate if I starved my pet then gave it food once a week or maybe twice if it's good I'd be locked up.

I'd deserve to be.

I do not call giving vital aid or even blocking others giving it for that matter appeasement.

It's far from it.

As I've always said, we need to be humane about Korea, calling aid supplies appeasement is down right offensive to anybody who's had to accept aid before.

I'm not talking food stamps either...

At this point, the best course of action is liberation.

Given how its worked out for us in the past (we are terrible at nation building, as we are much softer than we were when we were better at it) im not sure we'd do them many favors. If South Korea could get involved maybe. I suspect it would become just another territory of China, though.

Although the condition in China is much better than it was 25 years ago.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

But that's what diplomacy is for, intermediaries exist who can administer and observe aid being given. I'd go as far as saying it's the norm or even a requirement when dealing with nations like NK.

Your American, so naturally you speak of aid from an American point of view. Others can and will give aid though, blockades and sanctions make that difficult.

I mean something has to be done and it has to be done differently, these Korean chaps have some amazing resolve in the face of adversity... I don't think sanctions will break them, if anything they'll keep proving us wrong.

Time isn't the friend of any of the participants, all except one. China.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Mate if I starved my pet then gave it food once a week or maybe twice if it's good I'd be locked up.

I'd deserve to be.

I do not call giving vital aid or even blocking others giving it for that matter appeasement.

It's far from it.

As I've always said, we need to be humane about Korea, calling aid supplies appeasement is down right offensive to anybody who's had to accept aid before.

I'm not talking food stamps either...

At this point, the best course of action is liberation.

Given how its worked out for us in the past (we are terrible at nation building, as we are much softer than we were when we were better at it) im not sure we'd do them many favors. If South Korea could get involved maybe. I suspect it would become just another territory of China, though.

Although the condition in China is much better than it was 25 years ago.

I apologize for picking on part of your post... Nation building? What nation building, I'm not aware of any building going on, however destruction I have seen plenty of...

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Exactly.

About the best weve done is the philippines. And its not really that great from a first world perspective

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Exactly.

About the best weve done is the philippines. And its not really that great from a first world perspective

I'd include Germany and Japan in that list. Possibly south Korea since they are becoming an economic power house in asia.

a reply to: dragonridr

I could accept japan. It was a conversion of political thinking. Germany was more normalizing what already existed. We didnt build it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Can you name a couple of things he has done/is doing that leads you to think this?

Picking a twitter war with an unstable dictator with nuclear and biological arms. Insulting our allies. Ordering the embassy to Jerusalem, which will be expensive and make the United States an unacceptable arbiter in the peace process. Helping China's ascent by shredding the TPP. Legitimizing hate groups by creating false equivalencies. Heck, damaging professional sports!

The economy is booming, I guess that is bad...

Yes, the Obama recovery is continuing, but the problem is Trump has undone the regulations that would prevent another major recession. The stock market is an out of control bubble, and when it pops....

You will get more back in your taxes now...bad bad

I don't make millions, so probably the opposite will be true. I won't even be able to write off my property taxes any more.

Companies will be able to grow expand create new jobs... bad bad bad

In countries where labor is cheaper. Corporations don't outsource to countries with lower taxes, they outsource to countries with slave labor. Then they put the profits into tax havens.

We are not at war or even look like we are going to war with Russia, China, NK.....bad bad bad bad

Apparently you don't read the news. We are engaged in an information war with Russia. Russia has accused the United States of meddling in their elections. Our Navy is playing chicken with the Chinese in the South China Sea, and we have embargoed North Korea. Good good good?

We are going back to space....oh really really bad

Every President commits the United States to more space exploration... then Congress cuts the funds. How old are you, anyway?

originally posted by: DJW001


Picking a twitter war with an unstable dictator with nuclear and biological arms. Insulting our allies. Ordering the embassy to Jerusalem, which will be expensive and make the United States an unacceptable arbiter in the peace process. Helping China's ascent by shredding the TPP. Legitimizing hate groups by creating false equivalencies. Heck, damaging professional sports!

Yep all his fault..Nothing has worked with old Kim and I think now Kim understands he is not dealing with an apologist and so he is feeling the pain. Its like a dog begging at the table and people complain as they give the dog food, Trump is the one saying "bad doggy, NO!"

Embassy? The one Clinton put into law...lol You know the one with Trump's move will put the U.S. in compliance with Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, ya that one that Clinton..

Former President Bill Clinton made Jerusalem a campaign issue in 1992, attacking then-former President George H.W. Bush for having allegedly “repeatedly challenged Israel’s sovereignty over a united Jerusalem” and vowing to move the embassy during his administration.

Oh and Obama...

Former President Barack Obama declared in a 2008 campaign speech, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

BAD deal TPP? Back to the apologest attitude, don't want to hurt China's feelings so we will just take it in the @ss, and Trump said no, we need to redo TPP, and you think that is a bad thing? lol OK

The media Legitimized hate groups and antifa groups and the whole football issue. Where are they now? Gone in the wind since the media moved on. BTW kneeling for the national anthem is disrespectful to the flag.

Yes, the Obama recovery is continuing, but the problem is Trump has undone the regulations that would prevent another major recession. The stock market is an out of control bubble, and when it pops....

We will see... Most President's have walked into a recession and they fixed them within two years, Obama's didn't start to see any recovery for seven and the economy was still stalled well into Trump's turn.

In countries where labor is cheaper. Corporations don't outsource to countries with lower taxes, they outsource to countries with slave labor. Then they put the profits into tax havens.

It comes down to where is it cheaper to manufacture. Taxes, shipping, labor cost all adds up to cost so it is not just labor, and he is working on repatriating those trillions too stuck in tax havens.

Apparently you don't read the news. We are engaged in an information war with Russia. Russia has accused the United States of meddling in their elections. Our Navy is playing chicken with the Chinese in the South China Sea, and we have embargoed North Korea. Good good good?

Just another day in the world...with all of this going on long before Trump...we will see were it all goes.

Every President commits the United States to more space exploration... then Congress cuts the funds. How old are you, anyway?

Most likely older than you... Obama was about as anti NASA as one could get... Bush was busy...Clinton didn't care and so on... not a lot of "commits"

originally posted by: RAY1990

It's about the location of embassies, it would depend on the type of aid but in all honesty it's in bad taste isn't it?

I see where this is going with regards to aid though... Should we feel obligated? Who should get it? Who should give it?

The world is a propaganda machine, and we are all so opinionated (me too) but I don't believe politics should ever get in the way of basic human requirements.

It often does though.

I think Trump is just committing to something that is in law and that the last three Presidents said it should be, but they failed to act. One thing we can say about Trump is he likes real action and not just political bloviating.

Depends on the aid...Aid is not all just food.. And it should not be just America...as you said world, but most look to us to pay for almost all when it is a world problem.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: dragonridr

I could accept japan. It was a conversion of political thinking. Germany was more normalizing what already existed. We didnt build it.

We completely transformed Japan in many ways.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I think Trump is just committing to something that is in law and that the last three Presidents said it should be, but they failed to act. One thing we can say about Trump is he likes real action and not just political bloviating.

Well you could say that, then I could say that his timing is absolutely terrible since the peace process has made no progress for years.

But then much more exists to this, I don't think Trump is a complete idiot. He knows who is backing them and I've seen personally quite a few posts over the years regarding the ownership of Jerusalem and just who God's people really are.

Then you've got Israel's illegal settlements, it's unwillingness to even recognise Palestinian mistreatment, I guess they do some "token" convictions but it does nothing about the systematic abuse whether it be soldier or civilian committing crimes.

I mean look at how the right demonised Obama because he did one of those token gestures... He abstained a vote on illegal Israeli settlements.

So, no. I don't think Trump is just following through on the failings of past Presidents, I do not believe the President could be so ignorant.

Depends on the aid...Aid is not all just food.. And it should not be just America...as you said world, but most look to us to pay for almost all when it is a world problem. 

Yep, it depends on the aid. My nation still gives millions to China for educational purposes, the US gets the lion's share of this planet's wealth, it is up to them what they do with it.

With that being said though, a lot of the time American attitude comes with a condescending tone. Since the Cold War it's your world we've been led into... Your the one's responsible for what NATO is today, it's not like big naughty entities wants to get ya monies if you know what I mean?

It's not dissimilar to the Brexit situation in that regards, many people have the opinion that we're leaving and shouldn't pay a penny. I know we have to pay our commitments, since we are the one's who helped realise them and agreed to them.

Some aspects of Trump's "art of the deal" have no place in politics, non whatsoever.

Corporate America?

a reply to: DJW001

Picking a twitter war with an unstable dictator with nuclear and biological arms. Insulting our allies. Ordering the embassy to Jerusalem, which will be expensive and make the United States an unacceptable arbiter in the peace process. Helping China's ascent by shredding the TPP. Legitimizing hate groups by creating false equivalencies. Heck, damaging professional sports!

Kim Jung Un needs to be insulted. The man is treated like a god by force. If Trump’s rocket man tweet was printed out millions of times, dropped over North Korea, I wager it would start a chain reaction leading to an uprising and liberation.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Your central concept is based on a truth. So let me first accept a minor point, that the most common usage of the word "lie" is what we should work with. Deliberate intent to mislead. That's an important distinction and I think it's a valid question. Anyway my comment is opinion.

Your entire argument involves a few logical fallacies that might be in play:

1) The fallacy of over simplification.
2) The fallacy of false equivalence.

Although other fallacies have been suggested in this thread.

Now I don't want you to think this is a deflection. However, I will argue that you have fallen into [the] premise of the article:

Not every falsehood is deliberate on Trump's part. But it would be the height of naïveté to imagine he is merely making honest mistakes. He is lying.”

Why?
A statement made by any president is not a statement made by a child. We could argue to what extent and in what manner we expect a child needs to support a numerical or statistical claim but it's not relevant to the issue. I would assert that there is an entirely different more rigid requirement that applies to a president's claims. There is a widely accepted (implied) authority associated with presidential statements. Now I don't want to rebut using another over simplification so I think:


A) Presidents are expected to be knowledgeable about topics they comment on. They are expected to present the informed opinion of the administration. It's part of the job.

B) A president has massive resources available to supply accurate data and "facts". A presidential statement is an informed statement. Staff intervene when they need the president to know something (whispering). I've seen it happen a number of times. Any administration is organised in part to address that issue.

C) Advice being supplied on the veracity of a presidential statement is expected to take place. It is invariably an internal discussion that takes place due to the consequences of making a false claim.

D) Further, the veracity of any counter argument or position is discussed internally along with the political ramifications involved. These are professionals.

E) The above points apply not only to a US president but (G20?) world leaders in general. This is not an unreasonable extra requirement imposed on Mr. Trump.

F) Presidents are allowed to have opinions. However, like anyone else, if that opinion is presented in a manner that includes data and evidence things change. Quantitative claims must be backed by evidence that can later be examined in detail and in context. I am expected to meet that bar here on ATS.

G) Admittedly, none of my points allow for the obvious need to lie at times involved in his position.

So in summary, many of us conclude that Mr. Trump knows what the numbers are on any given topic in a nuanced way. In a way, it is the argument that all presidents make gaffs, but statistically it can't happen frequently without either willful intent or gross incompetence. So which is it? The best specific case in this thread talks about the crowd size. That's real time crowd data coming in to [a] team immediately informing the president even if it can have a margin of error. No?

In context with proof of intent and the legal analogy, having a minimal number of clear examples that meet your bar would be enough evidence where there was a large number of infractions. In that analogy, there are a few examples where laws deal with patterns of behavior and repeat offenders (wink).

There is also the idea that [a] person would reasonably know the consequences to an action [and] can't feign ignorance. It isn't possible to address your post without including a much more complicated assessment needed to specify what amounts to proof. I.E. Maybe there should be a higher requirement for proof on my part if I have a leg to stand on. That crowd thing is certainly not enough by itself. Would you need to be a 50 time offender? Lol.

Now I do not mean to suggest that all Americans agree with what I said about presidential authority. Not in the slightest. However I do base all that on presidential statements carry a real weight of authority (to the majority of people.) I think that authority is based upon the above points in combination with the presidents existing credentials upon assuming the office. If the above is no more than a bunch of talking points I am sure he is well aware of them.

P.S. I am a newbie, was this post too long?

a reply to: PDP11

Fantastic contribution with well apportioned points.

Not too long at all.

a reply to: PDP11

Any expectatations that apply to the president’s claims are just that: expectations, and not rigid rules. Given Trump’s dashing of all presidential expectations, this sort of appeal to tradition simply doesn’t work anymore. Trump can, and does, comment on whatever he wants.

Further, the idea that a president should be a valid source of information is a wrong one. The false dichotomy of lying vs grossly incompetent doesn’t factor in numerous other possibilities. Further, that his false statements are quote-mined, cherry picked, and never compared to his true statements is to suppress evidence to the contrary.

I think the logic is pretty simple.

The fact of a lie requires an intent to mislead,
The intent to mislead is unknown without proof.
Therefor the fact of a lie is unknown without proof.

It is unethical, deceitful, and itself bad faith to convict someone of bad faith without evidence,
President Trump is being convicted of bad faith without evidence,
Therefor it is unethical, deceitful, and itself bad faith to convict President of bad faith without evidence.

The point about the misinformed child was to illustrate how unethical and dangerous it is to assume bad faith in the child, or anyone, not to equate President trump’s falsities to the falsities of a child.

No, your post was not too long.