It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

you need ID to buy groceries?

page: 33
61
<< 30  31  32   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


See, now this is where I find a bit of a problem. Just curiousity (and assuming we're all being truthful with ourselves), how many people do you know or even best friends of yours, would you actually want to see leading this nation?

As opposed to those who actually, purposely lie to get elected or to get legislation passed that people don't want? I'll go 50% or so. It's not like these politicians are good, honest folk... if they were, that estimate would be much, much lower.


Without knowing if that idea is going to be processed the way you want it to be (due to the inability to clearly vocalize your intent), is how we end up with what we've got here. TRN, sincerely you and I both know that wars have begun for less egregious offenses.

I wouldn't go so far as to say wars have been started over such, but surely diplomatic relations have been strained. Wars typically start over actions or needs... either someone shoots down a plane, or someone needs (wants?) the resources in a neighboring country.

I will agree that there is a need to choose words carefully. I have seen Trump do this in diplomatic situations, like when he had meetings with NATO, Russia*, or North Korea. His rhetoric disappeared in those situations (and he was lambasted thoroughly for that, too). This was at a rally. The rules are a little more relaxed there, just as the talk when I am sitting around a bonfire or in my shop with close friends is much more relaxed than if I am speaking to a potential investor.

* I find it of note that the only apology Trump has made since in office was when he mistakenly used the word "would" instead of "wouldn't" at the US-Russian press conference. Not a good thing in any case, and definitely a mistake, but he did own up to it, apologize, and correct the record. I consider that somewhat of an honorable action in the face of a substantial error.

TheRedneck




posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

so should we accept that some people like this little old lady who might have a problem getting their photo id so they can vote and find work arounds for them, or do you see their losing out as just an acceptable reality worth having for integrity in our voter system?



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

We definitely should find workarounds! Where did I ever indicate otherwise?

That's why I am so proud of how Alabama has handled things. There are workarounds galore, but all of them require some sort of proof... that proof can be as little as an old electric bill. I have heard of registrars actually going out to people's houses to make sure they were able to get an ID.

People who are well-known in communities can also vote without an ID... I have had two people jump to vouch for me before when I was having trouble finding my ID one time.

The issue, again, is making sure that people in similar situations must not be disqualified over a typo, not to try and keep anyone from voting who is legally able to do so.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, I have sort of an odd relationship with the truth and lies, which is why I have this propensity for wanting to avoid conversations dealing with them. Meaning, that I don't always believe a lie to be a bad thing, equally I don't always find the truth to be a good thing. If I had to nail down why I find Trump's lies more egregious, is something more benign, like "dude, if youre gonna lie, then make it for a damned good reason, not one that could negatively impact a wide swath of people".


As far as communicating effectively goes, you're probably correct there. I too doubg, many wars were begun that way. But do consider this little snippet, I think we should probably all agree that a simple fact-check on dialect could have kept us from perpetrating one of the worst humane crises known to man:



Anybody that’s ever studied history has at some point or another learned about the dropping of the atomic bombs ”Little Boy” and “Fat Man” by the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was the first and only time in history that nuclear weapons had ever been used in war. The importance of this event cannot be overstated, especially since it might have been avoided if not for a simple misunderstanding. This misunderstanding came from, you guessed it, a poor translation. When asked if Japan would surrender during World War II, the Japanese ruler used the word “mokusatsu” in response. Now what the Japanese word meant was “we withhold comment – pending discussion”, but when the response was sent to Washington the word was mistranslated to mean “We are treating your message with contempt”. This was picked up by the media and spread like a wildfire around the world. Undoubtedly frustrated by what he thought the response meant, and knowing he needed to respond sternly, President Truman decided that the atomic bombs were a perfect weapon to use. Why this message wasn’t more heavily scrutinized for any possible mistranslation seems very strange, but regardless, this simple mistake led to 150,000-250,000 people being either killed, injured, or exposed to radiation.







It's a little rough to swallow, the consequences that ensued for something so incredibly dumb.

edit on 3-8-2018 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

[/post]
a reply to: TheRedneck

Defending his position is ok, defending his inability to effectively communicate is not ok.


I can't stand listening to Trump.

I read his transcripts (as I do most everyone else).

Reading him in print is really scary.



Admittedly so. But frankly, you haven't sufficiently smartened up until you understand that none of these people are your friends. Not Trump. Not Obama. Not Colonel Sanders. Not Clinton.

Obama was just as painful to listen to on a daily basis running his stupid mouth. He may have been smarter but he was still just an asshole in a suit put there to sell us crap we don't need for a price we don't want. I guess Trump blabs more than Obama did but Obama wasn't shy about his fingernails on the chalkboard speeches and lectures. All of them littered with lies and half-truths and devious deceptions. Trump might be the only one who has outdone Obama in his narcissistic preening. Albeit Trump's attempts at it are far less graceful and embarrassing to watch.

And hey. Remember Bush? I don't know if I ever heard him give birth to a single coherent sentence. But I wasn't listening too much.

If you're not on this forum to cast off this partisan BS and really expand your mind, why bother?
edit on 3-8-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

The purpose of honesty is to avoid hurting others, not to exist as a virtue in itself. Most of the time I believe honesty is the best choice, but there are occasions where honesty will lead to needless suffering. Thus we have the concept of a "white lie," a lie, yes, but a lie told to prevent hurting others. Everyone lies at some point... if a cop stops you and you were doing 58 mph in a 55 mph zone, do you admit to going over by three miles an hour? I doubt most people would... I know I will say something to the effect of "I wasn't speeding sir." That's not really a bad lie... it is not told with the forethought of harming others.

On the other hand, if someone were to tell me, "I will have the most transparent administration ever!" while running for political office, and then proceeds to ignore transparency, that is a lie. It was told with forethought as a way to get something from me. Fraud might be a better word to describe it, but then we're confusing normal actions not considered a actual crime with a criminal term. So I find it easier to simply reserve the word "lie" for a malicious untruth told with full knowledge of its inaccuracy.

I again bring up the infamous "if you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare." I think that phrase will cement a place in the history books for eternity as the most obvious example of a malicious lie ever told by a politician. Obama knew well that his plan would cause many people to have to change their healthcare plans or pay a penalty, yet he spoke those words to try and muster public support for a plan that has driven healthcare costs out of the reach of so many.

To contrast that with the statement Trump made... there was no promise involved, no malicious intent to take something from another by deception... was it false? To an extent, yes, and to an extent, no. False in the sense that it is possible to make a purchase in a grocery store without showing ID, yet true in the sense that most forms of payment (other than cash, in small bills) can require an ID. The purpose? To show the extent to which people today have photo IDs. There is nothing malicious in that.

What is malicious, however, is the number of times the President of the United States has been called a liar in this one thread, when his intent to maliciously deceive for personal gain has never been shown. Even more disturbing is that previous politicians, in both parties, are given a pass for much worse.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

The purpose of honesty is to avoid hurting others, not to exist as a virtue in itself. Most of the time I believe honesty is the best choice, but there are occasions where honesty will lead to needless suffering. Thus we have the concept of a "white lie," a lie, yes, but a lie told to prevent hurting others. Everyone lies at some point... if a cop stops you and you were doing 58 mph in a 55 mph zone, do you admit to going over by three miles an hour? I doubt most people would... I know I will say something to the effect of "I wasn't speeding sir." That's not really a bad lie... it is not told with the forethought of harming others.


Right, I agree. Which is why I try and stay out of the game of judgement on a lie vs. the truth merely because we all do so.



So I find it easier to simply reserve the word "lie" for a malicious untruth told with full knowledge of its inaccuracy.

Indeed! As do I. So, would you consider the statement "Mexico will pay for that wall" as a lie?
Or "We now have a negative GDP" is that a lie?

I like to use those two a lot simply due to the ridiculousness of them.




Obama knew well that his plan would cause many people to have to change their healthcare plans or pay a penalty, yet he spoke those words to try and muster public support for a plan that has driven healthcare costs out of the reach of so many.


Did he? Or was he simply trusting the wrong people to give him perfect information? My personal belief is the latter for one major reason, he admitted that he should never have said that. If what I believe is accurate, then he did what a reasonable and true leader (of anything at all) should do - take personal responsibility for it. I'm not saying I'm right about that, but I do remain open to all possibilities or set of circumstances. I personally hate the ACA, it was stupid from the start...im just not willing to go to war (figuratively) with my fellow Americans over it.


To contrast that with the statement Trump made... there was no promise involved, no malicious intent to take something from another by deception...

True, which is why the aforementioned items I brough up earlier in this post I believe fit the criteria perfectly.


What is malicious, however, is the number of times the President of the United States has been called a liar in this one thread, when his intent to maliciously deceive for personal gain has never been shown.

Oh, I don't think there is malicious intent in observing someones credibility (even here), I think its more likely that people are so tired of lies coming out of D.C. that having others defend him so adamantly seems disingenuous when years gone by, the same defenders would be the first ones crying foul.



Even more disturbing is that previous politicians, in both parties, are given a pass for much worse.



Well, my understanding is that Trump claims he is exactly not that - a politican, and his "drain the swamp" battle march was based upon that very premise.


As these things tend to do, over time we will likely have a clearer picture of the effects of the current Presidency, but not everything has the luxury of time to be a negotiating point, like the kids whose parents cant be found where it should have been a matter of rudimentary record keeping (a way to contact these parents if status changes, which it did - a likely place they would be staying). Again I don't want to bring into this thread unrelated topics for needless discussion, only to make the point that one cant simply ignore time constraints in lieu of a negotiating process.



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Didn't one of the key architects of Obamacare already admit that they were trying to deceive the people so the bill would pass?



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: alphabetaone

Didn't one of the key architects of Obamacare already admit that they were trying to deceive the people so the bill would pass?


That's a good question, I honestly don't know, though I wouldn't doubt it. I'll poke around see if I can find something about that.



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Ok, so what I've found is this (actually from the Washington post):



By Ilya Somin
November 11, 2014

At an October 2013 panel, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, a key architect of the Affordable Care Act, admitted that it was passed by exploiting political ignorance. If voters had known that the law would work by forcing young and healthy people to provide massive new subsidies for the old and sick, he doubts that it could have gotten through Congress

If you feel like reading it, can be found here.

And also found interesting little tidbits such as


In announcing the fix, Obama again conceded he had exaggerated. "There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate," he said. "It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise. We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient."


Found on Politifact under Lie of the Year
edit on 4-8-2018 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


Right, I agree.



That's something we can build on.


Indeed! As do I. So, would you consider the statement "Mexico will pay for that wall" as a lie?
Or "We now have a negative GDP" is that a lie?

I like to use those two a lot simply due to the ridiculousness of them.

"Mexico will pay for the wall": I never once thought he meant that the Mexican government would write a check for billions of dollars so we could build a wall... I honestly don't believe any of Trump's supporters did either. I would at least hope not, as that would have certainly been a ridiculous assertion. I considered it as Mexican interests would be harmed so much by the presence of the wall, with us being financially helped by the same, that the end result would be a wash.

The relationship between the US and Mexico is complex. We have immigration issues with an unsecured border that are harming our economy. Mexico is drawing businesses from the United States due to their lower labor costs and lack of regulation. Mexican drug cartels are bringing dangerous drugs across the border, essentially unchecked, that are straining our healthcare infrastructure. Human trafficking is even an issue along that border. A wall will stop many of these issues, and consequently decrease our costs and Mexico's illicit benefits... in effect doing exactly what I and others have interpreted Trump's assertions as indicating.

"Negative GDP"... that would be a misspeak. Obviously there is no negative GDP, nor could one exist for any prolonged amount of time. I would place that one in the same category as the "57 states" statement by Obama. Certainly Obama meant 57 states and territories, just as "negative GDP" probably meant "negative GDP growth." For the record, I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt on his minor gaffe as well.

Each statement must be taken in its own individual context.


Did he? Or was he simply trusting the wrong people to give him perfect information?

I can see the argument there. I think he either knew beforehand that his statement was false, or at least should have known with any amount of due diligence. The breaking of that promise was one of the very first results of Obamacare.


I personally hate the ACA, it was stupid from the start...im just not willing to go to war (figuratively) with my fellow Americans over it.

At the danger of going off topic, there is no need to "war" with fellow Americans over healthcare. The system is still fixable, but only if we move in the opposite direction of Obamacare: removing the need for insurance instead of mandating it.

The individual mandate was what really upset me. There is something inherently un-American about requiring people to pay for a service because it benefits others to do so. We do have similar socialized institutions (municipal services, highways, schools, etc.) but those are paid for by taxes... not by using force of law to create a clientele for private business.


Oh, I don't think there is malicious intent in observing someones credibility (even here), I think its more likely that people are so tired of lies coming out of D.C. that having others defend him so adamantly seems disingenuous when years gone by, the same defenders would be the first ones crying foul.

I disagree. Simply crying foul and calling out a statement would certainly be within the realistic realm of intelligent political discussion, but there is a line. Those who simply hate Trump for no other reason than they hate him have used up their political capital long ago by spinning truth into lies and then accusing.

I use as an example the phrase: "They're sending murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and some, I assume, are good people." That is a true statement. There is documentation upon documentation that some of those coming across the border... actually a substantial portion of them... do indeed go on to murder or rape Americans, and many cross simply to traffic illegal and dangerous drugs. The rest are good, hard-working people that we should have sympathy for. But, in the public eye, that statement has been spun to emphasize the first three categories and minimize his mention of the last category. The result has been the accusation that Trump believes all illegal Mexican immigrants are felons, the opposite of what he said. And that accusation has been repeated over and over and over, at every conceivable opportunity, without one shred of supporting evidence to try and cement the allegation of racism.

That is malicious. One episode of malicious intent is a reasonable cause to expect other malicious intents.


Well, my understanding is that Trump claims he is exactly not that - a politican, and his "drain the swamp" battle march was based upon that very premise.

That is my understanding as well, and the core basis for my support. So I don't expect him to speak like a politician. As previously mentioned, I do expect some decorum from him in official settings, and so far I see some semblance of that. In his rallies and on Twitter... nope, definitely not politically correct.


As these things tend to do, over time we will likely have a clearer picture of the effects of the current Presidency, but not everything has the luxury of time to be a negotiating point, like the kids whose parents cant be found where it should have been a matter of rudimentary record keeping (a way to contact these parents if status changes, which it did - a likely place they would be staying).

The situation there is much more complex than people apparently think. Many of these 'parents' were never the childrens' parents... they were kidnappers who posed as parents and threatened the kids to make them not tell. Some were drug dealers or potential MS-13 members who used kids just as an excuse to apply for asylum... and then disappear while we're trying to set up a hearing date. A few probably were abusive parents who resented the kids.

None of them trust the US government, and precious few have any idea where they are going.

It's not like they can just give the authorities their cell number and wait on a call. These are vagabonds who have nothing but the clothes on their back, and they are going to try to find some way to survive... who knows where that search for survival will lead them? Many consider their children taken with no hope to ever get them back, so they're not going to stop to get back children they don't think it is possible to get back (remember that children are abducted regularly in some areas... it's a fact of life for them). There's just no way to track someone who by definition has nothing to track them by.

That's the advantage of the wall... it stops the ease of crossing and makes it more difficult for human traffickers, which will mean less children taken for human trafficking purposes.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

His meaning was you cant do much of anything without an ID i.e. use the credit/debit card. So why not voting? Need a voting card because non-citizens have all sorts of ID otherwise to operate in the US.



posted on Aug, 4 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
"Mexico will pay for the wall": I never once thought he meant that the Mexican government would write a check for billions of dollars so we could build a wall... I honestly don't believe any of Trump's supporters did either. I would at least hope not, as that would have certainly been a ridiculous assertion. I considered it as Mexican interests would be harmed so much by the presence of the wall, with us being financially helped by the same, that the end result would be a wash.

Right. But I think you give too many other people credit for being aware enough to process fuzzy logic by way of context. If he didn't want to cause chaos and confusion, a simple change to his rhetoric "One way or another, Mexico will pay for the wall". This way you can create a back and forth about the boundaries of the statement is. If you simply say "and Mexico is going to pay for it!", well, like I said I think you're giving way too much credit to other people there.




"Negative GDP"... that would be a misspeak.


No I'm sorry my friend, that was no misspeak, he made the claim that it was ANNOUNCED, and using it as a deceptive talking point...I'll let him speak for himself





The individual mandate was what really upset me. There is something inherently un-American about requiring people to pay for a service because it benefits others to do so. We do have similar socialized institutions (municipal services, highways, schools, etc.) but those are paid for by taxes... not by using force of law to create a clientele for private business.

Couldn't agree more.



I use as an example the phrase: "They're sending murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and some, I assume, are good people." That is a true statement. There is documentation upon documentation that some of those coming across the border... actually a substantial portion of them... do indeed go on to murder or rape Americans, and many cross simply to traffic illegal and dangerous drugs. The rest are good, hard-working people that we should have sympathy for. But, in the public eye, that statement has been spun to emphasize the first three categories and minimize his mention of the last category. The result has been the accusation that Trump believes all illegal Mexican immigrants are felons, the opposite of what he said. And that accusation has been repeated over and over and over, at every conceivable opportunity, without one shred of supporting evidence to try and cement the allegation of racism.

Again, I agree that it was taken out of context, BUT, there was damn good reason for doing so...what I mean is, by emphasizing the negative connotations and leaving the positive almost as an afterthought. He has no real clue how to talk to ALL people, only those he believes can be easily swayed or those he believes will go out of their way to find it in the best possible light. If he truly wanted all people to process the statement in a positive light while still being accurate the better statement would have been "Don't get me wrong, an overwhelming majority of the people that filter in through the border are merely looking to enhance their lives and there is nothing wrong with that, however there DOES exist an element of the border jumpers that seem to want nothing more than to create chaos and hurt our citizens, and to that end we need to find a solution that is firm but fair to all" With a statement like that, he could have shot down ANY rebuke of his intent.

As you said though, we're moving dangerously close to off-topic so I'll likely try and refrain from too many other talking points myself lol



posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


Right. But I think you give too many other people credit for being aware enough to process fuzzy logic by way of context.

Language is mostly context. If someone cannot process context, that someone is simply unable to communicate effectively. Their lack of ability does not reflect on anyone except themselves.


No I'm sorry my friend, that was no misspeak, he made the claim that it was ANNOUNCED, and using it as a deceptive talking point...

It was either a misspeak or the truth... and so far as I know, we have not had a negative GDP since the metric existed.

Now, maybe Trump misunderstood what he was saying, or, as I suspect, he mistakenly left out the word "growth." In any case, what harm was done to any American citizen by his statement? No more than was done by Obama saying there are 57 states. I hold neither of those statements as intentional, or as malicious.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Language is mostly context. If someone cannot process context, that someone is simply unable to communicate effectively. Their lack of ability does not reflect on anyone except themselves.

Which is the point I was making, that Trump is simply unable to communicate effectively.


It was either a misspeak or the truth... and so far as I know, we have not had a negative GDP since the metric existed.

Now, maybe Trump misunderstood what he was saying, or, as I suspect, he mistakenly left out the word "growth."

He made this speech during the second quarter of 2015. It is neither the truth or a misspeak as, the real GDP ending 1st quarter 2015 was 16 trillion.
So that leaves us with misspeak. Misspeak or misrepresentation of facts? I don't think misspeak fits. Let's revisit the quote: "The last quarter, it was just announced, our gross domestic product -- a sign of strength, right? But not for us. It was below zero. Who ever heard of this? It's never below zero."
That makes it a bit worse, as it implies that our (now - he wasn't President when he made this speech) President is completely ignorant on how GDP works or is calculated. So I did some research...starting with the Bureau of Economic Analysis and first quarter 2015 did indeed show an annualized decrease of .7 percent.



National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product: First Quarter 2015 (Second Estimate)
Corporate Profits: First Quarter 2015 (Preliminary Estimate)
Real gross domestic product -- the value of the production of goods and services in the United
States, adjusted for price changes -- decreased at an annual rate of 0.7 percent in the first quarter of
2015, according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth
quarter, real GDP increased 2.2 percent.

So, I went back further, all the way to when the Government started tallying quarter-to-quarter change, which was 1947.
There were 42 times between 1947 and 1st quarter 2015 where GDP shrank on annualized seasonally adjusted basis. Two consecutive GDP decreases typically denotes a recession, of which there had been eleven in that same time frame.

So, does that make this a nested misspeak within a misspeak? Or should we come to a more occams razor conclusion that he is either lying OR simply doesn't know what he is talking about.
Either way you look at it, it was factually baseless.


In any case, what harm was done to any American citizen by his statement?

You think there is no harm in misrepresenting facts in an effort for private gain (the Presidency and getting people to vote for him) as not harmful? I would agree with you if he came out later and said "In a previous speech I said (stuff), but I was wrong so let me clear the air"...yet, seeing that he never did and never HAS since leaves one to believe that he just wants the deceit to continue, and that I absolutely find harmful in many ways.


edit on 5-8-2018 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2018 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


Which is the point I was making, that Trump is simply unable to communicate effectively.

LOL, funny how that works... I was referring to others not taking his context into account. The statement this thread was started over was a generalization to a rally of his base, and has been taken out of context. It was, admittedly, hyperbole used to make a point about the availability of photo IDs.

Context is the condition surrounding the speaker, not the situation surrounding the listener.


He made this speech during the second quarter of 2015. It is neither the truth or a misspeak as, the real GDP ending 1st quarter 2015 was 16 trillion.

Thank you for the context. I honestly had never heard this particular gaffe until you brought it up... I assumed context based on Trump's personality and observed tendencies.

Your finding that the GDP did indeed grow at a negative rate during that time reinforces my belief that Trump intended to refer to GDP growth. His additional statement that "it was never below zero" also indicates a lack of knowledge about GDP, as you say. Now, the question remains as to whether or not he was just confused, or if he really didn't understand GDP. I would say the former, as someone who could accomplish what he did in business surely has a good grasp on the purpose and importance of GDP.

In any case, yes, it is a misspeak. I doubt seriously that anyone who heard that gaffe was suddenly persuaded to vote for him, so there was no profit for him in making it. Anyone who might have cheered him on had likely already made up their mind to vote for him. Therefore, the maliciousness test fails and his statement falls short of being a lie as I defined a lie above. His statement is obviously not true. The only option left is a misspeak.

Again, let us compare that with Obama's malicious lie about keeping present healthcare. That statement was made during the time the ACA was under consideration. Someone hearing that could easily have thought, "As long as it doesn't affect my healthcare, I'm OK with this." There were, at that time, no hard facts to dispute Obama's statement. His statement caused Congressmen to have less opposition to the bill from their constituency, making it easier politically for them to vote for the ACA. There was profit from the statement, in the form of political expediency in achieving an agenda.


So, does that make this a nested misspeak within a misspeak? Or should we come to a more occams razor conclusion that he is either lying OR simply doesn't know what he is talking about.
Either way you look at it, it was factually baseless.

A nested misspeak? That's a new one for me. Does that equate to falsely stating something that was falsely stated?

But yes, I will agree his statement about the GDP was factually baseless. Obviously so.


You think there is no harm in misrepresenting facts in an effort for private gain (the Presidency and getting people to vote for him) as not harmful?

Again, I fail to see how such an obvious baseless statement could be construed as being conducive to obtaining votes from those who were not already solidly in the Trump camp. His intent was, obviously to me, to state that the economy sucked... and it did! But anyone who was contemplating whether or not Trump was able to repair our economic woes would have surely caught such an obvious inconsistency with facts. That would serve to decrease his chances for the Presidency, not improve them.


I would agree with you if he came out later and said "In a previous speech I said (stuff), but I was wrong so let me clear the air"...yet, seeing that he never did and never HAS since leaves one to believe that he just wants the deceit to continue, and that I absolutely find harmful in many ways.

I tend to think Trump probably felt it wasn't all that important. Had he apologized for his misstatement, the story of how he had no clue about the economy would have spread like wildfire. As it was, I never heard it. It was very early in the election season and I doubt many others were listening intently either. Sometimes the best thing to do when one makes a mistake is to simply shrug it off and pretend it never happened. Obama did the same thing with his misspeak of the number of states.

This contrasts greatly with Trump's recent gaffe of using "would" instead of "wouldn't." In that case, the media picked the story up and it was going to be a big deal no matter what. Trump in that case apologized and set the record straight... the best move politically under the circumstances, especially since it happened during a particularly sensitive situation and in a much more Presidential capacity than a campaign rally.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 30  31  32   >>

log in

join