Captain Obvious wrote: » He has flip flopped again on Russia now calling it a hoax. It must be stressful being one of his spin machines.https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021158915206152193
Christy42 wrote: » Are we again going with he is saying what I want him to have said? Seriously are they rapists? Even the majority of illegal immigrants? This is what the claim is. Is this what you agree with? As for Helsinki being a misspeak. I have a bridge I can sell. He got back and was told in no uncertain terms he was a naughty boy by the Republicans and he went out and made a politicians excuse. I mean this is the same man who has repeatedly fought the accusation that Russia meddled, fought sanctions and declared he would have proof (found by " his people") in a matter of weeks (I am still waiting on that). Are we to be shocked he said the same thing again? Especially while next to Putin given he has a tendency to back down face to face.
ELM327 wrote: » Christy42 wrote: » Are we again going with he is saying what I want him to have said? No, we are reading what was written. Christy42 wrote: » Seriously are they rapists? Even the majority of illegal immigrants? This is what the claim is. Is this what you agree with?. The claim that I agreed with was contained in the post I quoted, and this is what I agree with Seamus wrote: Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable. Christy42 wrote: » As for Helsinki being a misspeak. I have a bridge I can sell. He got back and was told in no uncertain terms he was a naughty boy by the Republicans and he went out and made a politicians excuse. I mean this is the same man who has repeatedly fought the accusation that Russia meddled, fought sanctions and declared he would have proof (found by " his people") in a matter of weeks (I am still waiting on that). Are we to be shocked he said the same thing again? Especially while next to Putin given he has a tendency to back down face to face. Is this kindergarten?
Christy42 wrote: » Are we again going with he is saying what I want him to have said?
Christy42 wrote: » Seriously are they rapists? Even the majority of illegal immigrants? This is what the claim is. Is this what you agree with?.
Seamus wrote: Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable.
Christy42 wrote: » As for Helsinki being a misspeak. I have a bridge I can sell. He got back and was told in no uncertain terms he was a naughty boy by the Republicans and he went out and made a politicians excuse. I mean this is the same man who has repeatedly fought the accusation that Russia meddled, fought sanctions and declared he would have proof (found by " his people") in a matter of weeks (I am still waiting on that). Are we to be shocked he said the same thing again? Especially while next to Putin given he has a tendency to back down face to face.
Christy42 wrote: » Come on. Is that the response as to why you believe the serial liar misspoke when stating a position he has previously stated?There is no reason to believe he misspoke. The speech was not of an accusatory tone towards Putin to begin with. He only stated it was a mistake when he saw how badly it went down even amongst conservatives. He was next to Putin making it harder to criticize Putin, he has previously stated his belief (and his disbelief to be fair) of the Russian position. As an aside remember in the campaign when his handlers took away his phone. Can we go back to that please? I would rather he didn't try and steer the US towards another middle east war via Twitter.
ELM327 wrote: » Christy42 wrote: » Come on. Is that the response as to why you believe the serial liar misspoke when stating a position he has previously stated?There is no reason to believe he misspoke. The speech was not of an accusatory tone towards Putin to begin with. He only stated it was a mistake when he saw how badly it went down even amongst conservatives. He was next to Putin making it harder to criticize Putin, he has previously stated his belief (and his disbelief to be fair) of the Russian position. As an aside remember in the campaign when his handlers took away his phone. Can we go back to that please? I would rather he didn't try and steer the US towards another middle east war via Twitter. We've been over this. That is not, nor has ever been, my belief. PS: I have italicised the unnecessary condescension that many liberals use when discussing the US President. When you wonder where the conservative notion that people "think it's not ok to be conservative anymore" comes from - this is a good example. EDIT: Italics don't seem to work in quoted posts, I have underlined instead
ELM327 wrote: » We've been over this. That is not, nor has ever been, my belief. PS: I have italicised the unnecessary condescension that many liberals use when discussing the US President.
Cookie_Monster wrote: » how is it condescension when it is verifiably true? He lies non stop, 69% of recent statements noted as mostly or completely false...http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
ELM327 wrote: » We've been over this. That is not, nor has ever been, my belief. PS: I have italicised the unnecessary condescension that many liberals use when discussing the US President. When you wonder where the conservative notion that people "think it's not ok to be conservative anymore" comes from - this is a good example. EDIT: Italics don't seem to work in quoted posts, I have underlined instead
kunst nugget wrote: » That scorecard adds up to 101%
Leroy42 wrote: » Why is he even stating these things on Twitter? There are channels for this, the UN, diplomats, the Israelies. Does he really think that making these announcements on Twitter is sending a message to the (in this case) Iranians?
Quin_Dub wrote: » Leroy42 wrote: » Why is he even stating these things on Twitter? There are channels for this, the UN, diplomats, the Israelies. Does he really think that making these announcements on Twitter is sending a message to the (in this case) Iranians? No - It's sending a message to his base. His tough guy image has taken a beating this week with the fall-out from Helsinki so he needs to try to re-establish that , he can't throw out a "little rocket man" tweet so he goes after Iran.. He's saying "I'm still the Alpha , I'm a hard man"
Leroy42 wrote: » Why is he even stating these things on Twitter? There are channels for this, the UN, diplomats, the Israelies. Does he really think that making these announcements on Twitter is sending a message to the (in this case) Iranians? It comes across as being rattled, and clearly points to a WH that is not working on a integrated agenda. Now, a fully focused US is able to take out whomever and whereever they want. But a divided one? Is the military on board? Has congress agreed to this? And you can bet the likes of Iran will play off these inconsistencies. They, like Russia, would like nothing more than a divided US. A POTUS out on his own. And the one thing that Iran clearly have over the US is that the Iran regime is far more prepared for the human cost of a war. They have shown in the Iran/Iraq war that they would hunker down of the long term. So the US would need a swift and decisive victory, which again they have shown themselves to be incapable of achieving. Are the US citizens really prepared to put up with years of war like Vietnam? They are still stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, imaging the blow-back is thousands of soldiers start coming back in body bags?
Quin_Dub wrote: » No - It's sending a message to his base. His tough guy image has taken a beating this week with the fall-out from Helsinki so he needs to try to re-establish that , he can't throw out a "little rocket man" tweet so he goes after Iran.. He's saying "I'm still the Alpha , I'm a hard man"
kilns wrote: » And he is trying to re-direct the media narrative, away from the latest sh1tstorm
pixelburp wrote: » Your first mistake is the presumption that President Trump knows, or cares to know, about diplomatic (back) channels or procedure. I genuinely believe Trump is simply too lazy or set in his ways to look into how one rattles cages in the diplomatic world, and presumes that he can rule the roost like he did as a CEO. And with the WH haemorrhaging staff at a constant rate, there's no one there to tell him how things are done (not that he'd listen given they can't get him NOT to tear up the for-preservation documents). Diplomats have had to placate the man every time he throws a huff, I can see why it's easier to just let him Tweet. Plus his base laps up all this "tough talk", and there's no sign said base has demanded any followthrough. Most paper tigers are found out pretty quickly, yet Trump's somehow coasting on ... whatever spell he has weaved. Normal politicians by now would have been destroyed after failing to even get 'the Wall' started, yet here we are.
The sheer ordinariness of Trump’s coalition is impossible to overstate. Data from the show that more than 80% of his votes came from men and women who voted for Republican nominee Mitt Romney just four years before. This group contains the usual suspects among American Republicans: tax-cut advocates, religious evangelicals and Catholics, gun rights supporters and business types eager for deregulation. Trump has made sure to give each faction what they most desire just like any good politician would. That keeps them in his camp even as the media flays him with each supposed transgression.
Evangelicals are a case in point. My work on Republican factions, contained in the book I co-authored with professor Dante Scala, The Four Faces of the Republican Party, found that very conservative voters who highly value social issues comprise about 25% of the party. These voters today are very afraid that liberal and progressive judges will slowly circumscribe their ability to practice their religion in their daily lives. They tended not to support Trump during the primaries, instead backing Texas senator Ted Cruz. Their support for Trump now is highly transactional: so long as he nominates the judges they think will protect their beliefs and way of life, they will overlook virtually anything else he says or does. The recent nomination of Brett Kavanagh to the supreme court thus solidified their support, as social conservatives believe he is much likelier to back their views than the man he is replacing, Anthony Kennedy. They might be troubled by other things he says or does, but so long as he keeps his end of the bargain on their priority they will swallow hard and stick with their man.
kilns wrote: » Are you stating the current President of the United States is not a serial liar?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » lol. Do you have any evidence of this? It's borderline gossiping at this stage.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » What? Sure I have discussed his comments in Helsinki at length. It's preposterous to suggest that anything he said amounts to him having sided with a hostile foreign power over his own government. You can all repeat it over and over again as much as you like, and back slap one another's posts while you're at it, but it won't make it true. But it's Trump, one of the most inarticulate politicians in history, and so you're gonna have ample opportunities to make huge leaps from minor misspeaks.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Interesting Article in the Guardian about the nature of the Trump "base".
Quin_Dub wrote: » t says something that I have felt for a long time , that simply saying "Look at how awful he is" is not sufficient to change voters minds for the Democrats. The disfunctional nature of the US 2 party system means that for a huge number of voters the choices are "Vote for your side or just don't vote" particularly in Presidential elections.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » It wouldn't just be California, Oregon and Washington would almost certainly vote to go along with them
ELM327 wrote: » He's a populist. He plays to his voter base. That voter base loved the tears of the liberals when their hero sanders lost to hillary who then lost to Trump. Show me an honest politician and I'll show you a dry sea, an airbourne fish and a circular square.
ELM327 wrote: » He's a populist. He plays to his voter base. That voter base loved the tears of the liberals when their hero sanders lost to hillary who then lost to Trump.
ELM327 wrote: » Show me an honest politician and I'll show you a dry sea, an airbourne fish and a circular square.
ELM327 wrote: » I don't see anyone that will challenge Trump successfully for 2020. Sanders could run again I suppose but he lost to Hillary so he's unlikely to beat Trump. Middle America has a fear of anything socialist. Is there a democrat in waiting for 2020?
ELM327 wrote: » Thats an interesting article. Regardless of how "awful he is"I don't see anyone that will challenge Trump successfully for 2020. Sanders could run again I suppose but he lost to Hillary so he's unlikely to beat Trump. Middle America has a fear of anything socialist. Is there a democrat in waiting for 2020?
The 2016 exit poll showed that Trump won because he decisively beat Clinton among the 18% of Americans who did not like either candidate. These voters tended to be suburban, college-educated, Republican-leaning men. These “reluctant Trump voters” were undecided until the very end of the race, but ultimately decided that the devil whose policies they liked was better than the devil whose policies they didn’t. Democrats have done nothing since Trump’s election to reduce these feelings. On issue after issue the Democratic party has moved to the left, catering to a progressive base outraged at Trump’s election and seething at how the Democratic establishment foisted a fatally flawed candidate upon them. The latest progressive cause célèbre is for eliminating America’s border enforcement agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice). One can be outraged at how Trump is enforcing America’s immigration laws without thinking that eliminating all border enforcement is a good idea. An idea like this keeps Republicans united in their support for Trump as it clearly shows how unacceptable the alternative is.
“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached a point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and nothing was true….The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting their leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness”.
