CDZ Again Trump relies on his supporters' ignorance, their keenness to believe him, to push his lies

[GaryDog]

One good thing about a Sander's revolution, all you would have to do is tell those people that a revolution is a job, an they woul all go home. LOL

Derp, derp, derp!

You're a total fucking idiot.

 

[Elvis Obama]

You can't tell your supporters to support the other guy in selected states. All you can do is telegraph that you wouldn't mind if they do.

Frankly, if one is a committed Cruz or Kasich supporter, one shouldn't have to be told. Common sense, or even observational sense gained from the early days of the GOP race, should have made it clear that the "anti-Trump" faction of the party should have coalesced around one person -- the one most likely to come closest to Trump -- rather than bifurcating the strength of their "anti-Trump" vote by voting for "their guy" who hadn't a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the nomination.

Why it is that it wasn't obvious, from the moment there were some 12+ people vying for the GOP nomination, that one needed to focus one's voting on voting against "someone" rather than for someone is beyond me. The electorate should have written off everyone except Mssrs. Trump, Cruz, Bush and Rubio from day one. By the end of January, it should have been clear that one either needed to vote for Trump because that's who one wanted or for Cruz to ensure that Trump didn't get the nomination if that's what one wanted.

The hope that any of the rest of the GOP candidates could have actually gotten the 1237 delegates needed to secure outright the nomination was pure folly. Then again, the GOP's members -- leadership and rank and file -- aren't strangers to folly of myriad sorts.

There is no possibility that the electorate could coordinate such an effort. How could they possibly all come to the same conclusion as to which "not Trump" candidate to coalesce behind? No, only the candidates themselves could have managed such a thing. In the old days you could have brokered something behind the scenes. Now, after Ronnie in 1976 and Kennedy in '80? Screw party loyalty. Everyone is in it for themselves. Neither Schultz nor Preibus could go to their people and say, drop out, do it for the party!

I still find Walker's early exit to be completely bewildering. What was his calculation? That the field was too crowded? That is was the year of the outsider? He came to this determination so early in the process. Trump was not the factor then that he is now. Yet he abandoned his bid because, he claimed, he wanted to set an example for others as to how to handle Trump. Certainly if they did it would have changed the dynamic of the race considerably. If Christie abandoned his bid, and Rubio and Bush and, and... wait a minute. Isn't that everybody? Doesn't someone have to stay in? And by so doing retain their chance of wining the nomination? And laugh up their sleeves at the chumps who dropped out?

No, everybody gets a pass on this one. The rise of Trump may be obvious in hindsight, but it certainly wasn't clear for a long time. The Republican field sucked. What argument could have been made to persuade anyone to drop out earlier? Look at my head-to-heads against Clinton. I'm the only one who could beat her. No, me, me, I'm a Bush! No, go Rubio, the cute Beatle tea-bagger! No, think Christie because... well, I'll get back to you on that one.

How can you convince someone to drop out for the good of the party when they are all thoroughly convinced that the exact opposite is true? That they are the only hope for salvation that the party has?

 

[320 Years of History]

How could they possibly all come to the same conclusion as to which "not Trump" candidate to coalesce behind? No, only the candidates themselves could have managed such a thing.

True, and the two who remain and attempted it have thoroughly mismanaged even that simple task, one that required absolutely nothing other than the collaboration of literally two people: Mr. Cruz and Mr. Kasich. Yet they think outlandishly they deserve our votes to assume a role that, among other things, requires one to collaborate with literally thousands of people. I'd sooner vote for my cat to be a sixth grade class president, to say nothing of POTUS, than either of them.

How can you convince someone to drop out for the good of the party when they are all thoroughly convinced that the exact opposite is true? That they are the only hope for salvation that the party has?

Ummm....psychiatric medication and psychotherapy, perhaps? LOL

 

[blackhawk]

What do you think Hillary and Bernie are relying on when they push their lies?

 

[320 Years of History]

What do you think Hillary and Bernie are relying on when they push their lies?

Look at the false statements made by the three and you tell me which of them fall into the category of lies, remarks that self aggrandizing misrepresent the truth and which can be seen as honest mistakes. I realize everyone will miscite something by mistake at various times.

People who speak on the record as often as do politicians can be given a bit of leeway on that count, even Trump. However look at the nature of Trump's false claims and then look at those made by Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton. It's there that one will see the difference. In looking that the remarks, ask yourself, "Would it or should it matter if the remark is factually true? Would I change (even marginally) my views were I first think the remark is true and later find out it is not? Might the rationale of any of one's thoughts about the "state of things" in any way depend on the verity of the remarks?"

I don't gripe about someone -- anyone's merely being mistaken, especially if they are and they retract/recant -- but I have a problem, a big one, with folks, especially politicians (newly minted or long term), making false statements, they use to bolster misconceptions held by people who aren't "in the know" on the details of a given issue and then using those falsehoods to support judgements they publicly articulate. (I also have a problem with people who aren't "in the know" having "loud" and strong opinions about an issue.)

Looking at the quantity (and thus frequency) of them -- honest mistakes or deliberate prevarications -- and there too one will find a huge difference. Given that to the extent anyone deliberately lies, of course, they necessarily rely on their audience's ignorance. In such situations wherein one is confronted with the unenviable task of choosing the "best of the worst," it's the nature and quantity of lies that distinguishes the liars; the fewer lies, the better.

• Bernie Sanders's file | PolitiFact
  
• Hillary Clinton's file | PolitiFact
  
• Donald Trump's file | PolitiFact

 

[blackhawk]

What do you think Hillary and Bernie are relying on when they push their lies?

Look at the false statements made by the three and you tell me which of them fall into the category of lies, remarks that self aggrandizing misrepresent the truth and which can be seen as honest mistakes. I realize everyone will miscite something by mistake at various times.

People who speak on the record as often as do politicians can be given a bit of leeway on that count, even Trump. However look at the nature of Trump's false claims and then look at those made by Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton. It's there that one will see the difference. In looking that the remarks, ask yourself, "Would it or should it matter if the remark is factually true? Would I change (even marginally) my views were I first think the remark is true and later find out it is not? Might the rationale of any of one's thoughts about the "state of things" in any way depend on the verity of the remarks?"

I don't gripe about someone -- anyone's merely being mistaken, especially if they are and they retract/recant -- but I have a problem, a big one, with folks, especially politicians (newly minted or long term), making false statements, they use to bolster misconceptions held by people who aren't "in the know" on the details of a given issue and then using those falsehoods to support judgements they publicly articulate. (I also have a problem with people who aren't "in the know" having "loud" and strong opinions about an issue.)

Looking at the quantity (and thus frequency) of them -- honest mistakes or deliberate prevarications -- and there too one will find a huge difference. Given that to the extent anyone deliberately lies, of course, they necessarily rely on their audience's ignorance. In such situations wherein one is confronted with the unenviable task of choosing the "best of the worst," it's the nature and quantity of lies that distinguishes the liars; the fewer lies, the better.

• Bernie Sanders's file | PolitiFact
  
• Hillary Clinton's file | PolitiFact
  
• Donald Trump's file | PolitiFact

Thats a lot of typing to say absolutely nothing all politicans lie this didn't start with Trump and it won't end with him. Peoples tolerance for politicians lies depends on much they support them If your a Trump, Sanders, or Clinton backer their lies don't matter to you if your not they do.

 

[320 Years of History]

If your [sic] a Trump, Sanders, or Clinton backer their lies don't matter to you if your not they do.

Well, I'm not keen on any of the available choices, so calling me a supporter of any of them is just wrong from square one. I classify myself as having this time round to choose the least poor of the choices given. I'll pick one, and it won't be Trump -- because integrity matters to me more than anything else -- but that's about it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Truly, I don't think I can ever recall a time when either party had as its potential leader what amounts to, as the GOP has now, rule by "three blind mice." I'm an Independent, but I have to think that any rationally thinking/driven Republican has to be thoroughly embarrassed by the remaining choices s/he has available this election cycle: a consummate prevaricator and two buffoons. Jesus H. Christ!

Can't argue with any of this.

But the last two buffoons in the WH have pretty much lied their way in.