CDZ As if anyone needs more evidence that Trump cannot be relied upon....transsexuals and bathrooms

[Pogo]

Why are you trying to dance away from the claim that it never happened?
I didn't vacillate on anything about David Duke. Rump did. As you already pointed out, he knew very well who David Duke was, years ago. Why did he suddenly "forget"?

Why indeed....

Senior moment, tired, tired of reporters bullshit, distracted by make up girl's big tits., who knows, who cares?

I know you don't care.

You just want to use it as an excuse to attack Trump.

"Racist vote"? lol!

Yyyyyyyeah um... he already got the racist vote. That was inherent in the Duke statement in the first place. As well as the quote in my sigline for another example.

Desperation noted.

I answered your question and you ignored that fact, showing that you didn't care about your question.

and NO, it's not inherent in the Duke Statement.

But thanks for revealing what this little exercise is all about. You think that just mentioning, over and over again that David Duke "endorsed" Trump that it supports the lie that Trump and his supporters are racist.

I've crossed no such bridge. Not here, not anywhere. Go check me. Matter of fact I've stated the opposite numerous times. YOU made that leap about "what it means" -- not me.

I simply pointed out that he can't get his story straight. Then when you denied that was true, I proved it. With a direct quote.

Your words.

" he already got the racist vote. That was inherent in the Duke statement "

If you believe that, then simply keeping the Duke Statement in play is a propaganda technique to smear Trump.

The actual debate or points made are irrelevant.

AH. So you don't believe either David Duke, or Steve McRacist in my sigline, are basing their conclusions on racism.
Whelp --- that tells us much in itself.

 

[Camp]

It cracks me up when Trumper's whine about lies. Trump is a habitual pathological liar. His campaign is based on lying and talking point lies. His lies are endless. From Trump steaks and vodka to Muslims dancing in the streets of New Jersey and hijackers flying their families and wives home befor the 9/11 attack and his being against the Iraq war before it started.

Nothing in your post addressed my point.

Sure it did. You were whining about the left and the media lying and I pointed out with examples that Trump is the real liar. I used specific examples to counter the point that you did not use any examples to substantiate your claim. Plus, I was not really trying to focus on your post, I was using it as an example of how Trumpers are delusional to the point of dishonesty.

Like I said, a counter accusation does not address my point about the media lying. Regardless of whether your accusation is true or not, it does not address whether my accusation is true or not.


And your childish and moronic "trumpers" nonsense is even less on point.

My point stands.


If what you claimed about Trump being liberal was true, we would see you and you leftist friends in the media easing up on your relentless lies.

Which we aren't and won't see.

What lies have the media and or what you call the left told about Trump?

Wanting to enforce Immigration laws being racist, or even worthy of being compared to Hitler is a big one.

That has been CONSTANT.

You are classifying subjective opinions as lies. I gave you specific provable lies told by Trump. Just because someone disagrees with an opinion doesn't make them a liar. Some people consider Trump a racist. They have an opinion.
BTW, Republicans were the ones who first began referring and comparing to Trump's ideas as fascist in nature. Comparisons to Hitler are, like the racist issue, subjective opinions, not lies.
Now you have to show a specific lie being promoted by the media. Surely there is one you can present and substantiate?

 

[JimH52]

Trump is a Lunatic. Not sure why we need to debate it.

 

[Correll]

Nothing in your post addressed my point.

Sure it did. You were whining about the left and the media lying and I pointed out with examples that Trump is the real liar. I used specific examples to counter the point that you did not use any examples to substantiate your claim. Plus, I was not really trying to focus on your post, I was using it as an example of how Trumpers are delusional to the point of dishonesty.

Like I said, a counter accusation does not address my point about the media lying. Regardless of whether your accusation is true or not, it does not address whether my accusation is true or not.


And your childish and moronic "trumpers" nonsense is even less on point.

My point stands.


If what you claimed about Trump being liberal was true, we would see you and you leftist friends in the media easing up on your relentless lies.

Which we aren't and won't see.

What lies have the media and or what you call the left told about Trump?

Wanting to enforce Immigration laws being racist, or even worthy of being compared to Hitler is a big one.

That has been CONSTANT.

What is racist about his proposed immigration policies? Be specific.

Like you're not familiar with this theme?

Don't play stupid games.

 

[Correll]

Senior moment, tired, tired of reporters bullshit, distracted by make up girl's big tits., who knows, who cares?

I know you don't care.

You just want to use it as an excuse to attack Trump.

"Racist vote"? lol!

Yyyyyyyeah um... he already got the racist vote. That was inherent in the Duke statement in the first place. As well as the quote in my sigline for another example.

Desperation noted.

I answered your question and you ignored that fact, showing that you didn't care about your question.

and NO, it's not inherent in the Duke Statement.

But thanks for revealing what this little exercise is all about. You think that just mentioning, over and over again that David Duke "endorsed" Trump that it supports the lie that Trump and his supporters are racist.

I've crossed no such bridge. Not here, not anywhere. Go check me. Matter of fact I've stated the opposite numerous times. YOU made that leap about "what it means" -- not me.

I simply pointed out that he can't get his story straight. Then when you denied that was true, I proved it. With a direct quote.

Your words.

" he already got the racist vote. That was inherent in the Duke statement "

If you believe that, then simply keeping the Duke Statement in play is a propaganda technique to smear Trump.

The actual debate or points made are irrelevant.

AH. So you don't believe either David Duke, or Steve McRacist in my sigline, are basing their conclusions on racism.
Whelp --- that tells us much in itself.

Nice Strawman.

Duke and Steve are irrelevant to Trump's support.

Their personal reasons for what they say is irrelevant to the larger issues.

You just want to keep saying Trump's name and David Duke together as a propaganda technique.

Your dishonest misrepresentation of what I said, supports my case that your intent is propaganda, not serious or honest debate.

 

[Correll]

Nothing in your post addressed my point.

Sure it did. You were whining about the left and the media lying and I pointed out with examples that Trump is the real liar. I used specific examples to counter the point that you did not use any examples to substantiate your claim. Plus, I was not really trying to focus on your post, I was using it as an example of how Trumpers are delusional to the point of dishonesty.

Like I said, a counter accusation does not address my point about the media lying. Regardless of whether your accusation is true or not, it does not address whether my accusation is true or not.


And your childish and moronic "trumpers" nonsense is even less on point.

My point stands.


If what you claimed about Trump being liberal was true, we would see you and you leftist friends in the media easing up on your relentless lies.

Which we aren't and won't see.

What lies have the media and or what you call the left told about Trump?

Wanting to enforce Immigration laws being racist, or even worthy of being compared to Hitler is a big one.

That has been CONSTANT.

You are classifying subjective opinions as lies. I gave you specific provable lies told by Trump. Just because someone disagrees with an opinion doesn't make them a liar. Some people consider Trump a racist. They have an opinion.
BTW, Republicans were the ones who first began referring and comparing to Trump's ideas as fascist in nature. Comparisons to Hitler are, like the racist issue, subjective opinions, not lies.
Now you have to show a specific lie being promoted by the media. Surely there is one you can present and substantiate?

COnsidering the inherent dishonesty in the use of propaganda, I am not inclined to be generous with the possibility that the "opinions" being offered by the media are sincere though moronic, subjective opinions.


NOt to mention the media's long history of being complete pieces of shit.

 

[Correll]

Trump is a Lunatic. Not sure why we need to debate it.

Trump is the best candidate for America. Only the foolish would disagree.

 

[JimH52]

He

Trump is a Lunatic. Not sure why we need to debate it.

Trump is the best candidate for America. Only the foolish would disagree.

He is a gift to the DNC. THANKS!

 

[Camp]

Sure it did. You were whining about the left and the media lying and I pointed out with examples that Trump is the real liar. I used specific examples to counter the point that you did not use any examples to substantiate your claim. Plus, I was not really trying to focus on your post, I was using it as an example of how Trumpers are delusional to the point of dishonesty.

Like I said, a counter accusation does not address my point about the media lying. Regardless of whether your accusation is true or not, it does not address whether my accusation is true or not.


And your childish and moronic "trumpers" nonsense is even less on point.

My point stands.


If what you claimed about Trump being liberal was true, we would see you and you leftist friends in the media easing up on your relentless lies.

Which we aren't and won't see.

What lies have the media and or what you call the left told about Trump?

Wanting to enforce Immigration laws being racist, or even worthy of being compared to Hitler is a big one.

That has been CONSTANT.

You are classifying subjective opinions as lies. I gave you specific provable lies told by Trump. Just because someone disagrees with an opinion doesn't make them a liar. Some people consider Trump a racist. They have an opinion.
BTW, Republicans were the ones who first began referring and comparing to Trump's ideas as fascist in nature. Comparisons to Hitler are, like the racist issue, subjective opinions, not lies.
Now you have to show a specific lie being promoted by the media. Surely there is one you can present and substantiate?

COnsidering the inherent dishonesty in the use of propaganda, I am not inclined to be generous with the possibility that the "opinions" being offered by the media are sincere though moronic, subjective opinions.


NOt to mention the media's long history of being complete pieces of shit.

So, after all the bluster, you are unable to make reference to a single lie about Trump being promoted by the media or the "left".

 

[Pogo]

Yyyyyyyeah um... he already got the racist vote. That was inherent in the Duke statement in the first place. As well as the quote in my sigline for another example.

Desperation noted.

I answered your question and you ignored that fact, showing that you didn't care about your question.

and NO, it's not inherent in the Duke Statement.

But thanks for revealing what this little exercise is all about. You think that just mentioning, over and over again that David Duke "endorsed" Trump that it supports the lie that Trump and his supporters are racist.

I've crossed no such bridge. Not here, not anywhere. Go check me. Matter of fact I've stated the opposite numerous times. YOU made that leap about "what it means" -- not me.

I simply pointed out that he can't get his story straight. Then when you denied that was true, I proved it. With a direct quote.

Your words.

" he already got the racist vote. That was inherent in the Duke statement "

If you believe that, then simply keeping the Duke Statement in play is a propaganda technique to smear Trump.

The actual debate or points made are irrelevant.

AH. So you don't believe either David Duke, or Steve McRacist in my sigline, are basing their conclusions on racism.
Whelp --- that tells us much in itself.

Nice Strawman.

Duke and Steve are irrelevant to Trump's support.

Their personal reasons for what they say is irrelevant to the larger issues.

You just want to keep saying Trump's name and David Duke together as a propaganda technique.

Your dishonest misrepresentation of what I said, supports my case that your intent is propaganda, not serious or honest debate.

Nice Strawman.

Duke and Steve are irrelevant to Trump's support.

Their personal reasons for what they say is irrelevant to the larger issues.

Balderdash. They are entirely relevant to the point you just questioned, to wit:

"Your words.

"he already got the racist vote. That was inherent in the Duke statement "

If you believe that, then simply keeping the Duke Statement in play is a propaganda technique to smear Trump.

The actual debate or points made are irrelevant."​

The question therein is, obviously, whether Rump has or has not secured the vote of racists. Both Duke's endorsement and the quote in my sigline affirm that he has.

That's got nothing to do directly with Rump -- those are opinions considered by Duke and by Steve McRacist. Rump is not responsible for other people's opinions. They are beyond his control.

What he IS responsible for is his own words. And when those words say one thing on day 1, then beg complete ignorance of the whole topic on day 2, then revert back to day 1's rhetoric on day 3 ---- well that's exactly what we're talking about here. The rhetorical movable chairs of a man grounded in no principles at all beyond which of the "best words" have the best emotional payoff in the moment.

You are the one keeping that ever-shifting statement "in play", since you denied that the shift even existed. I gave plenty of other examples, but this is the one you chose to deny the existence of.

 

[320 Years of History]

People....please get back on topic. You need to post comments focused on the topic and not just on what you feel like you want to say.

The thread topic is how reliable the body of Trump's own attestations and assurances, taken in total with regard to a given issue can and rightly should be used as a basis for voters to conclude they do or do not, can or cannot, expect his actions as President would be consistent with his words prior to becoming President.

• The thread is not a comparison of Trump's views or statements with someone else's.
• What anyone else says or said about Trump is irrelevant because they made the remarks, not Trump.

Quite simply, this thread is about whether the man can be trusted to adhere to the policy themes he's articulated, and if so, which ones, why and what makes you think so.

That means with regard to any and every topic, and to be on topic, your comments need to address (1) something Trump has said or done, and (2) address whether there is any basis for perceiving those statements/deeds as being reliably a basis for one's thinking that Trump's acts, deeds, approaches to policy making will be consistent with them.

Thus, for example, on racism, the topic is whether the man's comments, taken in total, should be accepted as an indicator of whether he is or is not a racist.

• If you think the man is a racist and you like that he is, on what basis do you think he'll continue to take racist stances?
• If you think the man is not a racist and you like that he is not a racist, on what basis do you think he'll refrain from taking racist stances?
• If you can't figure out whether the man is a racist and you think it's important to know, what are your thoughts about the fact that Trump hasn't provided information such that you can tell and draw a conclusion based upon what he's shared?

Whether the man is or is not a racist isn't the point of this thread.

As another example, whether Trump is or is not a narcissist, or how much of one he be, in his own right or in comparison to others, is not a relevant topic of discussion for this thread. On the other hand, if you can show that his narcissism somehow contributes to greater or lesser amounts of reliability for his actions, then by all means, make the case that that is so with regard to one more of his statements....But you must identify what the statement(s) that are made more or less reliable-upon in order to make your comments not be about the narcissism rather than the theme of the thread.

 

[Pogo]

So because he said stuff about individual women, he "hates" women?

Simpletons have a simple, black/white view of things. Trump's primary problem is that he is running as a Republican, which allows simpletons to hate. If a politician is a Republican, he/she is automatically accused of hating women, minorities, the poor, and wearing white after Labor Day. It's just what simpletons do.

The bottom line with this year's election is, it looks like we get a crap shoot with Trump or just plain crap with Hillary.

Actually it's drawn entirely from his own quotes, both during and before his"Republican" politicking. It's called "history". It's even drawn from a visual, as above. Doesn't even need sound.

You can be a total jerk and dislike a person with a characteristic, while simultaneously not hating all people with that characteristic. That would be like being accused of hating all white people because you don't like <fill in favorite white villain here>.

Sure. But if you did that the basis would be personal -- "he or she, personally by name, did X".

Serge Kovaleski, mocked in the video above, simply took issue with Rump's made-up story of a nonexistent TV report (in other words exposed him as a liar). That had nothing to do with his congenital joint disorder.

Carly Fiorina may either express policy differences with, or criticism of, Donald Rump, but that's her personal opinion -- it has nothing to do with what she looks like, and by implying it does he simply fuels this fake gender double standard, in lieu of thinking of a rational point on his own. Same thing with tweeting the cheesecake photo of Megyn Kelly, as if that has something to do with her calling him out on things he's actually said. Again, the fake gender double standard because he can't man up to find a rational point.

Then there's "black guys counting my money. I hate it. The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes all day". That's pretty much a blanket judgment on two types of people, specifying no one in particular.

No one denies that Trump uses stereotypes. They all do to one degree or another. The big leap is to then insist that he hates all the people that match those stereotypes. Does Hillary hate Wall Street power brokers because she lambastes "Wall Street", or does her cozy relationship with them belie her criticism?

Once again --- I said nothing at all about "hate". You're plugging that in. This has already been pointed out before.

 

[Pogo]

Whether the man is or is not a racist isn't the point of this thread.

Agree. The point of the Duke quotes is the consistency (i.e. lack thereof), not the content therein.

The comments themselves (either versions) give us no information on his actual racism, nor is that the question. The point is that they vacillate back and forth with the frequency of a cheap ham radio.

As another example, whether Trump is or is not a narcissist, or how much of one he be, in his own right or in comparison to others, is not a relevant topic of discussion for this thread. On the other hand, if you can show that his narcissism somehow contributes to greater or lesser amounts of reliability for his actions, then by all means, make the case that that is so with regard to one more of his statements....But you must identify what the statement(s) that are made more or less reliable-upon in order to make your comments not be about the narcissism rather than the theme of the thread.

I did exactly that, here:

The real source of his unattractiveness is not "nationalism" but "narcissism".
Narcissistic Personality Disorder in the clinical term. That makes him a liar, among other untrustworthy things.

A subject with NPD will say whatever it takes, regardless of veracity, for the purpose of self-aggrandizement, including outright denials of his own words. Watch how he melts down when somebody brings up his bankruptcies, or any other failures. Or just read the previous post.

You had made the same point earlier, post 76. And I agree that it's very relevant.

 

[320 Years of History]

So, here you have Trump taking a position consistent with liberal ideology, and the leftists are doing nothing but trashing him. I'd say that is about par for the course here.

1. I'm not a leftist or rightist. I'm one who observes, analyzes and comes to conclusions. I truly don't care whether the conclusion I come to suits the left or the right.
2. I'm not trashing Trump for his position. I'm stating that:
   • I don't know whether I can rely on it holding through any Presidential term he may win.
   • I don't see any reason to think any of his other positions will hold through any Presidential term he may win.
   • I don't see any reason anyone else should expect his positions will hold through any Presidential term he may win.
   • Because his positions change with the wind, I see no point in even getting to the stage wherein I put any effort into considering whatever they are at this moment.
   • Because of those four thoughts, I neither see good reasons why either party should put him on their ticket, nor do I see good reasons to vote for the man.
3. I'm saying that until Trump does "this or that" there's no reliable way to anticipate what he'll do. That's just not so with the other candidates and their positions on the issues.

 

[Pogo]

THe racist vote, at least among whites, is not a significant factor.

YOu keep saying "racists" as though they are a unified group.

They need not be "unified" in the sense of "organized". No one does for this purpose. To have the "racist" vote (or any other constituency) you need only to appeal to them with what they want to hear. In this case, Duke heard what he liked.

Is the rejection of Trump by those racists some BIG QUESTION, that you feel a need to discuss and to explore for reasons for their rejections?

This is your issue, not mine. I simply pointed out that Rump couldn't help himself from vacillating on the question. You insisted it never happened; I proved that it did, and we already did this anyway.

I gave you a list of possible reasons for his forgetfulness. You ignored them. YOu just want to keep the smear going.

It's a quote. I don't need a "smear". You just admitted it was a quote hunting around to find an excuse for him ("reasons for his forgetfulness"). When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is quit diggin'.

YOu are a dishonest propagandist.

 

[320 Years of History]

Another example of Trump's unreliability: the recent comments attesting to his becoming more "presidential." He's not stuck to that either.

 

[Correll]

Another example of Trump's unreliability: the recent comments attesting to his becoming more "presidential." He's not stuck to that either.

Sounds like pure Confirmation Bias.

 

[Coyote]

Folks, the topic isn't whether Trump is racist or not, nor is it the "racist vote" or transgender bathrooms. Since this is CDZ, we need to stick to the topic. I'll reiterate what the OP has stated:

The thread topic is how reliable the body of Trump's own attestations and assurances, taken in total with regard to a given issue can and rightly should be used as a basis for voters to conclude they do or do not, can or cannot, expect his actions as President would be consistent with his words prior to becoming President.

• The thread is not a comparison of Trump's views or statements with someone else's.
• What anyone else says or said about Trump is irrelevant because they made the remarks, not Trump.

Quite simply, this thread is about whether the man can be trusted to adhere to the policy themes he's articulated, and if so, which ones, why and what makes you think so.
​

Continued derailments could be met with thread bans.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I wish he had simply said " I believe private businesses can do as they wish with THEIR restrooms, if you don't agree with their policy, go use another restroom"

And nothing more on the subject.

 

[320 Years of History]

I wish he had simply said " I believe private businesses can do as they wish with THEIR restrooms, if you don't agree with their policy, go use another restroom"

And nothing more on the subject.

I get what you are saying, but strictly speaking, that approach opens the door to our reverting back to a social model similar to the "separate but equal" one we had until the late 1960s. I don't think that's a good thing at all. Regardless, he said what he said. The question remains: how long will that be his stance?