Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The thought that you are not capable of entertaining, is why Trump is winning the GOP nomination. You are clueless.I've never entertained the thought that the objective of a Presidential election is to make sure that a bloated egomaniacal narcissist gets his "win" wank. I'm not even capable of entertaining that thought.
Over and over again, I keep hearing folks talk about what they like about Trump. Invariably, it has something to do with ending the corruption in Washington, or because isn't beholden to the monied interests that control the political process. Truly, I would love to have a candidate who wants to effect an end, or at least greatly reduce the prevalence of those those things, and frankly, I would stomach putting up with a degree of ills to obtain those things. But he's why I just cannot and won't support Donald Trump.
If the man's mouth is open, he's either eating, snoring or lying!
- True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
- True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
- Clinton -- 88 out of 172
- Sanders -- 38 out of 75
- Pants on Fire: 0
- False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")
Look at those figures! Only 8% of everything Trump has said publicly since he began to run for President is true or mostly true! That means 92% of what he says is mostly false, false, or worse than false! 92%!!! What's "worse than false" (pants on fire) in the context of political discourse? Fictional. Made up, so much so that were it presented as the dialogue of a television show or movie, the producers would have to put in a disclaimer saying the events, statements and situations depicted are not meant to refer to any actual events or persons.
My ~90 year old mother suffers from dementia. When she says something, its as likely as not to be accurate. Even so, that means even her age addled and diseased brain can muster the truth out of her mouth 50% of the time.
Think of every single person whom you know and would not trust any farther than you can throw them. Do any of them lie that much? Do any of them misrepresent the truth less than that? If you answer "no" and "yes," respectively, to those two questions, then please tell me why the hell you don't trust them but you have even the most miniscule measure of trust/belief in what Donald Trump says?
What has Donald Trump said that's true? "My name is Donald Trump and I'm running for President." That's about it.
What can one say? Fiery pants COULD BE ignorance of the topics.. But if the adled elderly rate a 50% on the truth-o-meter -- then there IS SOMETHING else afoot. I'll vote for intentional pandering to faulty populist memes.
That's it really. Telling folks what they WANT to hear. All the BS that should not be mentioned. That's why the Trump political brand comes with a mirror.. So you can impress your own _________________ views on him with his tacit approval..
Isn't that populist campaigns end up to be? I mean without all the P.T. Barnum sideshows that this one keeps giving..
So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??
CK gets what I mean.
Oh heck Pogo -- don't bring "my boss" into this !!!!I have no idea what the conceited con-man O'Reilly thinks. But it could be --- by accident --- that I agree with him. In fact --- I think the Trump minions are gonna HATE his "deals" and his "people" within MONTHS of seeing the government operated like a corporate sponsored reality show...
-- but I always spell C_K's name with the underscore.You should hook up with some "reasonable Conservatives".. They're not all bad. Go listen to Tom Sullivan radio show on-line for a bit. You might end up OK...
So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??
CK gets what I mean.
Who cares if it's what folks want to hear or not? The thing that matters is that so much of it simply isn't true!
Surely you've heard the saying "Ask me no questions; I'll tell you no lies?" With Trump one doesn't even need to ask a question.
Elsewhere on USMB I got into a discussion about Mr. Sanders' remark about Trump being a pathological liar. The discussion centered around the distinction between the lay and clinical meanings of that term. At the time, I hadn't checked to see just how much of what the various candidates have said that is in fact true. Upon doing so and finding that 92% of what Trump says isn't at least mostly true, I can only ask, "Does it really take a trained clinician to tell that the man is indeed a pathological liar?"
That clip is an interesting breakdown of what rhetoric means, specifically around the 3 minute mark --- O'Really is saying, as Krauthammer notes, that killing innocent civilians, shutting down the First Amendment, building a wall, etc etc etc, are all just "words" that have no meaning and are only there to punch emotional buttons to get elected.
True enough, but what does that mean? It means in effect that campaign statements --- if not words themselves --- have no meaning, and therefore that the populace is expected to vote not on the basis of who has the policies they like, but who pressed their emotional buttons.
And that's descending into some kind of prehuman animal species. Which is of course what we've seen manifest lately. And it's also what happened to Germany in the 1930s. O'Really seems to think words with no meaning are somehow OK if the end result is "winning".
I've never entertained the thought that the objective of a Presidential election is to make sure that a bloated egomaniacal narcissist gets his "win" wank. I'm not even capable of entertaining that thought.
So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??
CK gets what I mean.
Who cares if it's what folks want to hear or not? The thing that matters is that so much of it simply isn't true!
Surely you've heard the saying "Ask me no questions; I'll tell you no lies?" With Trump one doesn't even need to ask a question.
Elsewhere on USMB I got into a discussion about Mr. Sanders' remark about Trump being a pathological liar. The discussion centered around the distinction between the lay and clinical meanings of that term. At the time, I hadn't checked to see just how much of what the various candidates have said that is in fact true. Upon doing so and finding that 92% of what Trump says isn't at least mostly true, I can only ask, "Does it really take a trained clinician to tell that the man is indeed a pathological liar?"
That clip is an interesting breakdown of what rhetoric means, specifically around the 3 minute mark --- O'Really is saying, as Krauthammer notes, that killing innocent civilians, shutting down the First Amendment, building a wall, etc etc etc, are all just "words" that have no meaning and are only there to punch emotional buttons to get elected.
True enough, but what does that mean? It means in effect that campaign statements --- if not words themselves --- have no meaning, and therefore that the populace is expected to vote not on the basis of who has the policies they like, but who pressed their emotional buttons.
And that's descending into some kind of prehuman animal species. Which is of course what we've seen manifest lately. And it's also what happened to Germany in the 1930s. O'Really seems to think words with no meaning are somehow OK if the end result is "winning".
I've never entertained the thought that the objective of a Presidential election is to make sure that a bloated egomaniacal narcissist gets his "win" wank. I'm not even capable of entertaining that thought.
I've never entertained the thought that the objective of a Presidential election is to make sure that a bloated egomaniacal narcissist gets his "win" wank. I'm not even capable of entertaining that thought.
The thought that you are not capable of entertaining, is why Trump is winning the GOP nomination. You are clueless.
Can you give an example of something Trump ever said that was untrue ? (forget Politifact, they're a joke)You don't think Krauthammer is the voice of reason here?
Actually that's the same question as in the bullet points.
Now if there just was some way for what you've said to be verified, something really could be established.Trump is winning the GOP nomination because he figured he couldn't win the Dem nomination,. That's about it really. He's not interested in a smaller more effective govt within Constitutional bounds. He intends to USE all that power to COERCE people and corporations and countries into his idea of "a deal"... That's gonna smell up the GOP brand for a couple Centuries. Look for the footnotes on their demise in your next History textbook. .
I LIKE populism actually. When it's based on a traceable and recognized political philosophy. What you're buying is a blank check for an egomaniac..
Can you as one of those forum posters, provide a shred of evidence to base your comments on, to show what is "factual reality". ?You don't think Krauthammer is the voice of reason here?
Actually that's the same question as in the bullet points.
- Can candidates (or forum posters) (or anyone) simply deny factual reality in favor of "what feels good"?
So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??
CK gets what I mean.
Who cares if it's what folks want to hear or not? The thing that matters is that so much of it simply isn't true!
Surely you've heard the saying "Ask me no questions; I'll tell you no lies?" With Trump one doesn't even need to ask a question.
Elsewhere on USMB I got into a discussion about Mr. Sanders' remark about Trump being a pathological liar. The discussion centered around the distinction between the lay and clinical meanings of that term. At the time, I hadn't checked to see just how much of what the various candidates have said that is in fact true. Upon doing so and finding that 92% of what Trump says isn't at least mostly true, I can only ask, "Does it really take a trained clinician to tell that the man is indeed a pathological liar?"
That clip is an interesting breakdown of what rhetoric means, specifically around the 3 minute mark --- O'Really is saying, as Krauthammer notes, that killing innocent civilians, shutting down the First Amendment, building a wall, etc etc etc, are all just "words" that have no meaning and are only there to punch emotional buttons to get elected.
True enough, but what does that mean? It means in effect that campaign statements --- if not words themselves --- have no meaning, and therefore that the populace is expected to vote not on the basis of who has the policies they like, but who pressed their emotional buttons.
And that's descending into some kind of prehuman animal species. Which is of course what we've seen manifest lately. And it's also what happened to Germany in the 1930s. O'Really seems to think words with no meaning are somehow OK if the end result is "winning".
I've never entertained the thought that the objective of a Presidential election is to make sure that a bloated egomaniacal narcissist gets his "win" wank. I'm not even capable of entertaining that thought.
So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??
CK gets what I mean.
Who cares if it's what folks want to hear or not? The thing that matters is that so much of it simply isn't true!
Surely you've heard the saying "Ask me no questions; I'll tell you no lies?" With Trump one doesn't even need to ask a question.
Elsewhere on USMB I got into a discussion about Mr. Sanders' remark about Trump being a pathological liar. The discussion centered around the distinction between the lay and clinical meanings of that term. At the time, I hadn't checked to see just how much of what the various candidates have said that is in fact true. Upon doing so and finding that 92% of what Trump says isn't at least mostly true, I can only ask, "Does it really take a trained clinician to tell that the man is indeed a pathological liar?"
That clip is an interesting breakdown of what rhetoric means, specifically around the 3 minute mark --- O'Really is saying, as Krauthammer notes, that killing innocent civilians, shutting down the First Amendment, building a wall, etc etc etc, are all just "words" that have no meaning and are only there to punch emotional buttons to get elected.
True enough, but what does that mean? It means in effect that campaign statements --- if not words themselves --- have no meaning, and therefore that the populace is expected to vote not on the basis of who has the policies they like, but who pressed their emotional buttons.
And that's descending into some kind of prehuman animal species. Which is of course what we've seen manifest lately. And it's also what happened to Germany in the 1930s. O'Really seems to think words with no meaning are somehow OK if the end result is "winning".
I've never entertained the thought that the objective of a Presidential election is to make sure that a bloated egomaniacal narcissist gets his "win" wank. I'm not even capable of entertaining that thought.
It was inevitable that stifling speech political correctness and a long painful history of dysfunctional govt would lead to party strife. Its not JUST the meaning of words at issue. It's CREDIBILITY.
When bills are named just the OPPOSITE of their intent (Patriot Act), When every f-ing number PRODUCED by the govt is sheer manipulated BS (employment/economic indexes, budget, global warming stats, immigration stats) When every congressional hearing is STYMIED by a bureaucracy that no longer submits to oversight. When the same power whore retreads are selected by the 2 parties to be coronated. When only 5 people REALLY run the government because of "party rules" (the Prez, and the 4 majority/minority leaders in Congress)
-------------------------------------- then the American people no longer CARE about words.
In the 2 party system today. there are about 530 TOTALLY POWERLESS INEPT Congress critters doing absolutely nothing. Because NOTHING on the Hill moves if the 4 party bosses don't like it. It's broke. And people are looking for the Bull in the China shop... It was inevitable.....
Over and over again, I keep hearing folks talk about what they like about Trump. Invariably, it has something to do with ending the corruption in Washington, or because isn't beholden to the monied interests that control the political process. Truly, I would love to have a candidate who wants to effect an end, or at least greatly reduce the prevalence of those those things, and frankly, I would stomach putting up with a degree of ills to obtain those things. But he's why I just cannot and won't support Donald Trump.
If the man's mouth is open, he's either eating, snoring or lying!
- True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
- True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
- Clinton -- 88 out of 172
- Sanders -- 38 out of 75
- Pants on Fire: 0
- False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")
Look at those figures! Only 8% of everything Trump has said publicly since he began to run for President is true or mostly true! That means 92% of what he says is mostly false, false, or worse than false! 92%!!! What's "worse than false" (pants on fire) in the context of political discourse? Fictional. Made up, so much so that were it presented as the dialogue of a television show or movie, the producers would have to put in a disclaimer saying the events, statements and situations depicted are not meant to refer to any actual events or persons.
My ~90 year old mother suffers from dementia. When she says something, its as likely as not to be accurate. Even so, that means even her age addled and diseased brain can muster the truth out of her mouth 50% of the time.
Think of every single person whom you know and would not trust any farther than you can throw them. Do any of them lie that much? Do any of them misrepresent the truth less than that? If you answer "no" and "yes," respectively, to those two questions, then please tell me why the hell you don't trust them but you have even the most miniscule measure of trust/belief in what Donald Trump says?
What has Donald Trump said that's true? "My name is Donald Trump and I'm running for President." That's about it.
What can one say? Fiery pants COULD BE ignorance of the topics.. But if the adled elderly rate a 50% on the truth-o-meter -- then there IS SOMETHING else afoot. I'll vote for intentional pandering to faulty populist memes.
That's it really. Telling folks what they WANT to hear. All the BS that should not be mentioned. That's why the Trump political brand comes with a mirror.. So you can impress your own _________________ views on him with his tacit approval..
Isn't that populist campaigns end up to be? I mean without all the P.T. Barnum sideshows that this one keeps giving..
So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??
CK gets what I mean.
Oh heck Pogo -- don't bring "my boss" into this !!!!
Yeah I called him "CK" deliberately
What "will happen" down the road, after the electoral decision has been made, is irrelevant to this.
That clip, I just had it handy, brings up some salient points about the nature of rhetoric. Check out what they're discussing around that 3 minute mark (and the whole clip in general). To wit:
If words do not have meaning, if "truth" and "facts" have no meaning, then --- of what use is language at all? If candidates cannot be responsible for what they say then ---- who IS?
- Do words have meaning, or do they not?
- Can Rump (or anyone) simply say whatever gets an emotional reaction, with no regard to whether it's true --- and not be responsible for their untruth?
- Should a candidate not be held accountable for what he says, simply because "he's just saying that to get elected"? Should he/she not be pressed to articulate what his plans actually (in the real world) ARE?
- Can candidates (or forum posters) (or anyone) simply deny factual reality in favor of "what feels good"?
You should hook up with some "reasonable Conservatives".. They're not all bad. Go listen to Tom Sullivan radio show on-line for a bit. You might end up OK...
You don't think Krauthammer is the voice of reason here?
Actually that's the same question as in the bullet points.
Over and over again, I keep hearing folks talk about what they like about Trump. Invariably, it has something to do with ending the corruption in Washington, or because isn't beholden to the monied interests that control the political process. Truly, I would love to have a candidate who wants to effect an end, or at least greatly reduce the prevalence of those those things, and frankly, I would stomach putting up with a degree of ills to obtain those things. But he's why I just cannot and won't support Donald Trump.
If the man's mouth is open, he's either eating, snoring or lying!
- True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
- True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
- Clinton -- 88 out of 172
- Sanders -- 38 out of 75
- Pants on Fire: 0
- False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")
Look at those figures! Only 8% of everything Trump has said publicly since he began to run for President is true or mostly true! That means 92% of what he says is mostly false, false, or worse than false! 92%!!! What's "worse than false" (pants on fire) in the context of political discourse? Fictional. Made up, so much so that were it presented as the dialogue of a television show or movie, the producers would have to put in a disclaimer saying the events, statements and situations depicted are not meant to refer to any actual events or persons.
My ~90 year old mother suffers from dementia. When she says something, its as likely as not to be accurate. Even so, that means even her age addled and diseased brain can muster the truth out of her mouth 50% of the time.
Think of every single person whom you know and would not trust any farther than you can throw them. Do any of them lie that much? Do any of them misrepresent the truth less than that? If you answer "no" and "yes," respectively, to those two questions, then please tell me why the hell you don't trust them but you have even the most miniscule measure of trust/belief in what Donald Trump says?
What has Donald Trump said that's true? "My name is Donald Trump and I'm running for President." That's about it.
What can one say? Fiery pants COULD BE ignorance of the topics.. But if the adled elderly rate a 50% on the truth-o-meter -- then there IS SOMETHING else afoot. I'll vote for intentional pandering to faulty populist memes.
That's it really. Telling folks what they WANT to hear. All the BS that should not be mentioned. That's why the Trump political brand comes with a mirror.. So you can impress your own _________________ views on him with his tacit approval..
Isn't that populist campaigns end up to be? I mean without all the P.T. Barnum sideshows that this one keeps giving..
So you're taking the Bill O'Reilly Weasel line? Declaring "Rump's telling people what they want to hear, appealing to emotions" (yeah no shit) --- and.... that's it??
CK gets what I mean.
Oh heck Pogo -- don't bring "my boss" into this !!!!
Yeah I called him "CK" deliberately
What "will happen" down the road, after the electoral decision has been made, is irrelevant to this.
That clip, I just had it handy, brings up some salient points about the nature of rhetoric. Check out what they're discussing around that 3 minute mark (and the whole clip in general). To wit:
If words do not have meaning, if "truth" and "facts" have no meaning, then --- of what use is language at all? If candidates cannot be responsible for what they say then ---- who IS?
- Do words have meaning, or do they not?
- Can Rump (or anyone) simply say whatever gets an emotional reaction, with no regard to whether it's true --- and not be responsible for their untruth?
- Should a candidate not be held accountable for what he says, simply because "he's just saying that to get elected"? Should he/she not be pressed to articulate what his plans actually (in the real world) ARE?
- Can candidates (or forum posters) (or anyone) simply deny factual reality in favor of "what feels good"?
You should hook up with some "reasonable Conservatives".. They're not all bad. Go listen to Tom Sullivan radio show on-line for a bit. You might end up OK...
You don't think Krauthammer is the voice of reason here?
Actually that's the same question as in the bullet points.
Krauthammer is always completely rational. Not always right -- but it's the rare talking head worth focusing on his every word..
OTH -- Trump DOES have a point... When you make GREAT DEALS -- you don't give away your negotiation strategy. For instance -- you want a MASSIVE bureaucracy in Washington to be actually RESPONSIVE to Congress --- you might have in mind to make it MUCH easier to fire folks,. Why bring up re-negotiating all those Fed employee safe havens and parachutes NOW? After all -- we KNOW he's good at "Your Fired" -- right??
That's actually a credible excuse for Trumps "lack of details".. Or as the OP puts it -- his inability to tell truths..
Krauthammer is always completely rational. Not always right -- but it's the rare talking head worth focusing on his every word..
OTH -- Trump DOES have a point... When you make GREAT DEALS -- you don't give away your negotiation strategy. For instance -- you want a MASSIVE bureaucracy in Washington to be actually RESPONSIVE to Congress --- you might have in mind to make it MUCH easier to fire folks,. Why bring up re-negotiating all those Fed employee safe havens and parachutes NOW? After all -- we KNOW he's good at "Your Fired" -- right??
That's actually a credible excuse for Trumps "lack of details".. Or as the OP puts it -- his inability to tell truths..
Krauthammer is always completely rational. Not always right -- but it's the rare talking head worth focusing on his every word..
OTH -- Trump DOES have a point... When you make GREAT DEALS -- you don't give away your negotiation strategy. For instance -- you want a MASSIVE bureaucracy in Washington to be actually RESPONSIVE to Congress --- you might have in mind to make it MUCH easier to fire folks,. Why bring up re-negotiating all those Fed employee safe havens and parachutes NOW? After all -- we KNOW he's good at "Your Fired" -- right??
That's actually a credible excuse for Trumps "lack of details".. Or as the OP puts it -- his inability to tell truths..
It would be nice if you would attempt to answer my questions.
Can you give an example of something Trump ever said that was untrue ? (forget Politifact, they're a joke)You don't think Krauthammer is the voice of reason here?
Actually that's the same question as in the bullet points.
DODGE!! That's called >>CUTTING & RUNNING.Unfortunately even reading your troll questions is a boring waste of time. Come up with something thoughtful and a whole new world will open up.
DODGE!! That's called >>CUTTING & RUNNING.Unfortunately even reading your troll questions is a boring waste of time. Come up with something thoughtful and a whole new world will open up.
HERE'S SOMETHING THOUGHTFUL - which you've been hiding from for 24 hours now >>
Open Question for Hillary Supporters
The "first time". ? I've been announcing it over and over all day long. Well, so now you know. OK so go there, and if you have some thought about that OP let;s hear it.(1) I'm still here, (2) I don't happen to drive a Dodge, (3) I already answered the only legitimate question you had, (4) I'm seeing this enlarged link for the first time, and (5) it doesn't apply to me anyway so I'm not interested.
The "first time". ? I've been announcing it over and over all day long. Well, so now you know. OK so go there, and if you have some thought about that OP let;s hear it.(1) I'm still here, (2) I don't happen to drive a Dodge, (3) I already answered the only legitimate question you had, (4) I'm seeing this enlarged link for the first time, and (5) it doesn't apply to me anyway so I'm not interested.
DODGE! Translation >> That OP blows everything you're saying so far out of the water, you DON'T DARE GO THERE, because you know it wrecks your whole Hillary for President farce. Same thing with all the other hot air liberals who spent the whole day yammering and blabbering, in the question for trump supporters thread, but never ventured to enter the Open Question for Hillary Supporters thread even for one single post.I already don't. I just told you that.
And this may come as earth-shaking news but I don't exactly sit on the edge of my seat waiting and praying to Mazda for a glimpse of your next thread. Get over yourself already.
