Trump is incapable of telling the truth about the election

[Hutch Starskey]

I know Trump spanked the media, and it was delightful!

You can confirm that Trump butt-raped the media today by how loud they are screaming tonight! LOL!

Trump butt fucked himself, that's why the color orange

No, the media looked like a bunch of fools, and Trump let them do it to themselves.

See? The above is exactly the kind of brainwashed cult member that Trump is playing to.

Yes, in their mind, Trump making himself look retarded is really giving it to the media.

Winning!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

"Trump is incapable of telling the truth about the election."

His incapacity in that regard is not limited to the election.

He lies when there's no point to lying. That's the creepiest part. He's like a kleptomaniac who's compelled to steal to the point of stealing shit he doesn't even want.

People, Trump and/or his supporters, claim that pointing out the factual inaccuracies in Trump's statements is a matter of political badgering. It is not. It's a matter of accuracy and wanting to arrive at the point whereby when the POTUS says something, one doesn't have to "fact check" what he says. It's about trust of a person's words. It doesn't matter who says a thing, but POTUS job one for which part of the job is to at the very least be factually and contextually accurate the overwhelming majority of times one says something. The burden, like it or not, is far higher not just on a POTUS, but also on SCOTUS jurists, appointed government officials, experts speaking on their topic of expertise, and members of Congress. That just comes with being a professional.


I have to agree that Trump's lying about things when there's neither point or push to do so is what I too find most disconcerting about his false statements. Most of the time, the falsehoods he utters are one's that come unsolicited. The ones from today's press conference are the most recent examples (unless he's said something since then that I haven't yet heard.). Here's the video from the conference

​

I specifically point out and discuss a lot of the falsehoods from that press conference (the part before the reporters' questions) in a different thread. I'll just repost here the concluding paragraphs as it's a very long post.

As you look over the list of statements I've noted are false, just ask yourself whether the emboldened comments were necessary for Trump to say. Almost all of it is fallacious self-flattery. And the thing is that Trump, like most flatters, doesn't realize that if he'd just skip stating the self-aggrandizing falsehoods, people would focus on the policy aspects of his speeches, mainly because there'd be nothing else to focus on. That's really what it should be.

Ask yourself if they truly add anything to his statement. If, like me, you think they don't, then ask yourself why a presumably smart man of integrity would make those comments when they add nothing and aren't factually and contextually true. What adding those comments does is introduce a reason for people to doubt the speaker.

I believe yesterday was all a show. Trump came out and put in a show to simply distract the media from asking the hard questions about Russia and Flynn.
For the most part, it worked. Look what we're talking about today.

Then you need to go back and listen more carefully, and maybe reflect on why you are programmed to default to anti-Trump mode every time the subject comes up.

He hurriedly and impatiently spat out a terse response and then went to crazy town.

 

[usmbguest5318]

"Trump is incapable of telling the truth about the election."

His incapacity in that regard is not limited to the election.

He lies when there's no point to lying. That's the creepiest part. He's like a kleptomaniac who's compelled to steal to the point of stealing shit he doesn't even want.

People, Trump and/or his supporters, claim that pointing out the factual inaccuracies in Trump's statements is a matter of political badgering. It is not. It's a matter of accuracy and wanting to arrive at the point whereby when the POTUS says something, one doesn't have to "fact check" what he says. It's about trust of a person's words. It doesn't matter who says a thing, but POTUS job one for which part of the job is to at the very least be factually and contextually accurate the overwhelming majority of times one says something. The burden, like it or not, is far higher not just on a POTUS, but also on SCOTUS jurists, appointed government officials, experts speaking on their topic of expertise, and members of Congress. That just comes with being a professional.


I have to agree that Trump's lying about things when there's neither point or push to do so is what I too find most disconcerting about his false statements. Most of the time, the falsehoods he utters are one's that come unsolicited. The ones from today's press conference are the most recent examples (unless he's said something since then that I haven't yet heard.). Here's the video from the conference

​

I specifically point out and discuss a lot of the falsehoods from that press conference (the part before the reporters' questions) in a different thread. I'll just repost here the concluding paragraphs as it's a very long post.

As you look over the list of statements I've noted are false, just ask yourself whether the emboldened comments were necessary for Trump to say. Almost all of it is fallacious self-flattery. And the thing is that Trump, like most flatters, doesn't realize that if he'd just skip stating the self-aggrandizing falsehoods, people would focus on the policy aspects of his speeches, mainly because there'd be nothing else to focus on. That's really what it should be.

Ask yourself if they truly add anything to his statement. If, like me, you think they don't, then ask yourself why a presumably smart man of integrity would make those comments when they add nothing and aren't factually and contextually true. What adding those comments does is introduce a reason for people to doubt the speaker.

I believe yesterday was all a show. Trump came out and put in a show to simply distract the media from asking the hard questions about Russia and Flynn.
For the most part, it worked. Look what we're talking about today.

I think some aspects of it were just that.

 

[bendog]

Not to mention the fact of how weird it is he's still talking about it:

Trump touts false claim about election victory

"We got 306, because people came out and voted like they’ve never seen before, so that’s the way it goes. It was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan.”

The president earned 306 electoral votes, but technically received only 304 after two electors defected. Three hundred and six is fewer than the electoral votes earned by the winners in 2012 (332), 2008 (365), 1996 (379), 1992 (370) and 1988 (426). NBC News reporter Peter Alexander brought this fact up to the president."

For fuck's sake, Groper, shut up.

Alexander's point was why should people believe you about important stuff when you lie about the trivial. I think htat's rather elitist and ignores why people choose to believe Trump even when they have to know he's lying, unless they're delusional. But discussing that would be a hijacking of the thread, so I won't go there unless you do.

But it seems a fair question why Trump has this fear of being delegitimized or something. It's all about his huge win, his well oiled machine, he well run out Immigration EO ...... And momentum is slipping away from him. Tax reform is on the skids. Ryan struggles to sell tax reform plan to fellow Republicans And no one knows what Trump really wants in tax reform. Tillerson was not in the loop on the immigration EO. Supposedly Trump has a new one for next week, but no one knows who wrote this one, but hopefully it wasn't Miller and Bannon again. His meeting with Bibi was odd, but he appeared to have good meetings with Japan, China and Canada. the UK last week too.

But he's sort of doing Bill Murray in Groundhog Day

 

[bendog]

"Trump is incapable of telling the truth about the election."

His incapacity in that regard is not limited to the election.

He lies when there's no point to lying. That's the creepiest part. He's like a kleptomaniac who's compelled to steal to the point of stealing shit he doesn't even want.

People, Trump and/or his supporters, claim that pointing out the factual inaccuracies in Trump's statements is a matter of political badgering. It is not. It's a matter of accuracy and wanting to arrive at the point whereby when the POTUS says something, one doesn't have to "fact check" what he says. It's about trust of a person's words. It doesn't matter who says a thing, but POTUS job one for which part of the job is to at the very least be factually and contextually accurate the overwhelming majority of times one says something. The burden, like it or not, is far higher not just on a POTUS, but also on SCOTUS jurists, appointed government officials, experts speaking on their topic of expertise, and members of Congress. That just comes with being a professional.


I have to agree that Trump's lying about things when there's neither point or push to do so is what I too find most disconcerting about his false statements. Most of the time, the falsehoods he utters are one's that come unsolicited. The ones from today's press conference are the most recent examples (unless he's said something since then that I haven't yet heard.). Here's the video from the conference

​

I specifically point out and discuss a lot of the falsehoods from that press conference (the part before the reporters' questions) in a different thread. I'll just repost here the concluding paragraphs as it's a very long post.

As you look over the list of statements I've noted are false, just ask yourself whether the emboldened comments were necessary for Trump to say. Almost all of it is fallacious self-flattery. And the thing is that Trump, like most flatters, doesn't realize that if he'd just skip stating the self-aggrandizing falsehoods, people would focus on the policy aspects of his speeches, mainly because there'd be nothing else to focus on. That's really what it should be.

Ask yourself if they truly add anything to his statement. If, like me, you think they don't, then ask yourself why a presumably smart man of integrity would make those comments when they add nothing and aren't factually and contextually true. What adding those comments does is introduce a reason for people to doubt the speaker.

I believe yesterday was all a show. Trump came out and put in a show to simply distract the media from asking the hard questions about Russia and Flynn.
For the most part, it worked. Look what we're talking about today.

It seemed to me that he was attempting to defend himself from a media, and even institutions, that he perceives as trying to take him down.

 

[easyt65]

I personally believe he MAY be doing it just to pi$$ snowflakes off.... If so, IT'S WORKING.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I personally believe he MAY be doing it just to pi$$ snowflakes off.... If so, IT'S WORKING.

Apparently both you and Trump don't realize he's the president.

 

[easyt65]

I personally believe he MAY be doing it just to pi$$ snowflakes off.... If so, IT'S WORKING.

Apparently both you and Trump don't realize he's the president.

How can we NOT know he is the President?! Ever since Hillary lost all you snowflakes have been doing is protesting, rioting, looting, intimidating Electoral College Voters, calling for impeachment, calling for military coups, calling for assassinations, whining about your Fake News media being 'Constitutionally violated', etc...

 

[NYcarbineer]

I personally believe he MAY be doing it just to pi$$ snowflakes off.... If so, IT'S WORKING.

Apparently both you and Trump don't realize he's the president.

How can we NOT know he is the President?! Ever since Hillary lost all you snowflakes have been doing is protesting, rioting, looting, intimidating Electoral College Voters, calling for impeachment, calling for military coups, calling for assassinations, whining about your Fake News media being 'Constitutionally violated', etc...

Could you ever post if you couldn't lie?

 

[usmbguest5318]

"Trump is incapable of telling the truth about the election."

His incapacity in that regard is not limited to the election.

He lies when there's no point to lying. That's the creepiest part. He's like a kleptomaniac who's compelled to steal to the point of stealing shit he doesn't even want.

People, Trump and/or his supporters, claim that pointing out the factual inaccuracies in Trump's statements is a matter of political badgering. It is not. It's a matter of accuracy and wanting to arrive at the point whereby when the POTUS says something, one doesn't have to "fact check" what he says. It's about trust of a person's words. It doesn't matter who says a thing, but POTUS job one for which part of the job is to at the very least be factually and contextually accurate the overwhelming majority of times one says something. The burden, like it or not, is far higher not just on a POTUS, but also on SCOTUS jurists, appointed government officials, experts speaking on their topic of expertise, and members of Congress. That just comes with being a professional.


I have to agree that Trump's lying about things when there's neither point or push to do so is what I too find most disconcerting about his false statements. Most of the time, the falsehoods he utters are one's that come unsolicited. The ones from today's press conference are the most recent examples (unless he's said something since then that I haven't yet heard.). Here's the video from the conference

​

I specifically point out and discuss a lot of the falsehoods from that press conference (the part before the reporters' questions) in a different thread. I'll just repost here the concluding paragraphs as it's a very long post.

As you look over the list of statements I've noted are false, just ask yourself whether the emboldened comments were necessary for Trump to say. Almost all of it is fallacious self-flattery. And the thing is that Trump, like most flatters, doesn't realize that if he'd just skip stating the self-aggrandizing falsehoods, people would focus on the policy aspects of his speeches, mainly because there'd be nothing else to focus on. That's really what it should be.

Ask yourself if they truly add anything to his statement. If, like me, you think they don't, then ask yourself why a presumably smart man of integrity would make those comments when they add nothing and aren't factually and contextually true. What adding those comments does is introduce a reason for people to doubt the speaker.

I believe yesterday was all a show. Trump came out and put in a show to simply distract the media from asking the hard questions about Russia and Flynn.
For the most part, it worked. Look what we're talking about today.

It seemed to me that he was attempting to defend himself from a media, and even institutions, that he perceives as trying to take him down.

Absolutely. His extemporising was at once defensive, pre-emptory, and offensive.

Defending himself from the media? I don't think so. To what end? The media aren't going anywhere and he needs them, most especially mainstream media and their huge audience of middle-agers and near retirees who comprise the most relevant segment of his supporters. They are, after all, his temporal peers; they understand his world view because it's the very same one in or around which they grew up, or in most cases to which they aspired or longed to for themselves and their children.

That's all a social thing. Politics have surprisingly little to do with it. It essentially comes down to Trump starring in the roles of Jim Anderson, his wife and each of his children. Take a moment to read this and then think of that in terms of Trump's rhetoric and bearing if you don't quite know what I mean.

Media figures don't attack him; they hold him to a standard that he's well aware "everyday" people simply do not. The media thus becomes the "common enemy" that endears him to his base, many of whom have only banality as the limit of their wherewithal, but more importantly will, to consider events and circumstances and their inherent and plausible consequences. (I've put it that way to be succinct. We'll see if it pays off.)

Trump casts the media as "the enemy" because he has to. His strategy depends on there being, as there was prior to 1989, a clearly defined "big, bad wolf." During the campaign, his biggest opponent played that role. Now, however, he's POTUS and the fact of the matter is that the U.S. doesn't have a large easily understood enemy. The media, however, are easily made proxy for one.

• It's big, thus by making it "the enemy," Trump doesn't have to explain things in the context of understanding asymmetric battle, the modern details of which are complex. (It's nonetheless odd that that is a rhetorical necessity, for the U.S. came to be via asymmetric warfare, but whatever...)
• It "feels" like something everyone know and understand -- mainly because the see an element of it everyday.
• The vast majority of the media's faces are very clearly not like the average person -- not in appearance, not in bearing, not educationally, not communicatively, not economically, not socially -- thus the media come off as being as different as were state enemy of the middle to late 20th century.

There is, of course, another huge difference between now and the mid-20th: the Internet. The Internet makes a wealth of information available, but more germane to my point, it gives a voice to classes of people who heretofore never had one outside their small circle of friends. In the past, media personalities were, aside from the periodically appearing subject-matter experts, politicians and celebrities, the only people to routinely have a (potentially or in fact) far reaching voice. If one had a voice, one was taken as knowing what they were talking about, and by and large, they did.

Not so these days. Having a voice is merely a matter of Internet access. More importantly, however, having a voice leads many to think themselves peers to the men and women of the media when it comes to having something to say that also merits others hearing it. It's not a matter of what's right or wrong, or what be one's position on a topic; it's a matter of the substance and coherence one musters in sharing it. Be that as it may, people get a voice and thus feel they are equals to media researchers, anchors, editors, analysts and reporters, though they don't at all examine a topic as comprehensively as do media personnel. The result is that by the masses getting/having a voice, the comparative difference in gravitas between themselves and the media is, in the masses' minds discounted.

Trump avails himself of the perception of parity in two ways. He bolsters it by using his social status -- that given by the notion of "he's rich, so he must know what he's talking about" -- to ridicule the media and he embraces it by assuming the role of message crafter and, in place of the media, messenger. That is why Trump attacks the media.