Donald Trump

"

Antnee wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

She stringed together lie after lie after lie and probably convinced some people with it, after all it's really tedious to fact check so many lies. But Trump can do this too so we'll see how it goes.

How about just one or two examples of an outright lie from that speech?

Really interested in an answer to that. I've seen that claim made over and again after her speech, and every single time no-one was able to give an answer when asked to be specific.

"

Antnee wrote:

How about just one or two examples of an outright lie from that speech?

Her speech writer is intelligent enough to not let her spout outright lies. He frames facts in a way which make Trump look way worse than they would if they were framed neutrally. Standard politics. I found one outright lie though:

"When asked in a nationally televised interview whether he would disavow the support of David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, Trump wouldn’t do it. Only later, again under mounting pressure, did he backtrack."

He disavowed David Duke three days before he was asked about him by the media. Not after mounting pressure.

Here's another one:

"And he’d ban Muslims around the world – 1.5 billion men, women, and children –from entering our country just because of their religion."

I would count this as an outright lie, since Trump said he would only ban Muslims from certain countries, not all 1.5 billion of them. I'd also count it as a lie because of the following:

"Think about that for a minute. How would it actually work? People landing in U.S. airports would line up to get their passports stamped, just like they do now.
But in Trump’s America, when they step up to the counter, the immigration officer would ask every single person, “What is your religion?”"

Utter bullshit. Religion doesn't matter here at all, it's about which countries the people are coming from.

She also lied about Farage, not that anyone cares. But it illustrates quite well how her speech writer works:

What Farage actually said: "A woman who has a client base, has a child and takes two or three years off - she is worth far less to her employer when she comes back than when she went away because that client base won't be stuck as rigidly to her portfolio".

How the speech writer framed it: "Farage [...] has said women are quote “worth less” than men". Good example of only 90% lying, not outright lying. This strategy was employed across the whole speech. Politifact ruling: mostly true :^)

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

How about just one or two examples of an outright lie from that speech?

"When asked in a nationally televised interview whether he would disavow the support of David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, Trump wouldn’t do it. Only later, again under mounting pressure, did he backtrack."

He disavowed David Duke three days before he was asked about him by the media. Not after mounting pressure.

Feb 26: “I didn’t even know he endorsed me,” Trump said, clearly irritated by the question. “David Duke endorsed me? OK. Alright. I disavow. OK?”

Feb 28: "Trump: Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know."

So, he doesn't remember what happened literally two days prior? In usual Trump fashion, he waffled. On David fucking Duke. He changes positions so often and in such rapid succession that it's hard to keep up... apparently, even for Mr. Trump.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Here's another one:

"And he’d ban Muslims around the world – 1.5 billion men, women, and children –from entering our country just because of their religion."

I would count this as an outright lie, since Trump said he would only ban Muslims from certain countries...

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on,"

Oh, but he later kinda rolled it back, so I guess it's not true?

You're really reaching.

Hillary flip flopped on pretty much every issue throughout her career. According to your logic, if I say Hillary is against gay marriage that's not a lie because she had that stance just 3 years ago. Okay then.

Trump is a 100% populist. Turns out that might be a good thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq_R3skVHgA

"

Xavderion wrote:

Hillary flip flopped on pretty much every issue throughout her career. According to your logic, if I say Hillary is against gay marriage that's not a lie because she had that stance just 3 years ago. Okay then.

So, your answer to Trumps inability to consistently reject David Duke-- and his complete disregard for the constitution-- is "but Hillary flipped on Gay marriage [for the better]"?

Well, alright.

Here's my stance, as clear as a summers day: Hillary has dirty hands. We just see how dirty they are, because she's been the singular focus of the right for 25 years. She's a standard connection-making, career advancing politician. No more, no less.

(and truth be told, I'm not convinced that my opinion of her is justified. Trying to cut through all the smeary bullshit the right's been spooning up is difficult.)

You'll be fine under Clinton.

Trump is actively subverting the political process by claiming that the election is rigged, and that violence is OK to use against your political enemies. That, in and of itself, is unprecedented and disqualifying.

If you want me to believe that Clinton is worse than that, you'll need to stop feeding me rice and telling me it's steak. Meat, please.

"

Antnee wrote:

Trump is actively subverting the political process by claiming that the election is rigged, and that violence is OK to use against your political enemies. That, in and of itself, is unprecedented and disqualifying.

The democratic primaries were provably rigged by the DNC. The republican primary is rigged in a way to give establishment candidates a huge advantage. So he's not wrong. Him advocating violence at some of his rallies was a bad thing, we can agree on that.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

Trump is actively subverting the political process by claiming that the election is rigged, and that violence is OK to use against your political enemies. That, in and of itself, is unprecedented and disqualifying.

The democratic primaries were provably rigged by the DNC. The republican primary is rigged in a way to give establishment candidates a huge advantage. So he's not wrong. Him advocating violence at some of his rallies was a bad thing, we can agree on that.

I'm sorry, but if you actually believe this is what he's talking about, then you're beyond hope.

"

"We're going to watch Pennsylvania. Go down to certain areas and watch and study and make sure other people don't come in and vote five times," he said at a rally in Altoona. "If you do that, we're not going to lose. The only way we can lose, in my opinion -- I really mean this, Pennsylvania -- is if cheating goes on."

"

"Help me stop crooked Hillary from rigging this election,"

"

"The only way they can beat it, in my opinion -- and I mean this 100% -- if in certain sections of the state, they cheat," he said.

Only 38% of Trump supporters think their vote will be counted accurately

This is dangerous.

Can you blame them though? The dem primary was actively rigged for Hillary. I'd be suspicious too. I agree it can be dangerous (muh civil war) but it's a valid concern.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Can you blame them though? The dem primary was actively rigged for Hillary. I'd be suspicious too. I agree it can be dangerous (muh civil war) but it's a valid concern.

First of all, the Dem primary was not rigged. You're talking shit, pulled from the asshole of the internet: Breitbart. Stop.

I say the following as someone who really wanted Bernie to win:

There was favoritism and typical politicking. He entered as a Democrat, after a lifelong stint as an independent. He waltzed in, and expected to be treated by the party leaders the same as HRC, who's been active in her party for decades? Come the fuck on, dude. That is a far, far cry from rigging.

He lost, and lost badly. Wanna cry "rigged"? Show me vote manipulation. Tell me how extensive the fuckery would have to be in order to propel Hillary to that much of a victory. It's an absurd notion.

So no, it is not a valid concern. He's inventing controversy because his ego will not allow him to lose unless its illegitimate. Words mean things, and "rigged" is not a word you use to describe our elections unless you live in a goddamned fantasy world.