Two small reminders of our nation's big problem
1) American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ended his visit to North Korea today without even an agreement as to its results! North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un did not meet with Pompeo - not a good sign - and the DPRK issued a statement calling the Trump administration's demands that it denuclearize "unilateral and gangster-like," as well as “deeply regrettable,” so much as to create a "dangerous phase that might rattle our willingness for denuclearization that had been firm." But according to Pompeo, the talks produced "progress on almost all of the central issues."
Thank God, as President Trump has told us, North Korea no longer poses a nuclear threat:
The man at the top of that mess is about to engage - and probably offend and irritate - NATO leaders, then make political and diplomatic love with his BFF on the international stage, Vladimir Putin. God bless America... please.
2) So there's Trump the dangerous leader. And then there's Trump the pathological liar. Here's a classic case: At a campaign rally in Montana this week, the president claimed he was the first Republican nominee to win the state of Wisconsin in the electoral college since Eisenhower in 1952. Turns out they keep records on such things. Trump was not the first GOPer to win Wisconsin since '52.
- Eisenhower won in 1956
- Nixon won in 1968
- Nixon won in 1972
- Reagan won in 1980
- and Reagan won in 1984
So, depending on how you count them, Trump was either the third Republican to win Wisconsin since Eisenhower in 1952 (if you count unique candidates, not elections), or he was the sixth (if you count individual elections, not unique candidates). Either way you count them, Mr. Trump was not the first. But he most certainly IS a pathological liar.
Comments
-
Trump is leading as no man has led since Reagan. Truly he is God's blessing on America.
Twitter has allowed Trump to tell the truth to America clearly instead of his truth being distorted by the pack of twisted media lies.
Exod 23:1
“You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness."From Rom 1
...when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened...Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts...Who changed the truth of God into a lie.Post edited by GaoLu on -
@GaoLu said:
1. Trump is leading as no man has led since Reagan. Truly he is God's blessing on America.And Trump is lying as no man or woman has lied since... whoever was the first politician ever elected. Name an American president who lied more often, about more things, to more people than Donald Trump has. There isn't one.
Just within the last 24 hours we learned that the president and his team lied to us last November when they told us that they "had no knowledge" of any part of an alleged $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal, a woman who claims to have had an extra-marital affair with then private citizen Trump in 2006. The audio tape released last night, recorded two months before that White House denial, makes clear that then-candidate Trump was fully aware and deeply involved the McDougal payment. That is, Mr Trump lied then and every other time he or his staff told us that he had no knowledge of the payment.
Character used to matter to conservatives in America. It doesn't anymore. Truth-telling used to matter to conservatives in America. It doesn't anymore. I think Ronald Reagan would be ashamed and embarrassed to be a member of a Republican party whose leader lies as easily and repeatedly as does Donald Trump. And Reagan would also be ashamed and embarrassed that so many modern conservatives have bought into Mr Trump's vision of what Kellyanne Conway infamously called "alternative facts," in which truth is subjective and transactional - truth is what you need it to be in the current circumstance.
Remember Reagan's 1987 speech to the nation in which he acknowledged that laws had been broken in the Iran Contra scandal? He said...
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not."
"Facts and evidence" changed Ronald Reagan's mind about the arms deal he had approved. The daily news is filled with proof that "facts and evidence" almost never change Donald Trump's mind. These forums are filled with proof that "facts and evidence" almost never change the minds of his Trumpsters. (see your flailing refusals to engage the "facts and evidence" I presented in THIS POST to disprove your claims about "Operation Predator")
- Twitter has allowed Trump to tell the truth to America clearly instead of his truth being distorted by the pack of twisted media lies.
On July 23, President Trump tweeted...
His contention that the Steele dossier "was responsible for starting" the Mueller probe is 100% false. As president of the United States he knows the truth: that information George Papadopolous gave to an Australian diplomat - well before the Steele dossier - started the FBI's investigation.
The president uses Twitter to lie to the American people.
On February 22 of this year, the president tweeted this...
So he "never said give teachers guns." What he said was give "adept teachers" guns.
The president uses Twitter to lie to the American people.
Twitter allows Trump to lie to America without his lies being distorted, edited, or filtered by White House staff people who might trick him into issuing truthful statements.
Exod 23:1
“You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness."I hope you have emailed this verse to the president and to your fellow Trumpsters.
-
I was addressing that to you, Bill. The need can be seen in your response.
-
@GaoLu said:
1. Trump is leading as no man has led since Reagan. Truly he is God's blessing on America.GaoLu, I hope this is a quote and you forgot to put the quotation marks around the words. If not, how could you in your right mind and good conscience say such, in light of this man's behavior as President.
- Are you saying what happened at the border is God's doings and blessings?
- God can bless any mess, but he doesn't need mess to bless."
- Are you telling me God stopped loving children and families? Does God approve of the kidnapping of children?
- Trump's name-calling and bullying, God blessings?
- Trump starting trade-wars and payoff farmers, similar as he did Stormy Daniels for loyalty and silence?
- Is it of God's will that Trump tells "Lies, lies and ..."
- Have you been drinking the contaminated water from the State of Michigan (Flint)?
- Do you work for Fox News Station?
- Is it the middle of the night where you are? Wake up!
There has to be some reason for your statement, estranged to truth and reality. I think I got it GaoLu! With your above statement, you are being the Master "Troll" Bater.
Get real, GaoLu! If anything, God has to clean up Mr. Trump's mess. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
1. Trump is leading as no man has led since Reagan. Truly he is God's blessing on America.GaoLu, I hope this is a quote and you forgot to put the quotation marks around the words. If not, how could you in your right mind and good conscience say such, in light of this man's behavior as President.
Because it is true.
- Are you saying what happened at the border is God's doings and blessings?
- God can bless any mess, but he doesn't need mess to bless."
You seem to think that everyone sees what is happening at the border as immoral or wrong. It's not.
- Are you telling me God stopped loving children and families? Does God approve of the kidnapping of children?
No, and no. Good thing kids are not being kidnapped.
kid·nap
ˈkidˌnap/Submit
verb
past tense: kidnapped; past participle: kidnapped
take (someone) away illegally by force, typically to obtain a ransom.- Trump starting trade-wars and payoff farmers, similar as he did Stormy Daniels for loyalty and silence?
????
- Is it of God's will that Trump tells "Lies, lies and ..."
There are lies, then there is misinformed or mistakes. Those are not all equal.
- Have you been drinking the contaminated water from the State of Michigan (Flint)?
Wow, really?
- Do you work for Fox News Station?
Do you work for CNN?
- Is it the middle of the night where you are? Wake up!
We wish you would.
There has to be some reason for your statement, estranged to truth and reality. I think I got it GaoLu! With your above statement, you are being the Master "Troll" Bater.
The only one I am seeing estranged from reality is you.
Get real, GaoLu! If anything, God has to clean up Mr. Trump's mess. CM
You mean Obama's mess.
-
Thanks for your input, but I will wait for Mr. GaoLu to respond to my post. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I hope you have emailed this verse to the president and to your fellow Trumpsters.As if to demonstrate the truth of an observation that I made in my last post, Gao Lu, yet again you refuse to engage facts and evidence, choosing instead only to advise me as to the target of a Bible verse you previously provided. What is the observation to whose truth your response attests? From my last post in this thread...
These forums are filled with proof that "facts and evidence" almost never change the minds of his Trumpsters. (see your flailing refusals to engage the "facts and evidence" I presented in THIS POST to disprove your claims about "Operation Predator")
I welcome you to whatever use of Scripture you choose to employ, but I'd much prefer knowing whether you believe Mr Trump and company lied to the American people in November 2016 when they said Trump had "no knowledge" of any aspect of the payment to Karen McDougal, a payment whose mechanics we now know he discussed with his attorney in September 2016.
-
@C_M_ said:
Thanks for your input, but I will wait for Mr. GaoLu to respond to my post. CMThat being said, everything I said is true. Particularly about the kidnapping. Nobody has been kidnapped by the government at the border. Stop lying.
-
@reformed said:
- Is it of God's will that Trump tells "Lies, lies and ..."
There are lies, then there is misinformed or mistakes. Those are not all equal.
So is it your view, reformed, that when in November 2016, on behalf of the Trump campaign Hope Hicks said they had "no knowledge" of any part of the payment to Karen McDougal, and every subsequent time the White House or its surrogates repeated that absolute denial, they were simply mistaken or "misinformed"? No one, including the president, remembered or knew anything about Mr Trump's pre-election conversations with Michael Cohen in which Mr Trump demonstrated complete awareness of - and in fact, active participation in - that payment?
And is it your view, that each of the 3,000+ false or misleading statements the president has made while in office was a product of mistake or misinformation? In the course of his work as president, Mr Trump averages 5-7 false or misleading statements per day. In the course of your work/job/career, reformed, how many false or misleading statements do you average per day?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
- Is it of God's will that Trump tells "Lies, lies and ..."
There are lies, then there is misinformed or mistakes. Those are not all equal.
So is it your view, reformed, that when in November 2016, on behalf of the Trump campaign Hope Hicks said they had "no knowledge" of any part of the payment to Karen McDougal, and every subsequent time the White House or its surrogates repeated that absolute denial, they were simply mistaken or "misinformed"? No one, including the president, remembered or knew anything about Mr Trump's pre-election conversations with Michael Cohen in which Mr Trump demonstrated complete awareness of - and in fact, active participation in - that payment?
Not really sure what you are referring to actually.
And is it your view, that each of the 3,000+ false or misleading statements the president has made while in office was a product of mistake or misinformation? In the course of his work as president, Mr Trump averages 5-7 false or misleading statements per day. In the course of your work/job/career, reformed, how many false or misleading statements do you average per day?
Not really sure what you are referring to.
-
@C_M_ said:
Thanks for your input, but I will wait for Mr. GaoLu to respond to my post. CM
Reformed said what I would have said only he did it sooner and better.
-
@reformed said:
- Is it of God's will that Trump tells "Lies, lies and ..."
There are lies, then there is misinformed or mistakes. Those are not all equal.
So is it your view, reformed, that when in November 2016, on behalf of the Trump campaign Hope Hicks said they had "no knowledge" of any part of the payment to Karen McDougal, and every subsequent time the White House or its surrogates repeated that absolute denial, they were simply mistaken or "misinformed"? No one, including the president, remembered or knew anything about Mr Trump's pre-election conversations with Michael Cohen in which Mr Trump demonstrated complete awareness of - and in fact, active participation in - that payment?
Not really sure what you are referring to actually.And is it your view, that each of the 3,000+ false or misleading statements the president has made while in office was a product of mistake or misinformation? In the course of his work as president, Mr Trump averages 5-7 false or misleading statements per day. In the course of your work/job/career, reformed, how many false or misleading statements do you average per day?
Not really sure what you are referring to.
In a previous post, you drew a distinction between "lies" and what you called being "misinformed" or making "mistakes." In response to that distinction, essentially I asked how you categorize two groups of falsehoods that Trump and/or his minions have perpetuated in the last two years:
- In November 2016, on behalf of the Trump campaign Hope Hicks said they had "no knowledge" of any part of the $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal. Subsequent to that denial, Mr Trump and others in his orbit repeated the denial offered by Hicks. Thanks to the audio tape made public the other night, we now know all of those denials were false. The Cohen tape, made to months before Hicks' denial, shows Mr Trump had complete awareness of - and in fact, active participation in - the McDougal payment.
MY QUESTION: Were those untrue denials "lies," "mistakes," or the result of lots of people being "misinformed"?
- As counted by the Washington Post, since taking office Donald Trump has made in excess of 3,000 false or misleading statements.
MY QUESTION: Is it your view that none of Mr Trump's 3,000+ false or misleading statements was a lie? That they were all products of "mistakes" or misinformation? (And I know you will dispute the Post's count, so I'll change the question: HOWEVER many false and misleading statements Donald Trump has made since taking office - WHATEVER that number is - is it your view that none of them was a lie? that they were all products of "mistakes" or misinformation?
-
Good to hear.
-
Not surprised-- predictable!
Oh, independent of your erroneous conclusions, behold the facts:
Trump administration: 1,820 children reunited after border split
@reformed said: kid·nap -ˈkidˌnap//verb-- past tense: kidnapped; past participle: kidnapped take (someone) away illegally by force, typically to obtain a ransom.
The children that were taken "away illegally by force..." are being returned--
"There have been 1,442 children 5 and older reunified with their parents in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody and 378 others who were released “in other appropriate circumstances,” including to other sponsors, the Justice Department said in a court filing".
SAN DIEGO — The Trump administration said Thursday that more than 1,800 children separated at the U.S.-Mexico border have been reunited with parents and sponsors but hundreds remain apart, signaling a potentially arduous task ahead as it deals with the fallout of its “zero tolerance” policy on people entering the U.S. illegally.
More than 2,500 children were separated from their parents at the border in the past several months amid a zero tolerance policy...
Some children who had not seen their parents in weeks or months seemed slow to accept that they would not be abandoned again...
“I think that some of the children very quickly attach. Others, there’s a distance. There’s this caution, this lack of certitude, and part of it is not understanding what happened,” said Ruben Garcia, director of the Annunciation House, an immigrant-assistance center in El Paso that has received about 25 families each day this week.
“The government shouldn’t be proud of the work they’re doing on reunification,” he said. “It should just be, ’We created this cruel, inhumane policy ... now we’re trying to fix it in every way we can and make these families whole...”
For the last two weeks, children have been arriving steadily at ICE locations in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico to be reunited with parents. Faith-based and other groups have provided meals, clothing, legal advice and plane and bus tickets. The families are generally released, and parents are typically given ankle-monitoring bracelets and court dates to appear before an immigration judge.
But confusion and fear lingers. Jose Dolores Munoz, 36, from El Salvador, was reunited with his 7-year-old daughter last Friday, nearly two months after they were separated. His daughter cries when he leaves the house because she thinks he’s not coming back.
“She is afraid,” Munoz said in Spanish. “Yesterday I left her crying, she is telling me, ‘You are not coming back. You are lying. You are leaving me.’”
U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego commended the government Tuesday for its recent efforts, calling it “a remarkable achievement.”
“It is the reality of a policy that was in place that resulted in large numbers of families being separated without forethought as to reunification and keeping track of people,” said Sabraw, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush.
Lourdes de Leon, who turned herself into immigration authorities, was deported to her native Guatemala on June 7 but her 6-year-old son, Leo, remained in the U.S...
Both sides were due back in court Friday, when the judge was going to decide whether to ban deportations of families for seven days after they are reunified so that parents could have time to discuss their options.
Late last month, Sabraw ordered a nationwide halt to family separations, which President Donald Trump effectively did on his own June 20 following an international outcry. Sabraw issued a 14- day deadline to reunite children under 5 with their parents and 30 days for children 5 and older.
On Friday, family attorneys would begin turning their attention to those who weren’t reunited — parents who had a criminal record, parents who were no longer in the U.S. and children who were handed over to other sponsors, Gelernt said.
The fact the many are being reunited and released by a court order, is proof they were taken illegally! CM
-
GaoLu/Reformed,
Your hearts are black and cold as the men who conceived the plan to take children from their parents. This is cruel by any civilized people. Children are traumatized for life! I pray the day when your children are taken-- God would fix your heart to endure, unlike these parents were. If not, I pray God would convert you to have a heart of compassion and empathy for others. Your spirit is not of Christ.
The two of you, in your attitude toward the separation of mothers and children, don't reflect or represent the Christ of the Bible. I am not judging you. I am just saying, Jesus loved sinners and have compassion upon them; and so ought his followers.
You have allowed your soul to be guided by the laws of the land, administered by an ungodly man, who seeks to appease and please a small group of people -- tribalistic and partisan. An account will be required of them, those who implemented it, supported it, as well as, those who knew and kept silent. It's just like the murder of the six million Jews. Some cried, "it's the law", back then, too.
The two of you are a disappointment, twice over-- Americans and Christians. The latter two are better than what you promoted above. The pages of the history of the two institutions reveal two roads--Light and dark. Despite this, why do you choose the darkness? The depth of your darkness, I know not, but a verse comes to mind-- "...men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (JN 3:19). I also recall, that God's Word and Power, emanates light and dispels darkness.
I can't demand or force you to do what the Spirit of God has not convicted you to do. However, it would be nice to seek God's face for a renewed spirit toward your fellow man. While in the process, in prayer, ask God to have mercy on the people of the American Government who inflicted so much pain, tears, and heartache upon a people and a nation.
Pray a special prayer for the many traumatized children and the ones who will never be reunited with their parents. Many such parents, they would trade their child or children not to be born, than to have them taken away in a foreign land-- America. For many, U.S.A. would be the saddest place on planet earth.
I pray that you and others would leave the Democratic and Republican Parties and join God's Party of peace, righteousness, grace, mercy, and compassion.
Your tomorrow doesn't have to be like your yesterday -- Think anew. CM
-
@C_M_
why do you blame the current president of the USA for the consequences their parents brought on them with their illegal doings ? why don't you put the blame where it belongs???
If there was some misbehavior by previous administrations which perhaps even encouraged such illegal doings by parents, why not put the blame on them? -
@C_M_ said:
Not surprised-- predictable!
Oh, independent of your erroneous conclusions, behold the facts:
Trump administration: 1,820 children reunited after border split
Nobody is disputing this.
@reformed said: kid·nap -ˈkidˌnap//verb-- past tense: kidnapped; past participle: kidnapped take (someone) away illegally by force, typically to obtain a ransom.
The children that were taken "away illegally by force..." are being returned--
Illegally? Um....no...
"There have been 1,442 children 5 and older reunified with their parents in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody and 378 others who were released “in other appropriate circumstances,” including to other sponsors, the Justice Department said in a court filing".
Your point?
SAN DIEGO — The Trump administration said Thursday that more than 1,800 children separated at the U.S.-Mexico border have been reunited with parents and sponsors but hundreds remain apart, signaling a potentially arduous task ahead as it deals with the fallout of its “zero tolerance” policy on people entering the U.S. illegally.
More than 2,500 children were separated from their parents at the border in the past several months amid a zero tolerance policy...
Some children who had not seen their parents in weeks or months seemed slow to accept that they would not be abandoned again...
“I think that some of the children very quickly attach. Others, there’s a distance. There’s this caution, this lack of certitude, and part of it is not understanding what happened,” said Ruben Garcia, director of the Annunciation House, an immigrant-assistance center in El Paso that has received about 25 families each day this week.
“The government shouldn’t be proud of the work they’re doing on reunification,” he said. “It should just be, ’We created this cruel, inhumane policy ... now we’re trying to fix it in every way we can and make these families whole...”
We separate American kids from criminals too when their parents break the law. It is not inhumane or immoral. The families shouldn't break the law in the first place. It is the fault of the parents.
For the last two weeks, children have been arriving steadily at ICE locations in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico to be reunited with parents. Faith-based and other groups have provided meals, clothing, legal advice and plane and bus tickets. The families are generally released, and parents are typically given ankle-monitoring bracelets and court dates to appear before an immigration judge.
But confusion and fear lingers. Jose Dolores Munoz, 36, from El Salvador, was reunited with his 7-year-old daughter last Friday, nearly two months after they were separated. His daughter cries when he leaves the house because she thinks he’s not coming back.
Here's a thought. Go back to where you came from. Then you have nothing to fear.
“She is afraid,” Munoz said in Spanish. “Yesterday I left her crying, she is telling me, ‘You are not coming back. You are lying. You are leaving me.’”
U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego commended the government Tuesday for its recent efforts, calling it “a remarkable achievement.”
“It is the reality of a policy that was in place that resulted in large numbers of families being separated without forethought as to reunification and keeping track of people,” said Sabraw, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush.
Lourdes de Leon, who turned herself into immigration authorities, was deported to her native Guatemala on June 7 but her 6-year-old son, Leo, remained in the U.S...
Both sides were due back in court Friday, when the judge was going to decide whether to ban deportations of families for seven days after they are reunified so that parents could have time to discuss their options.
Their only option should be go back home. I don't know why there is a discussion needed. Go back home or go to jail. You don't respect our country, our people, our laws.
Late last month, Sabraw ordered a nationwide halt to family separations, which President Donald Trump effectively did on his own June 20 following an international outcry. Sabraw issued a 14- day deadline to reunite children under 5 with their parents and 30 days for children 5 and older.
On Friday, family attorneys would begin turning their attention to those who weren’t reunited — parents who had a criminal record, parents who were no longer in the U.S. and children who were handed over to other sponsors, Gelernt said.
The fact the many are being reunited and released by a court order, is proof they were taken illegally! CM
No it isn't. Apparently you don't know what court orders do and do not mean. It does NOT mean that it was illegal.
@C_M_ said:
GaoLu/Reformed,
Your hearts are black and cold as the men who conceived the plan to take children from their parents. This is cruel by any civilized people. Children are traumatized for life! I pray the day when your children are taken-- God would fix your heart to endure, unlike these parents were. If not, I pray God would convert you to have a heart of compassion and empathy for others. Your spirit is not of Christ.
The parents are at fault @C_M_ they are the lawbreakers.
The two of you, in your attitude toward the separation of mothers and children, don't reflect or represent the Christ of the Bible. I am not judging you. I am just saying, Jesus loved sinners and have compassion upon them; and so ought his followers.
That has nothing to do with people breaking the law and facing consequences.
You have allowed your soul to be guided by the laws of the land, administered by an ungodly man, who seeks to appease and please a small group of people -- tribalistic and partisan. An account will be required of them, those who implemented it, supported it, as well as, those who knew and kept silent. It's just like the murder of the six million Jews. Some cried, "it's the law", back then, too.
The Bible says to follow the law. Why do you support law breaking?
The two of you are a disappointment, twice over-- Americans and Christians. The latter two are better than what you promoted above. The pages of the history of the two institutions reveal two roads--Light and dark. Despite this, why do you choose the darkness? The depth of your darkness, I know not, but a verse comes to mind-- "...men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (JN 3:19). I also recall, that God's Word and Power, emanates light and dispels darkness.
We choose darkness because we want the law to be obeyed? Hmm.. Seems to me the dark ones are the ones in favor of lawbreaking.
I can't demand or force you to do what the Spirit of God has not convicted you to do. However, it would be nice to seek God's face for a renewed spirit toward your fellow man. While in the process, in prayer, ask God to have mercy on the people of the American Government who inflicted so much pain, tears, and heartache upon a people and a nation.
The only ones who inflicted pain were the criminals. Their pain was self-inflicted when they willfully broke the law.
Pray a special prayer for the many traumatized children and the ones who will never be reunited with their parents. Many such parents, they would trade their child or children not to be born, than to have them taken away in a foreign land-- America. For many, U.S.A. would be the saddest place on planet earth.
They shouldn't have broken the law.
I pray that you and others would leave the Democratic and Republican Parties and join God's Party of peace, righteousness, grace, mercy, and compassion.
Your tomorrow doesn't have to be like your yesterday -- Think anew. CM
Oh brother. Wake up man.
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_
why do you blame the current president of the USA for the consequences their parents brought on them with their illegal doings ? why don't you put the blame where it belongs???
If there was some misbehavior by previous administrations which perhaps even encouraged such illegal doings by parents, why not put the blame on them?EXACTLY
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
- Is it of God's will that Trump tells "Lies, lies and ..."
There are lies, then there is misinformed or mistakes. Those are not all equal.
So is it your view, reformed, that when in November 2016, on behalf of the Trump campaign Hope Hicks said they had "no knowledge" of any part of the payment to Karen McDougal, and every subsequent time the White House or its surrogates repeated that absolute denial, they were simply mistaken or "misinformed"? No one, including the president, remembered or knew anything about Mr Trump's pre-election conversations with Michael Cohen in which Mr Trump demonstrated complete awareness of - and in fact, active participation in - that payment?
Not really sure what you are referring to actually.And is it your view, that each of the 3,000+ false or misleading statements the president has made while in office was a product of mistake or misinformation? In the course of his work as president, Mr Trump averages 5-7 false or misleading statements per day. In the course of your work/job/career, reformed, how many false or misleading statements do you average per day?
Not really sure what you are referring to.
In a previous post, you drew a distinction between "lies" and what you called being "misinformed" or making "mistakes." In response to that distinction, essentially I asked how you categorize two groups of falsehoods that Trump and/or his minions have perpetuated in the last two years:
- In November 2016, on behalf of the Trump campaign Hope Hicks said they had "no knowledge" of any part of the $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal. Subsequent to that denial, Mr Trump and others in his orbit repeated the denial offered by Hicks. Thanks to the audio tape made public the other night, we now know all of those denials were false. The Cohen tape, made to months before Hicks' denial, shows Mr Trump had complete awareness of - and in fact, active participation in - the McDougal payment.
MY QUESTION: Were those untrue denials "lies," "mistakes," or the result of lots of people being "misinformed"?
- As counted by the Washington Post, since taking office Donald Trump has made in excess of 3,000 false or misleading statements.
MY QUESTION: Is it your view that none of Mr Trump's 3,000+ false or misleading statements was a lie? That they were all products of "mistakes" or misinformation? (And I know you will dispute the Post's count, so I'll change the question: HOWEVER many false and misleading statements Donald Trump has made since taking office - WHATEVER that number is - is it your view that none of them was a lie? that they were all products of "mistakes" or misinformation?
Honestly I haven't heard anything about a Cohen tape. So I can't speak on it.
I looked at the WAPO list of false statements. A lot of that seems to be twisted. So yes, I dispute the Post. Of course the Post isn't exactly a reliable source of information these days anyway.
-
@reformed said:
I looked at the WAPO list of false statements. A lot of that seems to be twisted. So yes, I dispute the Post. Of course the Post isn't exactly a reliable source of information these days anyway.
Mr. Reformed,
It's a given that you would believe your "lying eyes" over the WAPO. In all fairness, could it be that you're just not up on many of the things you questioned? CM -
> @reformed said:
> Honestly I haven't heard anything about a Cohen tape. So I can't speak on it.
I'm genuinely surprised that you've not heard about the Cohen tape. Before last night, it was the dominant political story of the week. After last night, of course, the dominant story became cohen's reported willingness to tell the Mueller team that in advance candidate trump knew about and approved of the infamous trump tower meeting with Russians in search of dirt on Clinton. If the reports and cohen's story are true, start practicing the word "collusion" - you'll soon need it.
As for the tape itself, do a Google search and you'll discover the truth of my summary. The tape proves Trump was aware of the Karen McDougal payment. But he repeatedly told us he had no knowledge of it. My question: Was that a lie or something else?
>
> I looked at the WAPO list of false statements. A lot of that seems to be twisted. So yes, I dispute the Post. Of course the Post isn't exactly a reliable source of information these days anyway.
Again you evade the question.
I'll rephrase: The WAPO list surely contains statements you consider false. AMONG THE STATEMENTS YOU CONSIDER FALSE, do you consider them mostly lies or mostly something else? -
@Bill_Coley said:
I'll rephrase: The WAPO list surely contains statements you consider false. AMONG THE STATEMENTS YOU CONSIDER FALSE, do you consider them mostly lies or mostly something else?- Are you pretending that politics is an honest science?
- As a poly-science student, do you know in your heart that your politics and words are honest and Holy-Spirit guided?
- Do you personally believe, and can you honestly promise that you know all that WAPO list are lies?
-
As a matter of principle, I blame both the American president and his administration for their respective decisions and actions. In this case, that means I blame the president and his administration for its decision to implement a "zero tolerance" policy for border crossers, including people seeking asylum - it was a policy that greatly increased the rate at which children were separated from their parents compared to the rate during previous administrations. In my view, ONLY Mr Trump and his administration can blamed for the administration's decision to implement that "zero tolerance" policy.
If there was some misbehavior by previous administrations which perhaps even encouraged such illegal doings by parents, why not put the blame on them?
I know of no "misbehavior by previous administrations" that forced the Trump administration to implement its "zero tolerance" policy.
As for the "illegal doings" of parents, to my knowledge, the number of such "doings" has not been any higher during the Trump administration than it was during previous administrations, a fact which again calls attention the administration's responsibility for its decision to implement a policy that created so many more separated families than usual in our immigration policies. The issue is, did the administration HAVE to implement its "zero tolerance" policy? In my view, the answer to that question is clearly no.
-
@GaoLu said:
1. Are you pretending that politics is an honest science?I am "pretending" that presidents of the United States should tell the truth to the American people, and that it is dangerous and disgusting for a president to lie as often and about as many subjects as Donald Trump does.
Your seeming categorization of this as merely a matter of "politics" profoundly understates the severity of Mr Trump's mendacity. No president - perhaps no practitioner of "politics" at any level - has EVER lied the way Donald Trump has lied.
- As a poly-science student, do you know in your heart that your politics and words are honest and Holy-Spirit guided?
At issue here is the honesty of the president of the United States, not the character and influences of your or my "politics and words."
But for what it's worth, I "know in (my) heart" that I do not lie as often or about as many things in my work as Donald Trump lies in his. How about you? Given what you know about his truth-telling in his work as president, do you believe you lie(d) more, less, or about as often in your work as Donald Trump has lied in his?
- Do you personally believe, and can you honestly promise that you know all that WAPO list are lies?
More evasion of the issue.
I believe each of the WAPO's statements is a documented example of a false or misleading statement from the president. When the total number of such statements you're documented to have made rises to more than 3,000 in 19 months - as it has for Mr Trump - possible explanations are few and not complimentary. Either he's exceptionally ignorant - he knows next to nothing about most everything - or he's a strategic/knowing liar - he does it on purpose - or he's a pathological liar, a person who so routinely tells falsehoods, that he doesn't know that he's doing so.
Someone who cheats on his or her taxes one and only one time, made a serious mistake. But someone who cheats on his or her taxes EVERY YEAR is a tax cheat. Donald Trump hasn't told just a few falsehoods as president. He's told hundreds/thousands of them. That means he has a serious problem with truth-telling.
EXAMPLE 1:
You and reformed are wisely not engaging the most recent example: Trump and company repeatedly told us he had no knowledge of a payment to Karen McDougal. From this week's Cohen audio tape, we know Trump DID know about - was deeply involved in - that payment. Trump's denials were falsehoods. Were they lies, or just a series of innocent mistakes?EXAMPLE 2
You and reformed have also never engaged this one: Trump and company repeatedly told us that he had nothing to do with the statement the White House produced about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians in June 2016. As that story fell apart, finally a Trump lawyer submitted a court filing that acknowledged the president not only was involved in the statement, he DICTATED it. Trump's many denials on that matter were falsehoods. Were those lies, or innocent oversights? -
Speaking of evasion, Dude, you mastered it in that post above. You answered nothing.
Example1
You know nothing but someone else's accusations. Probably all false as Reformed demonstrates and addresses to you regularly
Example2
See above.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
> @reformed said:
> Honestly I haven't heard anything about a Cohen tape. So I can't speak on it.
I'm genuinely surprised that you've not heard about the Cohen tape. Before last night, it was the dominant political story of the week. After last night, of course, the dominant story became cohen's reported willingness to tell the Mueller team that in advance candidate trump knew about and approved of the infamous trump tower meeting with Russians in search of dirt on Clinton. If the reports and cohen's story are true, start practicing the word "collusion" - you'll soon need it.col·lu·sion
kəˈlo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.I don't think there will be a problem here.
As for the tape itself, do a Google search and you'll discover the truth of my summary. The tape proves Trump was aware of the Karen McDougal payment. But he repeatedly told us he had no knowledge of it. My question: Was that a lie or something else?
>So I did a google search. And it is one man's claim vs another. Who is telling the truth? So, who knows?
> I looked at the WAPO list of false statements. A lot of that seems to be twisted. So yes, I dispute the Post. Of course the Post isn't exactly a reliable source of information these days anyway.
Again you evade the question.
I'll rephrase: The WAPO list surely contains statements you consider false. AMONG THE STATEMENTS YOU CONSIDER FALSE, do you consider them mostly lies or mostly something else?If I actually cared enough to review them individually (I don't) I would be able to let you know. But that would be an utter waste of time. Your obsession with the President and his supposed lies are enough for all of us. I'll focus on the actual results of what he has done in office. We are in a MUCH better place than we were under Obama.
-
@GaoLu said:
Speaking of evasion, Dude, you mastered it in that post above. You answered nothing.Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. In case I didn't, I apologize and try again:
My claim/question to which you originally responded was this:
"The WAPO list surely contains statements you consider false. AMONG THE STATEMENTS YOU CONSIDER FALSE, do you consider them mostly lies or mostly something else?"
The subject of that claim/question was the WAPO's list of presidential statements it believes were false and/or misleading, and whether YOU characterize as "mostly lies or mostly something else" the statements on the list that YOU believe are actually false. Given that subject, of your three questions...
- Are you pretending that politics is an honest science?
- As a poly-science student, do you know in your heart that your politics and words are honest and Holy-Spirit guided?
- Do you personally believe, and can you honestly promise that you know all that WAPO list are lies?
...only the last one is at all on-topic, and it, only as to subject matter, not specifics. I asked how YOU characterize any list statements YOU believe were indeed false. You asked whether I know that all of the list statements are lies.
- So I asked about specific statements; you responded about all of the statements.
- I asked for YOUR view of statements YOU view believe are false; you responded with a question about MY knowledge.
On topic, yes; but not on point.
So did I evade your questions? Yes. But had I addressed them, I would have in effect contributed to your changing the subject away from the question I asked.
Bottom Line: You evaded my original question. Answer it directly and I will gladly answer yours directly.
Example1
You know nothing but someone else's accusations. Probably all false as Reformed demonstrates and addresses to you regularly
You offer no information here that explains what you mean by "someone else's accusations," so I can't address your concern. But at issue in my "Example 1" are not "someone else's accusations." At issue is the OBJECTIVE FACT that team Trump repeatedly said it had no knowledge of the McDougal payment, and the OBJECTIVE FACT that the tape Michael Cohen's lawyers released this week proves beyond doubt that Donald Trump knew about and was involved in that payment.
Are you aware of the allegations regarding a $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal that arose just before the 2016 election? Are you aware that Hope Hicks, then a Trump campaign spokesperson, told the Wall Street Journal, "We have no knowledge of any of this"? Are you aware that subsequent to that denial, Trump and his surrogates repeated their denial that Trump had any involvement in or knowledge of that payment? Have you listened to the Cohen tape, recorded two months before the 2016 election? If you answer yes to those questions, you know this is not a matter of "someone else's allegations"? If you answer no to those questions, head to the Google machine, get the facts, then post again.
Example2
See above.
It seems clear to me that you are not aware of the facts to which my second example refers. Again I encourage you to Google relevant subject matter. You will discover that my summation is not "someone else's allegations," but rather an accurate presentation of what happened.
Notice that your responses to my two examples repeat your practice of avoiding questions. Your responses show little if any awareness of the facts of the matters I raised. But then again, fact awareness is not critical when evasion is the chosen ultimate outcome.
-
@reformed said:
col·lu·sion
kəˈlo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
I don't think there will be a problem here.- In June 2016, Donald Trump Jr and Paul Manafort, among other Trump campaign people, took a meeting with Russians who, according to emails Don Jr had received and responded to positively, claimed to have Russian government-collected dirt on Hillary Clinton.
- The existence of that meeting was not made public at the time.
- This week's reports are that Cohen is prepared to tell the Mueller team that then-candidate Trump in advance knew about and approved of the June 2016 meeting with the Russians.
- Mueller has formally charged 12 members of the Russian government's military intelligence unit with crimes related to the theft of DNC et al emails.
What do those objective facts demonstrate if not the Trump campaign's and candidate Trump's willingness to engage secretly with the Russians to cheat or deceive... that is, to collude with the Russians?
Here's a different, perhaps even more compelling set of objective facts:
Friday, June 3, 2016: Donald Trump, Jr. receives an email from Rob Goldstone saying that he can help the campaign connect with a Russian government rep who possesses dirt on Hillary Clinton. Don Jr says, "If it’s what you say, I love it."
Tuesday, June 7, 2016: Candidate Trump announces the following:
"I'm going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting. I wonder if the press will want to attend, who knows."
Thursday, June 9, 2016: As a follow-up to the offering of dirt the Goldstone email had promised, Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner meet with a Russian attorney at Trump Tower. Trump Jr. later claims the meeting was a "big nothing."
That "major speech" candidate Trump promised to give "probably" on June 13, in which he would discuss "all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons" never happened.
So the Trump campaign learned the Russians might have dirt on Clinton. Four days later, candidate Trump promised a "major speech" that would discuss dirt on Clinton. Two days after that, Trump campaign reps met with Russians in Trump Tower to get dirt on Clinton, but got none. Candidate Trump then never gave his "major speech" about dirt on Clinton.
Do you claim that chain of objective facts is just a series of remarkable coincidences, reformed? Isn't the more likely explanation of those objective facts that candidate Trump knew about and approved the meeting with the Russians, previewed a coming "major speech" about Clinton because he thought the Russians were going to give him dirt on Clinton, but then nixed that speech because the meeting he knew about and approved of didn't produce the dirt he expected it to?
Most candidates receiving such an invitation from the Russians would have called the FBI to report possible foreign government intrusion into an American election. The Trump campaign took the meeting and looked forward to receiving the purported dirt. They didn't get any from that meeting, but they took the meeting believing they would get some. What else is that other than collusion or an intent to collude?
So I did a google search. And it is one man's claim vs another. Who is telling the truth? So, who knows?
The tape is not a matter of competing claims.
It is an objective fact that the Trump campaign and then the White House repeatedly claimed not to have any knowledge of the McDougal payment. The tape - which is NOT someone's claim, but instead the contemporaneously recorded voices of Michael Cohen and then-candidate Donald Trump - shows beyond doubt and in DIRECT AND INCONTROVERTIBLE CONTRADICTION with Trump's previous statements, that Trump knew about the McDougal payment.
I ask you again: Whenever Team Trump denied knowledge of the McDougal payment, did they lie, were they "misinformed," or were they in some other way "mistaken," to use your alternative explanations of falsehoods?
If I actually cared enough to review them individually (I don't) I would be able to let you know. But that would be an utter waste of time. Your obsession with the President and his supposed lies are enough for all of us. I'll focus on the actual results of what he has done in office. We are in a MUCH better place than we were under Obama.
Here you frame, display, and shine Klieg lights on your "Trumpster ID" card. When offered evidence to support a view of reality different from yours, you a) refuse to view it, b) lump it together in an unspecific and unsupported generalization, c) attack the messenger who offers you the evidence, and d) tell us you'll focus on what you believe Trump has done in office.
That's pure, undefiled Trumpsterhood, reformed.
- Dismiss or disregard objective truth that disputes your world view (e.g. during the 2016 campaign, candidate Trump called the steadily-improving monthly unemployment numbers "fake" and "made up;" now he claims they're spot on and accurate)
- Attack the messengers of that objective truth (e.g. "Fake news!" and the news media are "the enemy of the people")
- Focus on results while in office, not personal or professional conduct while in office (In response to evidence of serial lying, payments to porn stars, collusion with Russians, and corruption in government the likes of which this nation may never have experienced before, the mantra heard across Trumpster Nation these days is that what matters is Trump got the tax cuts, he nominated Neil Gorsuch, and the economy is doing great. As candidate Trump presciently observed, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, ok? It’s, like, incredible.")
You are a genuine Trumpster, reformed, which means you will not respond directly to the objective facts I have presented in this post. You will attack me, or offer other slippery attempts to divert attention away from those facts, but you will not address them directly.
Notice how your fellow Trumpster, Gao Lu, never addresses issues directly. When I challenge the truth of one of his assertions - when I prove that one of his assertions is false or misleading - he offers no substantive rebuttal (because there is no rebuttal to objective truth!) offers a snarky personal commentary, then says only "What I claimed is true to me, and I don't want to talk about it anymore." That, too, is true Trumpsterhood.
PROVE ME WRONG, REFORMED! Prove that you DO care about objective truth. Take on the objective facts I have presented (and linked to) in this post and show, by logic and other objective facts (links, please), that I have misrepresented the objective truth of any of these matters, and/or that the conclusions I draw from that objective truth are incorrect.
-
You went to a lot of trouble to raise a lot of smoke, providing evidence how important that matter is to you. However, you still don't answer the questions.
I reject your questions because they are based on the usual "argument from silence" sort of defense--a logical fallacy. You probably can't prove a single accusation against Trump. You don't know diddly squat. You pick and choose from sources almost sure to be twisting and lying everything they hear (and rarely if ever know) and you claim that sort of thing as fact. That is what I mean here that you make your arguments from silence or more crisply, your facts come from sources of angry hatred intending to deceive.
My questions are clear and crisp and honest--intended to reveal that you don't have a clue about what you are claiming as fact--we all know that--and I am hauling you up short on the matter because what you say based on such drivel is pure bunk.
Your answer does not matter. I don't expect one from you. What I do expect is to point out periodically what is your modus operandi and sit back, grab a Pepsi, and watch your best defense--see the smoke screen and red herrings fly.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
col·lu·sion
kəˈlo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
I don't think there will be a problem here.- In June 2016, Donald Trump Jr and Paul Manafort, among other Trump campaign people, took a meeting with Russians who, according to emails Don Jr had received and responded to positively, claimed to have Russian government-collected dirt on Hillary Clinton.
- The existence of that meeting was not made public at the time.
- This week's reports are that Cohen is prepared to tell the Mueller team that then-candidate Trump in advance knew about and approved of the June 2016 meeting with the Russians.
- Mueller has formally charged 12 members of the Russian government's military intelligence unit with crimes related to the theft of DNC et al emails.
What do those objective facts demonstrate if not the Trump campaign's and candidate Trump's willingness to engage secretly with the Russians to cheat or deceive... that is, to collude with the Russians?
Here's a different, perhaps even more compelling set of objective facts:
Friday, June 3, 2016: Donald Trump, Jr. receives an email from Rob Goldstone saying that he can help the campaign connect with a Russian government rep who possesses dirt on Hillary Clinton. Don Jr says, "If it’s what you say, I love it."
Tuesday, June 7, 2016: Candidate Trump announces the following:
"I'm going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting. I wonder if the press will want to attend, who knows."
Thursday, June 9, 2016: As a follow-up to the offering of dirt the Goldstone email had promised, Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner meet with a Russian attorney at Trump Tower. Trump Jr. later claims the meeting was a "big nothing."
That "major speech" candidate Trump promised to give "probably" on June 13, in which he would discuss "all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons" never happened.
So the Trump campaign learned the Russians might have dirt on Clinton. Four days later, candidate Trump promised a "major speech" that would discuss dirt on Clinton. Two days after that, Trump campaign reps met with Russians in Trump Tower to get dirt on Clinton, but got none. Candidate Trump then never gave his "major speech" about dirt on Clinton.
Do you claim that chain of objective facts is just a series of remarkable coincidences, reformed? Isn't the more likely explanation of those objective facts that candidate Trump knew about and approved the meeting with the Russians, previewed a coming "major speech" about Clinton because he thought the Russians were going to give him dirt on Clinton, but then nixed that speech because the meeting he knew about and approved of didn't produce the dirt he expected it to?
Most candidates receiving such an invitation from the Russians would have called the FBI to report possible foreign government intrusion into an American election. The Trump campaign took the meeting and looked forward to receiving the purported dirt. They didn't get any from that meeting, but they took the meeting believing they would get some. What else is that other than collusion or an intent to collude?
So I did a google search. And it is one man's claim vs another. Who is telling the truth? So, who knows?
The tape is not a matter of competing claims.
It is an objective fact that the Trump campaign and then the White House repeatedly claimed not to have any knowledge of the McDougal payment. The tape - which is NOT someone's claim, but instead the contemporaneously recorded voices of Michael Cohen and then-candidate Donald Trump - shows beyond doubt and in DIRECT AND INCONTROVERTIBLE CONTRADICTION with Trump's previous statements, that Trump knew about the McDougal payment.
I ask you again: Whenever Team Trump denied knowledge of the McDougal payment, did they lie, were they "misinformed," or were they in some other way "mistaken," to use your alternative explanations of falsehoods?
If I actually cared enough to review them individually (I don't) I would be able to let you know. But that would be an utter waste of time. Your obsession with the President and his supposed lies are enough for all of us. I'll focus on the actual results of what he has done in office. We are in a MUCH better place than we were under Obama.
Here you frame, display, and shine Klieg lights on your "Trumpster ID" card. When offered evidence to support a view of reality different from yours, you a) refuse to view it, b) lump it together in an unspecific and unsupported generalization, c) attack the messenger who offers you the evidence, and d) tell us you'll focus on what you believe Trump has done in office.
That's pure, undefiled Trumpsterhood, reformed.
- Dismiss or disregard objective truth that disputes your world view (e.g. during the 2016 campaign, candidate Trump called the steadily-improving monthly unemployment numbers "fake" and "made up;" now he claims they're spot on and accurate)
- Attack the messengers of that objective truth (e.g. "Fake news!" and the news media are "the enemy of the people")
- Focus on results while in office, not personal or professional conduct while in office (In response to evidence of serial lying, payments to porn stars, collusion with Russians, and corruption in government the likes of which this nation may never have experienced before, the mantra heard across Trumpster Nation these days is that what matters is Trump got the tax cuts, he nominated Neil Gorsuch, and the economy is doing great. As candidate Trump presciently observed, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, ok? It’s, like, incredible.")
You are a genuine Trumpster, reformed, which means you will not respond directly to the objective facts I have presented in this post. You will attack me, or offer other slippery attempts to divert attention away from those facts, but you will not address them directly.
Notice how your fellow Trumpster, Gao Lu, never addresses issues directly. When I challenge the truth of one of his assertions - when I prove that one of his assertions is false or misleading - he offers no substantive rebuttal (because there is no rebuttal to objective truth!) offers a snarky personal commentary, then says only "What I claimed is true to me, and I don't want to talk about it anymore." That, too, is true Trumpsterhood.
PROVE ME WRONG, REFORMED! Prove that you DO care about objective truth. Take on the objective facts I have presented (and linked to) in this post and show, by logic and other objective facts (links, please), that I have misrepresented the objective truth of any of these matters, and/or that the conclusions I draw from that objective truth are incorrect.
HAHAHAHA for someone who says we shouldn't label people but let people label themselves, you are quite teh hypocrite!
-
@GaoLu said:
You went to a lot of trouble to raise a lot of smoke, providing evidence how important that matter is to you. However, you still don't answer the questions.Actually, what I went to a lot of trouble to do was to clarify that the subject of my original question was your characterization of items in a Washington Post list of alleged Trump false or misleading statements, and NOT, as your response to my question suggested, whether politics is "an honest science," whether my words are "honest and Holy-Spirit guided," or whether I know all items on the Post's list are lies.
In case it's still not clear to you that such was the subject of my original question, I post it again here. Please note the absence of any reference to the honesty of politics or my words, or to my assessment of the veracity of the WAPO's list:
"The WAPO list surely contains statements you consider false. AMONG THE STATEMENTS YOU CONSIDER FALSE, do you consider them mostly lies or mostly something else?"
/
I reject your questions because they are based on the usual "argument from silence" sort of defense--a logical fallacy. You probably can't prove a single accusation against Trump. You don't know diddly squat. You pick and choose from sources almost sure to be twisting and lying everything they hear (and rarely if ever know) and you claim that sort of thing as fact. That is what I mean here that you make your arguments from silence or more crisply, your facts come from sources of angry hatred intending to deceive.
To steal from your post, you went to a lot of trouble to raise a lot of smoke once again to avoid questions.
You "reject (my) questions because they are based on the usual 'argument from silence.'" No. You reject my questions because direct and truthful answers to them would demonstrate the weakness of your arguments, or, in recent experience, the false and/or misleading character of them.
The difficult truth, Gao Lu, is that when I hold you accountable for the false and/or misleading statements you include in your posts, you basically never disprove my contentions. And the reason you don't is that you can't. But since you don't want to acknowledge that you can't, you respond with silly distractions such as allegations of "arguments from silence."
In your latest post, notice that you CLAIM that I "pick and choose from sources almost sure to be twisting and lying everything they hear (and rarely if ever know) and you claim that sort of thing as fact." You PROVE... or cite even one bit of evidence for... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And in so doing you throw rhetorical sand in the air, hoping to distract from the fact that you can't answer the objective truth of the matters under discussion.
Donald Trump CLAIMED three million illegals voted for Hillary Clinton, which gave her the popular vote win in the 2016 election. But Donald Trump PROVED... or cited even one bit of evidence for... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And in so doing, Trump threw rhetorical sand in the air to distract from the fact that he genuinely, legally, and actually DID LOSE the 2016 popular vote, and it was NOT because of votes cast by illegals.
My questions are clear and crisp and honest--intended to reveal that you don't have a clue about what you are claiming as fact--we all know that--and I am hauling you up short on the matter because what you say based on such drivel is pure bunk.
Again, you CLAIM much, but you PROVE... or even offer shreds of evidence to support... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. More rhetorical sand in the air. President Trump would be proud of you (You say my posts are based on "drivel" and "bunk." The president says "It's all FAKE NEWS! from the enemy of the people!!!" Send him a collection of your CD posts. I think he might give you some Trump steaks.)
Your answer does not matter. I don't expect one from you. What I do expect is to point out periodically what is your modus operandi and sit back, grab a Pepsi, and watch your best defense--see the smoke screen and red herrings fly.
My "answer does not matter." That's a sincere invitation to open dialogue if I've ever heard one.
But it's also part of a paragraph that offers more claims and allegations without a scent's worth of proof. Anyone can CLAIM anything. I can CLAIM Donald Trump was born in Kenya. But if I don't prove my claim, so what? (Silly me!! Who would EVER claim that a duly elected president of the United States was born in Kenya?!)
You make claims and allegations quite ably, Gao Lu. The problem is you rarely if ever prove them, or even TRY to prove them. Why not? Because most of your claims and allegations are false - and therefore can't be proven - and because you don't make them to assert objective truth. You make them because they're rhetorical sand. I wonder what Jesus would have said about arguments built on rhetorical sand??? (Matthew 7.26-27)
The bottom line is that your latest response is nothing but distraction from the fact that can't address the objective truth of my posts. There is NOTHING but objective facts underlying my two examples, neither or which you or reformed will directly engage. So instead, you throw rhetorical sand - arguments from silence, red herrings, and smoke screens.
BUT PROVE ME WRONG!! Show with links to objective truth that ANYTHING about the way I characterized either of those two examples is not factually correct. Now, I predict that you won't... because you can't.. but I am willing to be surprised. Don't just CLAIM, Gao Lu, PROVE.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)