Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 203

Thread: Trump lies and false news breaks all records

  1. #61
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,945
    Amen (Given)
    2203
    Amen (Received)
    1505
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Mostly because Shuny and JimL and co. think Obama walked on water and only Trump is an evil liar. It is not to excuse Trump but to show that Obama was no different. Or Bill Clinton.
    Yes Trump is different. It's a question of degree. Trump is a compulsive liar, he lies continually. "According to the amazing Fact Checker blog at The Washington Post, Trump has made 1,950 misleading or simply false claims since being sworn in as President on January 20, 2017. That's an average -- average -- of 5.6 a day. Every day he has been President".

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/02/p...ker/index.html
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  2. #62
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,179
    Amen (Given)
    150
    Amen (Received)
    494
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    [Interesting side note: I had no idea that in 52 of the 57 presidential elections held thus far, the winner of the popular vote also won the electoral college. The five that didn't were Adams (1824, Democratic-Republican), Hayes (1876, Republican), Harrison (1888, Republican), Bush (2000, Republican) and Trump (2016, Republican). I had no clue that each and every such situation involved Republicans. No WONDER Republicans are so enamored of the electoral college.]
    The Republicans (and Democrats) of 1876 and 1888 were so different from the Republicans and Democrats of modern day that I'm not sure they can even really be considered the same parties. Add that to the fact that there was a 112-year gap between the electoral college mattering again and it seems disingenuous to say that elections that took place that long ago had any impact whatsoever on how Republicans or Democrats in modern day think about the electoral college.

    Also, the claim that "each and every situation involved Republicans" is false anyway because no Republicans were involved in the 1824 election, because the Republican Party wouldn't be founded for another 30 years Yes, it's called the "Democratic-Republican" Party but the similarity extends only to having the word Republican in it; the two parties are otherwise unrelated.

  3. #63
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    39,741
    Amen (Given)
    3686
    Amen (Received)
    18581
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    And it is stiill not clear to me why that is the default response I see. All politicians lie to varying degrees. Trump is the first politician I know of who has publicly stated that lying is an acceptabl strategy to get what you want, and lies multiple times in almost every speech and lies in many tweets. "I am a self-avowed liar and I think it's an acceptable thing to do," is an odd position for people to stand behind and defend. Ive even heard it defended with "it's so refreshing to have someone who is honest about it!"
    Where did Trump say "I am a self-avowed liar and I think it's an acceptable thing to do,"???

  4. #64
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,057
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    The Republicans (and Democrats) of 1876 and 1888 were so different from the Republicans and Democrats of modern day that I'm not sure they can even really be considered the same parties. Add that to the fact that there was a 112-year gap between the electoral college mattering again and it seems disingenuous to say that elections that took place that long ago had any impact whatsoever on how Republicans or Democrats in modern day think about the electoral college.
    I agree that modern people probably do not look that far back - until discussions about the electoral college come up. Then this history surfaces as well, so I has not attempting to be disengenuous. I also agree that the Republican party has shifted dramatically over the years. One example is in the civil rights arena. If I remember my history correctly, Lincoln was Republican, and was a significant player in the charge to abolish slavery. In the 1950s and 1960s, although civil rights legislation happened under two Democratic presidents, conservative southern Democrats were a primary opposition to that agenda. After the civil rights legislation passed, these conservative figures abandoned the Democratic party in droves and switched to the Republican Party, significantly altering its make-up and setting the stage for the modern Republican party. At that point, the historically Democratic south (a historical reaction to Lincoln's actions) suddenly became solidly Republican and has (mostly) remained so to this day, though it is recently showing some signs of shift.

    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    Also, the claim that "each and every situation involved Republicans" is false anyway because no Republicans were involved in the 1824 election, because the Republican Party wouldn't be founded for another 30 years Yes, it's called the "Democratic-Republican" Party but the similarity extends only to having the word Republican in it; the two parties are otherwise unrelated.
    I was not familiar with the Democratic-Republican party when I saw the reference, so I looked into it. I agree that it was not the modern Republican Party, but it is described in several sources as the "progenitor" to the modern Republican Party. So equating them is too strong (I agree with you there), but claiming no relationship at all seems equally too strong. Lets say it was a party with many themes similar to the early Republican Party, which was formed in 1854 (30 years later, as you note).
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  5. #65
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41,785
    Amen (Given)
    9039
    Amen (Received)
    20878
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Yes Trump is different.
    And he is POTUS, Hillary is not.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  6. Amen Mountain Man amen'd this post.
  7. #66
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,057
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Where did Trump say "I am a self-avowed liar and I think it's an acceptable thing to do,"???
    It's in his "Art of the Deal." He describes the effectiveness of repeating a lie often enough and it will be perceived as the truth, and that lying within a negotiation is perfectly acceptable if it "gets you what you want." Ivanka takes a slightly different spin on it in her book (so this appears to bee a "family value") when she notes you should nto be too quick to correct a mistaken assumption someone else has made if it gives you an advantage.

    As a business person, I find that kind of dynamic unethical. Heck - I find it unethical as a person!
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  8. #67
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    39,741
    Amen (Given)
    3686
    Amen (Received)
    18581
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    It's in his "Art of the Deal." He describes the effectiveness of repeating a lie often enough and it will be perceived as the truth, and that lying within a negotiation is perfectly acceptable if it "gets you what you want." Ivanka takes a slightly different spin on it in her book (so this appears to bee a "family value") when she notes you should nto be too quick to correct a mistaken assumption someone else has made if it gives you an advantage.

    As a business person, I find that kind of dynamic unethical. Heck - I find it unethical as a person!
    Can you give an actual quote?

  9. #68
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,057
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Can you give an actual quote?
    I haven't read the book in a decade, Sparko, and I tossed it after I read it. I found it to be pretty repulsive. So, no, I cannot directly quote a passage. I remember it because it was one of the concepts in the book that made me go
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  10. #69
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,179
    Amen (Given)
    150
    Amen (Received)
    494
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I was not familiar with the Democratic-Republican party when I saw the reference, so I looked into it. I agree that it was not the modern Republican Party, but it is described in several sources as the "progenitor" to the modern Republican Party. So equating them is too strong (I agree with you there), but claiming no relationship at all seems equally too strong. Lets say it was a party with many themes similar to the early Republican Party, which was formed in 1854 (30 years later, as you note).
    Its connection to the Republican Party is very loose. One of the successors of the Democratic-Republican Party was the Anti-Jacksonian Party, which eventually joined with others to form the Whig Party, and the Republican Party was one of the successors of the Whig Party after the Whig Party dissolved. Ironically, one can trace a much closer succession with the Democratic Party, as it was a direct successor to the Democratic-Republican Party, rather than a successor of a successor of a successor.

  11. #70
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,918
    Amen (Given)
    1699
    Amen (Received)
    2604
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I agree that modern people probably do not look that far back - until discussions about the electoral college come up. Then this history surfaces as well, so I has not attempting to be disengenuous. I also agree that the Republican party has shifted dramatically over the years. One example is in the civil rights arena. If I remember my history correctly, Lincoln was Republican, and was a significant player in the charge to abolish slavery. In the 1950s and 1960s, although civil rights legislation happened under two Democratic presidents, conservative southern Democrats were a primary opposition to that agenda. After the civil rights legislation passed, these conservative figures abandoned the Democratic party in droves and switched to the Republican Party, significantly altering its make-up and setting the stage for the modern Republican party. At that point, the historically Democratic south (a historical reaction to Lincoln's actions) suddenly became solidly Republican and has (mostly) remained so to this day, though it is recently showing some signs of shift.
    the republican party stayed the civil rights party for the most part (except for the influence of an influx of neocons). the democrats went from violating the civil rights of blacks to violating the civil rights of whites.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •