45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2

[scherzkeks]

roachcoach said:

Murph7355 said:

He's copping flak for people taking him too literally and dissecting every last word as if it was the poet laureate saying them. Which we know is not who he is! If every single thing any of us said was dissected to that degree we could all be made to look a little...fragile. (Yes, you and I included!).

He and his administration is copping flak for outright making stuff up whilst calling everyone else liars.

The moral high ground is so far above them they can't even see the bottom of it.

Are the media blameless? Absolutely not. Does the administration help itself? Not in the slightest, it lies about the dumbest things imaginable. Inconsequential things, yet it lies and lies and lies.

Examples where you can prove or reasonably say there was intent to deceive? I can think of 3-4 events where someone misspoke. Quite understandable given the volume of information circulating.

[Finlandia]

Eric Mc said:

Finlandia said:

Precisely - oh, and easily confused too.

That's because you didn't make any sense, or make any attempts at humour.

[Blue Cat]

scherzkeks said:

roachcoach said:

Murph7355 said:

He's copping flak for people taking him too literally and dissecting every last word as if it was the poet laureate saying them. Which we know is not who he is! If every single thing any of us said was dissected to that degree we could all be made to look a little...fragile. (Yes, you and I included!).

He and his administration is copping flak for outright making stuff up whilst calling everyone else liars.

The moral high ground is so far above them they can't even see the bottom of it.

Are the media blameless? Absolutely not. Does the administration help itself? Not in the slightest, it lies about the dumbest things imaginable. Inconsequential things, yet it lies and lies and lies.

Examples where you can prove or reasonably say there was intent to deceive? I can think of 3-4 events where someone misspoke. Quite understandable given the volume of information circulating.

Quite simply his promise to release his tax returns - outright lie he never intended to keep

[roachcoach]

scherzkeks said:

Examples where you can prove or reasonably say there was intent to deceive? I can think of 3-4 events where someone misspoke. Quite understandable given the volume of information circulating.

Intent, as you well know, is all but impossible to discern with any sort of proof at all.

But the fact remains they are pushing bad information on a regular basis, from everything from EC votes being the biggest since whenever, to iran firing on their navy when they didn't, to Trump not having a relationship with Putin, the Flynn debacle.

At some point even the most generous audience has to sit up and say "hang on, this is a bit too common". Even assuming benevolence, there is no diligence around the statements - statements with impact to the population and furthermore whilst your own administration is flinging mud on a virtually daily basis about "fake" news then their own house should be in impeccable order.

[Eric Mc]

Finlandia said:

Eric Mc said:

Finlandia said:

Precisely - oh, and easily confused too.

That's because you didn't make any sense, or make any attempts at humour.

Keep going - you are proving my point with every post.

I have met some Finns who are very funny and with a distinctly oddball and dry sense of humour too - so they aren't all humourless, just some of them.

[scherzkeks]

Blue Cat said:

scherzkeks said:

roachcoach said:

Murph7355 said:

He's copping flak for people taking him too literally and dissecting every last word as if it was the poet laureate saying them. Which we know is not who he is! If every single thing any of us said was dissected to that degree we could all be made to look a little...fragile. (Yes, you and I included!).

He and his administration is copping flak for outright making stuff up whilst calling everyone else liars.

The moral high ground is so far above them they can't even see the bottom of it.

Are the media blameless? Absolutely not. Does the administration help itself? Not in the slightest, it lies about the dumbest things imaginable. Inconsequential things, yet it lies and lies and lies.

Examples where you can prove or reasonably say there was intent to deceive? I can think of 3-4 events where someone misspoke. Quite understandable given the volume of information circulating.

Quite simply his promise to release his tax returns - outright lie he never intended to keep

Potentially, but he also claimed he'd do it when Hillary released her 33,000 deleted emails, IIRC.

[Eric Mc]

Conditional responses are childlike and immature. He needs to "man up" and behave like a proper leader - not a spoiled child.

[Murph7355]

tommunster10 said:

This over egging of his business achievements is now laughable. He cultivated this idea of self made, rags to riches which is false.
He also unlike say Bill Gates or Branson or the Apple guys of even facebook founder hasn't really created anything. He just brought stuff up with his vast INHERITED wealth, or just got stuff built with his vast INHERITED wealth...

That's it. Daddy left him loads of cash he brought stuff and built stuff and started to cultivate a story of being self made... 6 billion he inherited i think...
He didn't invent or create anything of any note that we use today that is any good.

You appear to have a rather large chip on your shoulder about where someone's wealth comes from and what they use it for...? Would he have done something in business without the INHERITED wealth? It is 100% impossible to say. He may have done better, worse or just the same. It's pointless worrying about it.

Your kids (if you have them) will likely be more advantaged than you were. It's what we work for FFS. It doesn't automatically make them less worthy.

You might also want to go and explore the history of Microsoft, Apple AND Facebook too, if you haven't already. Paragons of virtue and a sole individual's righteous endeavour they most certainly are not (unless you were choosing those 3 ironically ).

Eric Mc said:

What shouldn't we take what he says literally? If he doesn't really MEAN something, he shouldn't say it in the first place.

At the moment we have his underlings running around having to correct or even reverse what he has said. That can't go on.

Saying what you don't mean is dishonest - so if you are claiming that what he says is not really what he thinks, then, by default, he MUST be lying.

My reading of him is that he means the general thrust of everything he is saying. He seems like a person of conviction (even if I don't always agree with or understand the conviction!).

So take none of it literally but look at the thrust.

Sweden - are they in a bit of a pickle with immigration due to sub-optimal immigration rules? Probably. Is this a good example of why the US ought to be taking a more considered view? Political choice but IMO, probably. Was Sweden subject to immigration led atrocity "last night"? From what we know, unlikely.

Nato - does he think it's obsolete as it currently stands? Looks like it. Is the US about to walk away from it? No, it doesn't look like it. Do they want it reformed, especially in the way it's funded? Yes it very much looks that way, to the point that if it doesn't happen they may walk. So did the previous administration. So should we.

Mexico - does he feel that migration from Mexico needs better control? Undoubtedly. A lot of Americans probably feel the same. Does he want a wall built? Seems that way. Would it matter if it was a fence even though he said it should be a wall? Of course it wouldn't!

The list goes on.

People deride him for a lack of intelligence, but it doesn't take much to read between the lines and filter out the obviously emotive rhetoric.

It takes the exact opposite of intelligence to deliberately pick up on detailed specifics to undermine the general thrust. That's the sort of ste that leads to "normal" politicians delivering the square root of nothing. Will his outcomes be different? I don't know. It'll be interesting to see (positively or negatively), though with a whole "system" seemingly ranged against him anything positive that does ensue will be very worthy of a round of applause.

Also...isn't running round after a President making general ideas workable (or otherwise) precisely what the underlings are meant to do in the US system? It again seems a little disingenuous to criticise that state of affairs when it happens in every administration

[scherzkeks]

Murph7355 said:

tommunster10 said:

This over egging of his business achievements is now laughable. He cultivated this idea of self made, rags to riches which is false.
He also unlike say Bill Gates or Branson or the Apple guys of even facebook founder hasn't really created anything. He just brought stuff up with his vast INHERITED wealth, or just got stuff built with his vast INHERITED wealth...

That's it. Daddy left him loads of cash he brought stuff and built stuff and started to cultivate a story of being self made... 6 billion he inherited i think...
He didn't invent or create anything of any note that we use today that is any good.

You appear to have ...

Stuff.

Excellent post.

[Alpinestars]

scherzkeks said:

Examples where you can prove or reasonably say there was intent to deceive? I can think of 3-4 events where someone misspoke. Quite understandable given the volume of information circulating.

Is it down to low IQs or bad advice then?

Is there any onus on POTUS and his advisors to get it right?

[Finlandia]

Eric Mc said:

Finlandia said:

Eric Mc said:

Finlandia said:

Precisely - oh, and easily confused too.

That's because you didn't make any sense, or make any attempts at humour.

Keep going - you are proving my point with every post.

I have met some Finns who are very funny and with a distinctly oddball and dry sense of humour too - so they aren't all humourless, just some of them.

Instead of going for the cheap personal insults, why don't you try to come up with something that may actually help clean up the mess, as it is now it is not good for anyone.

[rscott]

Murph7355 said:

rscott said:

If he'd said "If you look at what's was reported last night on tv about Sweden" then it'd make sense, but anyone could go back and rewrite his speeches to be more coherent (possibly start by removing made up words...). It amazes me that someone who claims to be a successful businessman, tv presenter, etc is such a poor public speaker.
...

And yet he resonates well enough to get elected as POTUS...(resist calling the electorate thick ). And to keep his business empire and TV shows running (probably less able to withstand scrutiny without calling people out as thick ).

While we're all guessing what he meant, my guess is that in his head that is exactly what he was saying. I'm sure we've all meant one thing but ended up saying something that can be taken in other ways. Should the US President be more polished? Again, probably. But the fact that he isn't is probably what got him elected (at least in part). And he's only been in the job a month.

I think it would be wise to take the guy less literally in the absolute at the moment and judge him on the "theme"/"direction of travel" and then on the outcomes. He may get more polished in terms of his comms as he goes on. He may not (he is 70 after all. The only 70yr olds I know are constantly saying st that taken literally would make you wince! Yes, they're not POTUS. But then POTUS is just a normal person who managed to get a lot of people to vote for him).

Greg66 said:

No, there would not have been any issues. But he is copping flak for what he said, not what he could have but didn't say.

"Soft" is a bit pejorative for my liking, but "benefit of the doubt" fits the bill. Personally, I don't see why Trump gets the benefit of the doubt for making something up when he is the one complaining about fake news. He's set a high bar for himself.

He's copping flak for people taking him too literally and dissecting every last word as if it was the poet laureate saying them. Which we know is not who he is! If every single thing any of us said was dissected to that degree we could all be made to look a little...fragile. (Yes, you and I included!).

If we accept that (and I fully get that some people will be incapable/unprepared to do so), then he's not "making something up"...

Is he hypocritical where the press are concerned? Quite possibly - in seemingly believing only those who agree with him. That said, however, I've listened to some intelligent sounding commentators and they note that he is not like that at all, and that indeed people in his cabinet are not all people he agrees with (and vv) per se.

There are a few things that had he said ever so subtly differently or acted in a slightly different way would probably see him being lauded by a lot of people (the Swedish "adjustment" ref having heard about their issues on TV; perhaps ceasing immigration for a wider range of countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc). Then again, I think there are an awful lot of people out there who are specifically looking to find fault in everything he does such that it doesn't really matter what he does or what the outcomes, they would still feel him being POTUS is unjust.

Out of interest, what are your thoughts on HRC and the various bits of "fake news" (or not so) about her? Use of private emails? Hew somewhat hawkish approach on foreign affairs?

Someone in that position should take time & care to think about what they're saying and make sure they get it right.. If they can't do that, then they're fair game to be targeted by the media for their mistakes.

HRC - the whole email issue was a stupid mistake on her part and something she handled appallingly. I'm guessing Trump won't make too big an issue about it in case someone queries his use of what appears to be unapproved technology within the Whitehouse (his ancient Samsung Galaxy phone).

[rscott]

Murph7355 said:

Also...isn't running round after a President making general ideas workable (or otherwise) precisely what the underlings are meant to do in the US system? It again seems a little disingenuous to criticise that state of affairs when it happens in every administration

Most presidents consult the underlings before publishing their policies though.. Maybe if Trump did that they might not get blocked by the courts..

[scherzkeks]

Alpinestars said:

scherzkeks said:

Examples where you can prove or reasonably say there was intent to deceive? I can think of 3-4 events where someone misspoke. Quite understandable given the volume of information circulating.

Is it down to low IQs or bad advice then?

Is there any onus on POTUS and his advisors to get it right?

In the 4-5 cases cited, I would say it is down to information overload and misspeaking. Liklihood of intent to deceive is quite low, as the items were all easily verifiable by even the average joe with an Internet connection.

[roachcoach]

Misspeaking goes out the window when it's repeated over and over. Sorry, it just doesn't fly in these volumes.

How many times has he categorically denied a relationship with Putin? Yet he spoke of this relationship himself in an interview a few years ago.

That's just not defensible.

[Alpinestars]

scherzkeks said:

Alpinestars said:

scherzkeks said:

Examples where you can prove or reasonably say there was intent to deceive? I can think of 3-4 events where someone misspoke. Quite understandable given the volume of information circulating.

Is it down to low IQs or bad advice then?

Is there any onus on POTUS and his advisors to get it right?

In the 4-5 cases cited, I would say it is down to information overload and misspeaking. Liklihood of intent to deceive is quite low, as the items were all easily verifiable by even the average joe with an Internet connection.

Not sure if that's a long winded way of calling him dumb.

If the facts are that verifiable, why is he getting it wrong? If it's information overload, what happens in stressful situations where he has to make quick and sensitive decisions? Even when it's not stressful, if someone is not able to get by by making it up as he goes along, why is he not using someone to script his speeches? He has only himself to blame if your analysis is correct, and I'm not sure it is. This is not speakers' corner we're talking about, it's the POTUS in front of millions of listeners,who has a responsibility to get things right and has his credibility at stake.

[Eric Mc]

Finlandia said:

Instead of going for the cheap personal insults, why don't you try to come up with something that may actually help clean up the mess, as it is now it is not good for anyone.

What mess?

[roachcoach]

Alpinestars said:

it's the POTUS in front of millions of listeners,who has a responsibility to get things right and has his credibility at stake.

Pretty much my thoughts. He said he'd heal the divides, but his current behaviour is doubling down on them in a huge way.

You don't sway people who didn't like you to start with using these methods.

[Murph7355]

rscott said:

...
Someone in that position should take time & care to think about what they're saying and make sure they get it right.. If they can't do that, then they're fair game to be targeted by the media for their mistakes.
...

I tend to agree. Though I do feel strongly that a lot of people will have voted for him (and similarly for things like Brexit etc) precisely because every last sentence isn't coiffured to the max.

I like to think of myself as having something between my ears (even if it's just ear wax!), but the more polished the speaker the more I look hard for the angle of what they're studiously trying not to say even if they really mean it. Tony Blair's a prime example - I think the first politician who made me feel that way.

Ironically with people like Trump I find myself doing the opposite - ie trying to think what he might actually be trying to say.

rscott said:

...
HRC - the whole email issue was a stupid mistake on her part and something she handled appallingly. I'm guessing Trump won't make too big an issue about it in case someone queries his use of what appears to be unapproved technology within the Whitehouse (his ancient Samsung Galaxy phone).

Your use of language here is interesting. It may just be the way I'm reading it (emphasising my contrarian behaviour on this thread ), but it almost feels like you're being a little "apologetic" for HRC...

Ref Trump, I think his use of Twitter is way more of an issue than his choice of phone. By it's very nature, Twitter isn't a great mechanism for explaining complex topics...unless you're incredibly adept at language (which I think we can all agree isn't the case here!).

It does, however, have the advantage of letting everyone interpret/misinterpret on their own without the NYT, CNN, Fox or whomever getting in there first.

If only Western societies hadn't evolved into something where speed to market is more important (by a long way) than being considered. I do think the way modern technology is used will be the death of us (And no, Eric, I don't mean my mobile phone is suddenly going to sprout arms, obtain a knife and stab me. Or electrocute me. Think non-literally ).

[p1stonhead]

Alpinestars said:

scherzkeks said:

Alpinestars said:

scherzkeks said:

Examples where you can prove or reasonably say there was intent to deceive? I can think of 3-4 events where someone misspoke. Quite understandable given the volume of information circulating.

Is it down to low IQs or bad advice then?

Is there any onus on POTUS and his advisors to get it right?

In the 4-5 cases cited, I would say it is down to information overload and misspeaking. Liklihood of intent to deceive is quite low, as the items were all easily verifiable by even the average joe with an Internet connection.

Not sure if that's a long winded way of calling him dumb.

If the facts are that verifiable, why is he getting it wrong? If it's information overload, what happens in stressful situations where he has to make quick and sensitive decisions? Even when it's not stressful, if someone is not able to get by by making it up as he goes along, why is he not using someone to script his speeches? He has only himself to blame if your analysis is correct, and I'm not sure it is. This is not speakers' corner we're talking about, it's the POTUS in front of millions of listeners,who has a responsibility to get things right and has his credibility at stake.

Kellyanne has spoken of the Bowling Green Massacre THREE times.

They are not misspeaking. They are simply lying.