US Presidential Candidates

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:You do understand that when Trump claim millions of illegal voters were voting and claims he's going to go investigate that HE is focusing on voter fraud right? Which is why my comments were about same?

IF ONLY there was an investigation into election fraud... and in states that actually mattered to the outcome instead of Trump throwing a tantrum about popular vote totals in freaking California where it would have been pointless for anyone to even try committing fraud in a presidential election.

But there has never been any expectation from me Trump cared about even looking at anything in that area and so far being proven right. The only thing he cares about is his tantrum over losing the popular vote and trying to convince people he didn't really.

I do. As I believe I stated elsewhere and I believe Biochem mentioned as well. Focusing on the specifics of what Trump says may be misleading. Often, he says things to generate a response from either opponents or the media. They respond the way he wants. He ends up controlling the narrative and bypassing the media to a large extent.

As I mentioned to biochem, that sounds an awful lot like a PC way of saying "Trump lies his ass off all the time and you can't trust anything he says."

Which, when Trump is doing it, apparently is a positive from the President of the United States???

If one is likely, then go after the true threat to our franchise! Go after election fraud, rather than voter fraud. Get behind the effort and push for the best sort of investigation there can be.

Again... if only.

Not gonna happen. If any investigation does happen it'll be a circus.

gcomeau wrote:
As I mentioned to biochem, that sounds an awful lot like a PC way of saying "Trump lies his ass off all the time and you can't trust anything he says."

Which, when Trump is doing it, apparently is a positive from the President of the United States???

If one is likely, then go after the true threat to our franchise! Go after election fraud, rather than voter fraud. Get behind the effort and push for the best sort of investigation there can be.

Again... if only.

Not gonna happen. If any investigation does happen it'll be a circus.

I got hung up on Bengazi, because I still believe Hillary lied. You have offered many supporting arguments that no lies were told. Guess where the right's focus on Bengazi got us? Not very far at all.

The administration tried to lie about the attendance at the inauguration. They stretched embellished to breaking for this. You guys think they lied. Ok, I won't try nearly as hard as you did supporting Hillary's Bengazi statement. I only suggest that by focusing the attendance issue that most people don't give a rat's ass about, you miss the material things he did. Good or bad, Trump got lots of things through and the media spent 2 days on attendance figures no one cares about and so chalks up to overzealous embellishment.

Seriously, keep it up. The right is applauding you guys focusing on seeing through your navel. We've had a litany of lying politicians, there is a large amount of grace being given to the importance of the issue being lied about. You guys give it to your politicians, the right gives to theirs.

Will there be a serious investigation? Seems much more likely now than last week, so I'll just hope to avoid disappointment for a bit longer.

Lying or not re the attendance figures doesn't impact people's opinions of Trump. Trump is a narcissist. Pretty much everyone in the USA (and globally) knows it by now. The attendance thing is EXACTLY what one would expect from a narcissist. So he is behaving as expected which isn't going to impact people's opinions of him, they've already factored it in.

PeterZ wrote:I got hung up on Bengazi, because I still believe Hillary lied. You have offered many supporting arguments that no lies were told. Guess where the right's focus on Bengazi got us? Not very far at all.

The administration tried to lie about the attendance at the inauguration. They stretched embellished to breaking for this. You guys think they lied. Ok, I won't try nearly as hard as you did supporting Hillary's Bengazi statement.

Because unlike with Benghazi there are no supporting arguments for Trump and Spicer's claim for you TO try... it was simply objectively factually contrary to reality. It was "water is dry and up is down" levels of reality denial. There is no rationally defending it.

I only suggest that by focusing the attendance issue that most people don't give a rat's ass about, you miss the material things he did.

The issue isn't the attendance levels. It's the pathology.

Trump lies about EVERYTHING. He lies about important details. He lies about insignificant minutia. He lies reflexively as a matter of course. And that matters.

Good or bad, Trump got lots of things through and the media spent 2 days on attendance figures no one cares about and so chalks up to overzealous embellishment.

Trump signed a lot of executive orders. There is nothing anyone can do about him signing executive orders so what good would it have done to shift focus off his lying besides letting him get away with yet more lying?

Seriously, keep it up. The right is applauding you guys focusing on seeing through your navel. We've had a litany of lying politicians, there is a large amount of grace being given to the importance of the issue being lied about. You guys give it to your politicians, the right gives to theirs.

No.

You don't get to play the false equivalency card here. There is the normal level of evasiveness and embellishment and twisting that you expect of a politician... and then there is Baghdad Bob seizing control of the White House.

In the meantime, Trump just signed another Executive order... to publish a weekly list of crimes committed by immigrants.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 46826.html

Anyone feeling rather Germany circa 1930s YET?

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:I got hung up on Bengazi, because I still believe Hillary lied. You have offered many supporting arguments that no lies were told. Guess where the right's focus on Bengazi got us? Not very far at all.

The administration tried to lie about the attendance at the inauguration. They stretched embellished to breaking for this. You guys think they lied. Ok, I won't try nearly as hard as you did supporting Hillary's Bengazi statement.

Because unlike with Benghazi there are no supporting arguments for Trump and Spicer's claim for you TO try... it was simply objectively factually contrary to reality. It was "water is dry and up is down" levels of reality denial. There is no rationally defending it.

I only suggest that by focusing the attendance issue that most people don't give a rat's ass about, you miss the material things he did.

The issue isn't the attendance levels. It's the pathology.

Trump lies about EVERYTHING. He lies about important details. He lies about insignificant minutia. He lies reflexively as a matter of course. And that matters.

Good or bad, Trump got lots of things through and the media spent 2 days on attendance figures no one cares about and so chalks up to overzealous embellishment.

Trump signed a lot of executive orders. There is nothing anyone can do about him signing executive orders so what good would it have done to shift focus off his lying besides letting him get away with yet more lying?

Seriously, keep it up. The right is applauding you guys focusing on seeing through your navel. We've had a litany of lying politicians, there is a large amount of grace being given to the importance of the issue being lied about. You guys give it to your politicians, the right gives to theirs.

No.

You don't get to play the false equivalency card here. There is the normal level of evasiveness and embellishment and twisting that you expect of a politician... and then there is Baghdad Bob seizing control of the White House.

You appear to agree with me. You cut President Trump no slack just as I cut Clinton none. While I recognize my bias, you don't. Further, there are more folks out there who also don't recognize their bias. I watch their righteous fury with great enjoyment.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
And this. Not enough by this account to sway the election, but enough to justify an investigation.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
No.

You don't get to play the false equivalency card here. There is the normal level of evasiveness and embellishment and twisting that you expect of a politician... and then there is Baghdad Bob seizing control of the White House.

You appear to agree with me. You cut President Trump no slack just as I cut Clinton none.

Please stop trying the false equivalency card.


I am not cutting Trump slack for something there is *no rational argument* that he did not do. He lied, that is beyond sane levels of debate.

You are not cutting Clinton slack for something EIGHT DIFFERENT INTENSIVE INVESTIGATIONS all say she did NOT do and you insist on believing she did it anyway.


There is a *little* difference between these two things.

While I recognize my bias, you don't.

No, you really do not. Because if you did you wouldn't be trying to claim we're both doing the same thing.

Further, there are more folks out there who also don't recognize their bias. I watch their righteous fury with great enjoyment.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
And this. Not enough by this account to sway the election, but enough to justify an investigation.

You should find better sources than the Washington Times.

There is no study that "found" she received a single non citizen vote, let alone 800,000.

A few years ago a freaking *internet survey* came back with some small percentage of people checking that they were both non citizens and had voted.

An internet survey.


How many accidentally clicked non-citizen?
How many accidentally clicked they had voted?
How many were just internet trolls playing with the survey?

Nobody knows. That is not a study finding.

And it ESPECIALLY is not a study finding of any votes Clinton received because the survey in question was from THREE YEARS AGO. And Richman's parer was published THREE YEARS AGO.

So unless the Washington Times is claiming he's Nostradamus in disquise... No.

Just. Fucking. No.


Geez.

I just gonna sit back and enjoy the apoplectic fits. False equivalency or not, he elicits a response that turns otherwise rational people irrational at least less analytical about the consequences of their behavior. If he can make the left think less than clearly, his policies will likely have less effective resistance. Since I haven't had serious issues with those policies yet, I don't have any complaints to make.

As I said he will "misspeak", "misstate", "unreasonably elaborate" and lie about things his supporters (or those that don't agree with Dem policies) don't care about just to get his opponents to become even more unreasonably apoplectic. You call it a pathology. I call it a nasty political strategy that works. If you are right, he will screw up by the numbers and lose credibility with everyone. No pathological liar can keep things straight all the time. If I am right, he won't lose support from those that voted for him even if his likability remains low.

American voters find something admirable about an effective political operator. Heck, Bill Clinton had a plethora of faults, but was admired for his political skills, if not for his non-existent moral virtues.

PeterZ wrote:I just gonna sit back and enjoy the apoplectic fits. False equivalency or not, he elicits a response that turns otherwise rational people irrational at least less analytical about the consequences of their behavior. If he can make the left think less than clearly, his policies will likely have less effective resistance. Since I haven't had serious issues with those policies yet, I don't have any complaints to make.

As I said he will "misspeak", "misstate", "unreasonably elaborate" and lie about things his supporters (or those that don't agree with Dem policies) don't care about just to get his opponents to become even more unreasonably apoplectic. You call it a pathology. I call it a nasty political strategy that works. If you are right, he will screw up by the numbers and lose credibility with everyone. No pathological liar can keep things straight all the time. If I am right, he won't lose support from those that voted for him even if his likability remains low.

American voters find something admirable about an effective political operator.

Sigh...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/202811/trump ... ating.aspx

Lost the popular vote by 3 million. Won the EC by one of the narrowest margins in history *only* because very large percentages of his already *minority* support were driven by opposition to Clinton NOT support for Trump. Lowest approval rating and highest disapproval rating of an incoming president *by a significant margin* in the history of polling on the question.

And to paraphrase your commentary on the subject...


"Trump is good at this. People admire an effective political operator".

gcomeau wrote:Sigh...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/202811/trump ... ating.aspx

Lost the popular vote by 3 million. Won the EC by one of the narrowest margins in history *only* because very large percentages of his already *minority* support were driven by opposition to Clinton NOT support for Trump. Lowest approval rating and highest disapproval rating of an incoming president *by a significant margin* in the history of polling on the question.

And to paraphrase your commentary on the subject...


"Trump is good at this. People admire an effective political operator".

I really don't wish to appear like I am trolling, but Trump is President when Clinton should have kicked his ass all over the field. She lost one of the most winnable elections ever. She is either the worlds worst politician and you guys should have kicked her to the curb in the primaries or Trump had an effective strategy. Perhaps its a little of both. In any case, keep marginalizing whatever brought him here and you will continue seeing your politicians lose elections all over the country but a few select large cities.

If the investigation into voter and election fraud happens, even those cities will be tougher to win. Democrats will still win there, but it won't be nearly as easy for places like Chicago to deliver victories.