patrick.net

Call It Crazy says

@CBOEtrader I don't see you defending anything said here.

What? If I were to make a claim like "Donald Trump is a liar" I would 100% back that up w facts and reasons.

The point is that @Marcus nor any other member of the forum has attempted to show why Trump is a huge liar.

Call It Crazy says

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maryanngeorgantopoulos/president-trump-lie-list

Lol buzzfeeds audience must not read.

Does anyone want to choose a whopper and defend it as such?

Still no? That's what I thought. Sigh. I laughed when I read the buzzfeed list. No respectable person would defend this idiocy.

Call It Crazy says

There are an unprecedented amount of lies coming from Trump

Want to pick one?

OK I'll bite. How about this one:

"President Obama said we'd need a magic wand to get to 4% GDP"

Utter and complete lie.

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1039337849546571776

I would not say that Trump lies are "unprecedented" - the definition of any politician lying is that his lips are moving. Trump is not an exception by any means, if we remember Hillary under sniper fire, "I did not have sex with that womyn" etc.

Politician-speak, in fact, has become so coded that it’s essentially another language — what you might call the language of uncommunication. Hutton has examples coming out of his ears. ‘I can’t promise that’ means ‘There is no way in hell that I’m ever going to do that’. This is the right thing to do’ means ‘This is the thing we’re going to do’. ‘We need a grown-up debate’ means ‘I will only engage with people who agree with me’.

I particularly liked Hutton’s suggestions for the ‘rebranding’ of certain historical events. The Crusades become ‘Breaking Down Barriers Between Faith Groups’.
Henry VIII’s marital strategy was ‘Sustaining Families Through Wider Engagement’. And ‘Creating Critical Mass to Drive Demand for Safe Technology’? That’s Chernobyl.

dr6B says

I would not say that Trump lies are "unprecedented" - the definition of any politician lying is that his lips are moving. Trump is not an exception by any means, if we remember Hillary under sniper fire, "I did not have sex with that womyn" etc.

I haven't seen anything trump has said to be as blatant or disgusting of a lie as HRC's sniper fire comment. What iyo is Trumps most important lie?

I have seen him be factually inaccurate in irrelevant ways like "Chicago had highest murder rate in 25 years" when in fact it had the highest murder rate increase. This mistake deserves to be pointed out, but it isnt "we landed under sniper fire".

Someone, anyone, show us why Trump is a huge liar. I dont think the evidence is there.

CBOEtrader says

Someone, anyone, show us why Trump is a huge liar.

Definitely not huge liar, but I'd say similar in magnitude of lies to many other politicians. The twatter link in my previous post is about Trump helping in 9/11, which I somehow find hard to believe.

Herdingcats says

I'll ask again

I'll change the topic again. Sigh.

Is this your way of admitting Trump is not some huge, dangerous liar?

I guess you can argue that somehow having a compulsive liar as President is sometimes entertaining, and also that it's great for creating distractions whenever he feels he needs one.

Con artistry skills can be effective. But is this the image of America we want to promote to the world. And is it what or who we want our children to think we are ?

Compared to Obummer and IHLarry Trump is a compulsive truth teller.

jazz_music says

It's more than just never-ending clickbait,.

It's cover for the oligarchs on his staff as they sneak around shutting down the government that uses tax money to benefit people and the environment.

Yep. The total opposite of "draining the swamp."

marcus says

jazz_music says

It's more than just never-ending clickbait,.

It's cover for the oligarchs on his staff as they sneak around shutting down the government that uses tax money to benefit people and the environment.

Yep. The total opposite of "draining the swamp."

Did you just argue that turning down power = NOT draining the swap? Amazing logic skills on display.

jazz_music says

The link above shows the top 101 of Trumps lies. No one here's going to read it.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien

which one would you like to discuss? (still waiting)

jazz_music says

No, his lying is so profligate that it will not only go down in history, but it will have definite impact on the future of GOP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/

www.youtube.com/embed/-dY77j6uBHI

Seems that she (xe) is also a fairly profligate liar. Not sure how one can come to conclusion that Trump lies much more (or for that matter much less). Both are lying sacks of politics.

Herdingcats says

The topic is Trump lies.

Do you have a lie you want to discuss?

Herdingcats says

Yes but apparently you do not want to discuss it.

What is that lie? Sounds like you are judging trump for not implementing a PC hiring practice amongst companies w his brand name.

I am neither seeing a problem or a lie in allowing managers to hire who ever is best for the job in the relevant legal job market. You see a lie in here somewhere?

No it’s not.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/10/trump-fires-back-at-obama-boasts-hes-got-magic-wand-on-economy.html

They explain reference in third paragraph to townhall where Obama did say Trump would need s magic wand to bring jobs back.

LeonDurham says

OK I'll bite. How about this one:

"President Obama said we'd need a magic wand to get to 4% GDP"

Utter and complete lie.

CBOEtrader says

Did you just argue that turning down power = NOT draining the swap? Amazing logic skills on display.

Deep thoughts by CBOE.

They didn't close government programs in order to receive tax cuts. They took tax cuts, assuming it would make programs for the public less affordable in the future (when democrats are "in power.") It's a game we've watched for decades.

Jazz was referring to the intent. Giving themselves tax cuts without caring what spending will have to be reduced or whether the deficit will explode, is only an abuse of power, not a "reduction in power."

Nice fantasy life you lead, not to mention uhm,

CBOEtrader says

Amazing logic skills on display.

Herdingcats says

The topic is Trump lies.

Herdingcats says

Did I say I saw a lie in the practice of hiring H2B visa holders?

Lol, the change your stance as needed in a discussion strategy? Dont get offended when no one knows what you are trying to say.

Herdingcats says

I said the practice shows he doesn't want to MAGA.

Trump never said he wanted to put PC limitations on hiring practices. Legal immigration is A-ok everywhere and by everyone. If you think otherwise, then you've been lied to.

Herdingcats says

CBOEtrader says

Legal immigration is A-ok everywhere and by everyone

it's not ok to me or clambo. It takes jobs from Americans what is ok about that?

You have the right to feel that way. Its simply not Trump's stance, nor most of his supporters.

They want to limit illegal immigration first, worrying about legal H2B's in regards to trump has only been mentioned by those attempting to slander trump.

CBOEtrader says

those attempting to slander trump.

an overly dramatic characterization.

How exactly is it even possible to "slander Trump?" LOL here some standard defenses to such ludicrous claims of "scandal." You clearly have no idea what you are talking about here.

Fair Comment on a Matter of Public Interest

A defense similar to opinion is fair comment on a matter of public interest. If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.

Lack of Damages

A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.

Public Figures

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, in which a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: that the statement was made with "actual malice".

In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

Our president is not even on our side. No slander to saying that either.

And we are not socialists, you are traitors. In order to discuss something there has to be some level of mutual respect involved, which there isn't. So WTF? If somebody cracks you upside your head you get no sympathy from me.

Call It Crazy says

an overly dramatic characterization.

Perhaps you haven't noticed the MSM 98% anti trump coverage its almost as if gasp those billionaires who control our media dont want trump in office.

Call It Crazy says

And we are not socialists, you are traitors. In order to discuss something there has to be some level of mutual respect involved, which there isn't. So WTF? If somebody cracks you upside your head you get no sympathy from me.

This reads completely unhindged. Is there a point in these crazy words?

CBOEtrader says

Perhaps you haven't noticed the MSM 98% anti trump coverage its almost as if gasp those billionaires who control our media dont want trump in office

Or almost as if we have a deranged and seriously unfit for the office POTUS. What, the media is supposed to say, "don't worry be happy, nothing to see here, folks, move along. Just give him a chance. There's nothing he could possibly do that deserves criticism, unless you're just part of the establishment that is opposed to his amazing effectiveness that looks like and seems like gross incompetence only if you are his political enemy."

Were you referring to another user of the site, calling them a liar? Kinda looks that way.

marcus says

There's nothing he could possibly do that deserves criticism,

You are missing the point. 98% criticism means nothing is worth praise. Do you believe nothing trump has done is worthy of praise? Or perhaps the MSM is lying to you? It's one or the other

It's closer to 90%. But I feel like the Preisdent is getting 30 times the stories other Presidents becasue of his crazy tweets. Sadly it's what he likes. When he's taking a dump and reading his phone he wants to read a few stories about himself. You think he cares if they are negative ? It's call NPD.

So on a day that Obama would have gotten no coverage if he were President now, Trump gets 50 stories about his crazy tweets, 49 of which are deemed negative.

So ? Whose fault is that ?

marcus says

But I feel like the Preisdent is getting 30 times the stories other Presidents becasue of his crazy tweets.

Sure blame MSM decisions on Trump, lol. The reality is the oligarchs cant stand to lose control of the narrative. That is what Trump represents to them. Loss of control.

This site is full of people calling users liars or idiots or retarded under the veil of "leftists" or "liberals". The fact that Patrick can't see that or the bias of the moderators is a large blind spot.

Call It Crazy says

you are traitors. In order to discuss something there has to be some level of mutual respect involved,

Yep.

Herdingcats says

CBOEtrader says

Legal immigration is A-ok everywhere and by everyone

it's not ok to me or clambo. It takes jobs from Americans what is ok about that?

That's totally fine. Doesn't make you a bad person. The wrongthink wrt topics like immigration was introduced by leftoids, enemies of civil discourse and freedom of speech and they are majorly responsible for the moralization of politics these days. The right has such few moralizing spots left such as it is not morally good to take drugs but those are few and far between.

mell says

That's totally fine. Doesn't make you a bad person. The wrongthink wrt topics like immigration was introduced by leftoids, enemies of civil discourse and freedom of speech and they are majorly responsible for the moralization of politics these days. The right has such few moralizing spots left such as it is not morally good to take drugs but those are few and far between.

I'm fine with limiting immigration, but let's be honest about the effects of it. Legal immigration adds consumers as well as employees. Immigrants create jobs as they take them.

And who is a leftoid exactly? Can you name some leftoid candidates?

LeonDurham says

mell says

That's totally fine. Doesn't make you a bad person. The wrongthink wrt topics like immigration was introduced by leftoids, enemies of civil discourse and freedom of speech and they are majorly responsible for the moralization of politics these days. The right has such few moralizing spots left such as it is not morally good to take drugs but those are few and far between.

I'm fine with limiting immigration, but let's be honest about the effects of it. Legal immigration adds consumers as well as employees. Immigrants create jobs as they take them.

And who is a leftoid exactly? Can you name some leftoid candidates?

Most people on the left unfortunately today. If herdingcats would mention that they are against immigration the immediate response is why are you a Nazi or why do you hate brown people / Mexicans etc. etc. And the Dems have been supporting this disastrous way of non-discourse.

By the way this trend is also present in Europe, everywhere where people have started mobilizing against mass immigration the globalist-leftist answer is the same: we must fight against Nazis! Occams razor clearly dictates that the chance that the whole western world suddenly has a mass neurosis Nazi uprising are nil. Which makes this fight against imaginary nazis even more absurd.

mell says

Most people on the left unfortunately today

Can you give an example? Which politicians?

But, you have to admit, that being against legal immigration is a historically Anti-American position. America was founded as the Melting Pot and Land of Opportunity.

LeonDurham says

mell says

Most people on the left unfortunately today

Can you give an example? Which politicians?

But, you have to admit, that being against legal immigration is a historically Anti-American position. America was founded as the Melting Pot and Land of Opportunity.

Sure if you're against any legal immigration. The US always had legal immigration but with a quota. But sometimes you may have too many immigrants and then it may be prudent to halt most immigration for a while before resuming it.

mell says

Sure if you're against any legal immigration. The US always had legal immigration but with a quota. But sometimes you may have too many immigrants and then it may be prudent to halt most immigration for a while before resuming it.

We still do. Is there someone on the left that is advocating we eliminate the quotas? Who?

LeonDurham says

mell says

Sure if you're against any legal immigration. The US always had legal immigration but with a quota. But sometimes you may have too many immigrants and then it may be prudent to halt most immigration for a while before resuming it.

We still do. Is there someone on the left that is advocating we eliminate the quotas? Who?

The number are debated and by allowing unhinged illegal immigration.

mell says

The number are debated and by allowing unhinged illegal immigration.

So, I take it there is actually NOBODY that is advocating for unlimited legal immigration as you earlier stated. Were you being purposely disingenuous?

Like I've said many times, its literally impossible to have a rational discussion with the right and Trump supporters.

LeonDurham says

mell says

The number are debated and by allowing unhinged illegal immigration.

So, I take it there is actually NOBODY that is advocating for unlimited legal immigration as you earlier stated. Were you being purposely disingenuous?

Like I've said many times, its literally impossible to have a rational discussion with the right and Trump supporters.

That's exactly what the Dems are doing now. Abolish ICE, dont detain kids but also don't separate families with kids so don't detain anyone = unhinged illegal immigration.

mell says

That's exactly what the Dems are doing now. Abolish ICE, dont detain kids but also don't separate families with kids so don't detain anyone = unhinged illegal immigration.

Abolish ICE doesn't mean get rid of border security. We had border security for hundreds of years without ICE.

Again--we were talking about legal immigration though. Why do you feel the need to change the subject? Who are all the people who support unlimited legal immigration? You said that pretty much everyone on the left does. Can you not name one person?