Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TRUMP SUPPORTERS ... I Need Your Help

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TRUMP SUPPORTERS ... I Need Your Help

    I really need to understand how Trump's supporters so effortlessly rationalize away his lying ... I'm not slamming you for doingf so, I just wanna know how it happens so easily.

    Please try to stick to the call of the question ... this is NOT about politics and policies, it's only about "How Do You Rationalize His Lying?"

    And please don't deny that my examples are lies ... they're overwhelmingly based in FACTS. Like CNN says, "This is an apple."

    EXAMPLE: "I won't be out golfing all the time like Obama, I'll be too busy in the White House working for you!" As of March 2019, he's nearly tripled Obama's number of outings, and certainly more than tripled his number if you count rounds played when visiting Trump properties (WH hasn't been listing them on the Presidential schedule archive).

    EXAMPLE: "I spoke last night at the Boy Scouts National Jamboree, they told me it was the best speech they'd ever had." An hour later, BSA released sa statement denying the claim, and calling his speech inappropriate for 12-14 year old boys. Why? WHY?!

    EXAMPLE: Proclaiming that "America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail," and accusing Iran of "many many violations," Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the 7-nation Joint Agreement on nukes with Iran, DESPITE: nobody anywhere agreeing there had been violations (Bibi would agree, but w/o evdence). And wtf does he mean by "nuclear blackmail?"

    EXAMPLE: "No collusion, no obstruction ... it's a total exoneration!" Of course it says right in Barr's letter "this is not an exoneration."

    EXAMPLE:"Obama-Care is a total disaster, I will have a much better plan, so good that we will repeal and replace Obama-Care with something much better." Obama-care might have quasi-disastrous elements, but his claim that he and the GOP had something better has been proven a lie. ACTUALLY THEY DID! Obama-care was not from Obama, not really. The blueprint started as "Nixon-care," then became "Romney-care," then the never-adopted "Hillary-care" in 1993, and finally Obama-care. After the smoke cleared, Romney finally took credit for "Obama-care." Question is: Why is it ok for tRump to lie about having something better, merely to grudge-destroy an Obama accomplishment? I think Americans have - or will - literally DIE on this lie.




    I'm not slamming on anybody for supporting Trump or his policies ... I just wanna know how dishonesty has become okay (even fashionable?)

  • #2
    I loathe him but if I were to put my devils advocate hat on... possibly the assumption is that all politicians lie but his are so brash and open you know when he is lying. Whereas somebody more clever (say Obama) that you wont know when he is (eg Obama wins Nobel while droning innocents and detaining families at the border).

    He also stands for “America” albeit a different version of America than what you and I would embrace but it is a version of America. It’s almost a Pollyanna post WW2 expansionary culture where white males dominated global economics as well as US culture. Things have moved away from this and they want a sliver of this vision back.

    It’s only continued speculation but still a good exercise to do. I tried to do the same thing with Hillary during the election to understand why people liked her as well. The only thing else I can leave on is that Trump the person seems to be far more hated and worse that Trump the president. What I mean is that the policies by Trump really aren’t that bad (with exception to his budget). He is a terrible manager of people, a terrible statesman, but I’m not sure he’s a terrible policy maker (as he’s been ineffective at that).

    Comment


    • #3
      Emperor Tang could take a huge dump right in the middle of their living rooms, wipe his ass with a King James Bible and his cult followers would have no problem with it as long as tRump talked bad about the people they hate, i.e., Hillary, the media, the libs, Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, LGBT folks, assertive women, et al., while doing it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
        Emperor Tang could take a huge dump right in the middle of their living rooms, wipe his ass with a King James Bible and his cult followers would have no problem with it as long as tRump talked bad about the people they hate, i.e., Hillary, the media, the libs, Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, LGBT folks, assertive women, et al., while doing it.
        They'd let Trump **** in their mouth so long as liberals had to smell it.

        Comment


        • #5
          You guys are missing the point of the exercise.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rmsanger View Post
            You guys are missing the point of the exercise.
            Please try to stick to the call of the question ... this is NOT about politics and policies, it's only about "How Do You Rationalize His Lying?"
            Answered in post #3.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'll explain more ... I don't recall any politician lying so openly while still retaining support. Actually just lying so openly.

              At the risk of losing all the rock-solid Trump-supporters' contributions I was hoping for -- I'm a bit concerned it's turning into a quasi-cult of personality. Doesn't seem to me there's many plausible explanations for their tolerance ... Pence is right there at #2, and he's perhaps the most reliably conservative pol in America. Yet despite his dishonesty and dalliances, I haven't heard a single GOP voice even mention Pence.

              Comment


              • #8
                No, there's large slice of the country that no longer trusts the news networks to report honestly. They correctly see that Trump was framed and they support him for this reason. My question to you is: why have you not understood this? The FBI failure to perform a forensic study on the DNC server says it all. Why did the FBI rely on Crowdstrike which is a Hillary controlled or at least a Hillary-sympathetic operation? All the evidence points to a download of Hillary's emails from the DNC server. It was not a hack. Russia had nothing to do with it. As we know the Bernie supporter on the DNC, Seth Rich, was shot dead days after the leak. Can e believe his death was a mugging, given that his wallet was untouched? No, it was a politically motivated hit -- payback for leaking Hillary's emails. The failure of law enforcement to investigate this - -and the failure of the media to report it -- points to the smoking gun: Russia-gate was a politically motivated scam from day one. End of story.

                Comment


                • #9
                  We also know that Comey, McCabe, & Co. etc lied to the FISA judge to obtain the warrant to surveil the Trump campaign in 2016. That was a felony. Where's the investigation?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You can say "end of story" if you like, but the fact remains Trump was NOT framed. Why not? Because there weren't any charges, much less any convictions (of trump).


                    But nobody will ever convince me there wasn't PLENTY of smoke around that campaign and in that white house. The fact that Mueller came back no true bill should fill you with joy ... THE SYSTEM WORKED!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mhgaffney View Post
                      We also know that Comey, McCabe, & Co. etc lied to the FISA judge to obtain the warrant to surveil the Trump campaign in 2016. That was a felony. Where's the investigation?

                      People really really misunderstand warrant applications. Calling the Steele dossier fraudulent because it "wasn't verified" is silly.

                      Cops don't need "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt' to submit suspicions to a judge in hopes of obtaining a warrant. The standard for inclusion of facts in warrant applications is just 51%. THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF WARRANTS is that law enforcement NEEDS evidence, not that they already have it.

                      Put more simply,: If the Steele dossier was "confirmed," they wouldn't need a warrant, they would simply file charges. It's not actually that simple, but it's pretty close.

                      Warrants are basically glorified fishing expeditions.

                      I'm not sure if I'm explaining this very well, and of course I've never dealt with FISA, but all warrants are basically the same - they're all governed by Fourth Amendment parameters. And Christopher Steele has a deep resume in these issues, and would be considered a very reliable source. Regardless of who paid his bill.

                      ​​​​​​End of story.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        But I suppose there may be other theories of why and how Trump was victimized by dishonest Democratic cops.

                        If there is (or even if there isn't) you can bet they will find it!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post


                          People really really misunderstand warrant applications. Calling the Steele dossier fraudulent because it "wasn't verified" is silly.

                          Cops don't need "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt' to submit suspicions to a judge in hopes of obtaining a warrant. The standard for inclusion of facts in warrant applications is just 51%. THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF WARRANTS is that law enforcement NEEDS evidence, not that they already have it..
                          You missed the part where the source was a paid political operative of the surveilled's political opposition. Oh, and that they had to fire said source for illegally spilling unverified details to the media. Which they then, believe it or not, used as 'verification' for things that were alleged by that political campaign.

                          It's really a pretty big deal to anyone with a brain. Because this quite literally makes every insurgent political campaign surveil-able from now on. There's nobody you couldn't muster up something like this against.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Beavis
                            It's really a pretty big deal to anyone with a brain. Because this quite literally makes every insurgent political campaign surveil-able from now on. There's nobody you couldn't muster up something like this against.

                            If only I didn't have a brain ... life would be so much easier.







                            Comment


                            • #15
                              L0L!

                              Beaver and Donny’s Kids:

                              ”The FBI and the FISA judges were in the tank with Hillary. That’s why we didn’t find out Team tRump was under investigation until after the election.”

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X