Trump is now averaging 7.6 lies per day.
- Thread starter DrHoops
- Start date
I didn’t insist on knowing your political background. I don’t care about it. You implied a person was racist just as I said those of you on the left often do.
FWIW, racial bias is not the same as racism. I think a lot of people on the forum here are impacted by racial bias. I expect that my judgements are partly influenced by racial bias.
The evidence that the Obama presidency triggered wide-spread "identity threat" for lots of people who identify as white is pretty iron-clad. We discussed this article in Vox just recently.
It often seems to me that people who systematically and routinely conflate the claim of unconscious racial bias with conscious racism play a clever trick on themselves and us. It is a trick that allows them to deflect scrutiny from unconscious biases and while simultaneously turning them into aggrieved victims unjustly accused. I doubt that the trick is done consciously either but rather "feels" like truth.
Trump lies at a level of efficiency far surpassing anything Obama ever accomplished. So he's got that going for him.
A couple of years ago, one of my nephews had an IU project that involved a survey he wanted us all to take so they could generate numbers, so we all dutifully took the test.The idea was to test our inherent racial biases, and the test required us to make snap judgments before we could think about the answers. Leaving aside the details, my test results showed a strong pro-white bias.
The creators of the test explained that this didn't mean I was a racist. It meant that the human bias in favor of people who looked like me was deeply entrenched in me, but it is up to me what I do about that. I have innate biases, but I can choose to be a racist, or not.
It would be better if we could all think and speak more honestly about our biases. We all have them.
No, you did not, but you insisted that I am a Democrat without knowing anything about me. That is why I wrote what I wrote, not because I wanted to impress or depress you.
Furthermore, if you don't care about whether I am a Democrat or not, why do you lump me with the Democrats and collectively fanning them and me?
Besides, you are dead wrong; we, using your "impartial" collective designation, do not often call others racists. We call racists racists; that includes Republicans, Democrats, and independents. We do not call all Republicans racists. We know that there are many non-racist Republicans as well as racist Democrats.
As for your "those of you on the left often call a person a racist," you are dead wrong. Most of them call racists racists, not "all Republicans are racists." You are mature enough to understand the difference, I hope.
For instance, if Trump makes racist statements, which he often does, and the audience agree with him, I would call them racists. If he makes stupid statements w/o resorting to racism, I would say "he made stupid statements," I wouldn't say "he made racist statements." I hope you are not confused about the difference.
I’ve been called racist, implicitly, by those like you on this forum. By those like you, I mean people on the left side of this forum. I’m sure you know that includes you.
I didn’t say that you, or most of the posters on the left side of the WC like you, call “all Republicans” racists. However, two on your side (not you) have said that all Republicans that voted for Trump are racists. I’m not going to bother to name them. If they had any balls they would raise their hands and cop to that. I didn’t vote for him and think he’s an embarrassment to the party and the country, but most of his supporters aren’t racist - they support him for other reasons.
Generalizing all based on two is not quite right. If there are two on the right who are racists, can you generalize that all righties are racists?
You asked for examples of Trump's lies that cost me money. The examples I gave show his pattern of lying about what things will cost to get support for his ideas. Then his ideas turn out to be quite expensive to taxpayers like me. Please explain why you don't believe these are relevant examples.
You’re not understanding my posts. I can’t make it more clear for you, so carry on.
Well, I guess we can confirm that the meeting was not about adoptions.
We believe you Donald.
He's gone Batshit stupid today.
Must be great for y'all to wake up and learn Trump has admitted his son conspired with the Russians to influence a US Presidential campaign.
Now if he can kindly admit he wrote the press release aboard Air Force One, we can mercifully wrap this up.
Well, I guess we can confirm that the meeting was not about adoptions.
We believe you Donald.
Dumb dee Dumb Dumb
Pretty safe to say this mornings tweet shoots part of the Confucius theory....."the father conceals the
misconducts of the (wonderful)
son" ALL to hell.
Last edited:
No, it is our fake president faking the fake meeting his fake son committed a crime. The question is how much our fake president was and is still involved with this crime.
Well, I guess we can confirm that the meeting was not about adoptions.
We believe you Donald.
Wait, are you implying Donald J Trump may be lying about this? Surely you can’t be serious.
...
His tweets are becoming more and more unhinged. I think it's more likely than ever an obstruction charge may drop from Mueller this fall....Trump just seems to be doing everything possible to get out ahead of it and discredit basically anything that happens.
Your post is very humorous, you are quite positive of what? The easter bunny and unicorns are real
And an all-controlling megalomaniac like Trump will never persuade any thinking person that he didn't know in advance or shortly afterward the purpose of a meeting attended by Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner.
In contrast, Reagan was known to delegate and might have been able to pull off a claim that he didn't know much about such a meeting. But not Trump.
Seems to me that he threw his own son under the bus a little bit there.
Well, I guess we can confirm that the meeting was not about adoptions.
We believe you Donald.
Yes, and it makes it look like Trump possesses valuable firsthand information about that meeting. Maybe he should sit down to talk with Mueller so that he can exonerate his son.
IMHO, this is where Trump and Flynn differ. Flynn will tell the truth in order to save his own son from prison. Trump would throw his own son under the bus to save himself.
This may be what you're talking about.
On January 29, 2018, Trump's lawyers delivered a long letter to Mueller, which is printed here:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/02/us/politics/trump-legal-documents.html
Part of this letter says: "You have received all of the notes, communications and testimony indicating that the President dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article on behalf of his son, Donald Trump, Jr. His son then followed up by making a full public disclosure regarding the meeting, including his public testimony that there was nothing to the meeting and certainly no evidence of collusion."
So, this letter says, first, that Trump dictated Trump Jr.'s initial statement which is the one saying the purpose of the meeting was to discuss adoption not Hillary. Second, it also appears to endorse this statement that Trump dictated as "a short but accurate response...on behalf of his son."
I think Trump's tweet today contradicts the claim that the meeting was to discuss adoption.
More dots are connected here: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/05/politics/trump-tweet-trump-tower-meeting/index.html
Trump supporters will point out that the long letter of January 28, 2018 appears to be by Trump's lawyers, but they were speaking for him and conceivably could be accused of wrongdoing themselves.
Is this generally what you were talking about?
No worries.
He will claim that its the usual fake news and that Junior wasn't even his son. Barely knew the guy; he calls everyone 'son.'
Last edited:
And now these sorts of pictures are coming to light. Donald Jr. with Maria Butina...an ACTUAL Russian Spy.
Just good chums!
Did you say chums? Or chumps?
Gonna be an entertaining "slide of hand" trick for the orange wizard to explain away the "wonderful" description. I guess he will just say he was describing himself.
He will claim that his Twitter account was hacked as the last resort. The Chinese.
Proof being that everyone who knows him knows that he would never call his son 'wonderful.' That would be a term used only for Ivanka.
