Who believes him? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By drguitar
#15061266
Blackjack21, you said,
"I'm sure Donald Trump knew that Rosie O'Donnell would not like being called a "fat pig" and "disgusting." Does that make him an obnoxious ass? Yes."

Thank you for an open and honest answer. So then that leads me to the question, "Do all (most) Trump supporters see Trump as an "obnoxious ass" that they like because of his policies?" Is it really that simple? And if so, at what point of his obnoxious ass behavior be too far for his supporters? What if he continued to separate children from their families at the southern border? How about at the northern border? What if allowing coal producers to pollute streams and rivers turned into allowing nuclear plants to occasionally release small amounts of radiation into the environment? In other words, what would it take for the "obnoxious ass" Donald Trump to be seen as a detriment to the office of the President of the United States?
#15061272
Finfinder wrote:The only evidence presented in this thread are copied and pasted google searches which contain links to politically biased new sources like the Washington Post and un -authored sources like Wikipedia.


Are there any factual errors in the evidence?

No procedure has been outlined to indicate what parameters or properties of the what you are measuring. Specifications such as fact details as the type of standard or instrument used to conclude a falsehood, the weight of a falsehood and if it counted multiple times if repeated. Especially given the source uncertainties and biases.


Each fact checking website probably publishes their own methodology. If you want to show that they all have the same biases that you claim they do, feel free.

If you can agree that your proof is not a scientific unbiased study which weighs these falsehoods as compared to other presidents then I can concede the lack of the number of links and available for counter arguments.


The evidence I have presented is not from a scientific study, but is still verifiable and reproducible, as well as corroborated by others in the field.

For example, here is Politifact’s methodology:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... odology-i/

As evidence if you type a google search "president Obama's lies" the search results find mostly articles about Trumps lies. If you get more specific and search "Washington Post list of Obama lies" the first result, is an article about Obama that only examines 250 statements by him, the 2nd result is a 2017 article by the NY Times " Trump out lies Obama sixfold" and the 3rd result is a Washington Post article on Trumps lies.


I have no idea how this is evidence for anything.

Here is Obama’s Politifact file:
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#15061288
blackjack21 wrote:He's funny too, as an insult comic. He called Jerry Nadler a "total sleazebag" in Davos. I belly laughed, because you just never know what the hell the guy is going to say. The Queen of England loves him, because he's a lot like her husband, and because he called the mayor of London a "stone cold loser." Most politicians think it graceful to take hits. Trump hits right back.


It's entertaining.

Do you think that the earth needs entertainers to lead it at this moment in history?

Do we just need a good laugh at this point?
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15061289
drguitar wrote:So we all know Donald Trump as a consistent and unrelenting liar. That is a fact backed up by a lifetime of his lying on nearly any subject without regard to importance. He lies in office; The Washington Post has his count at over 15,000 lies in just 1000 days (averaging about 15 lies to the public per day). When world leaders are questioned about Donald Trump's veracity, the nearly uniform answer is that no one can take his statements as having any merit (although Vladimir Putin seems to think of Trump as honest).

So the question is, does anyone believe Donald Trump is an honest man, one whose word you can take as fact? And for those who would say "yes", do you believe you are also an honest person?

To be clear here, this post is not about bashing Donald Trump. I do not want to see endless rhetoric or conjecture about "Trump is this or that". This is only about his honesty when he speaks and whether we no longer are interested "as a country" on whether our leaders speak any truth and whether that even matters to any of us.

I am a Trump supporter and believe HIM. I ignored this post for awhile because I did not pickup on HIM being anyone I knew. So now that I am here, I can say I don't believe anyone is completely honest at all times, but I do believe that the President has made good on more of his campaign promises than any other politician that I have known in my lifetime, even though he has been obstructed many times along the way.

As a retiree from the U.S. Army after 20 years, I believe President Trump is our best Commander-in-Chief since President Eisenhower. I see him as honest with the troops. Sure, he jokes and exaggerates at times, but I don't see it as attempts to deceive, but as his way of making his points. Maybe, it is because I agree with what he is trying to do for our nation, that I don't see all those so-called lies reported by the left-wing media. They are not that nit-picky when it comes to the lies of the Democrats. I never hear the fake news call out the lying "pencil-neck" Adam Schiff for all his misrepresentations and lies about bigger and more important things.

So, yeah, in comparison to most, I see President Trump as very honest.
Praise the Lord.
Last edited by Hindsite on 24 Jan 2020 03:33, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15061292
late wrote:The end result will be enormous damage to the country.

Boo hoo.

late wrote:Putin approves.

Cool.

drguitar wrote:"Do all (most) Trump supporters see Trump as an "obnoxious ass" that they like because of his policies?"

I don't think his base is monolithic. Evangelicals, for example, aren't going to be as thrilled with his style and his multiple marriages, etc. However, they overlook all of that because of who he said he would appoint to the courts. He released a list of judges he would appoint. He was honest about that, and it's very important to evangelicals. So while they were holding their noses and voting for him in 2016, in 2020 they are going to be voting for him enthusiastically. By contrast, blue collar workers that tend to vote Democrat frankly like his style and think he's hysterical. People that go to a dive bar after a day of working in a steel mill aren't typically known for their Martha Stuart manners and sensibilities. Stylistically, Trump stands in incredibly stark contrast to today's political correctness militants promoting "wokeness" and "cancel culture." A lot of the Tea Party base likes Trump because he fights the political correctness and cancel culture, whereas milquetoast Republican/conservative types like George F. Will or David Brooks, and their elected bretheren like Mitt Romney and erstwhile Jeff Flake desperately want the approval of these people. So the while the Tea Party types don't necessarily act like Trump, they view people like Mitt Romney as useless--a waste of space.

drguitar wrote:And if so, at what point of his obnoxious ass behavior be too far for his supporters?

He gets pushback a lot. Lindsay Graham pushes back on his tweets a lot, for example. Rank and file folks say the same thing. However, that can be a sticky wicket as well: a lot of people agree with what he's saying, but prefer he not say it--like "He is a sleazebag" about Jerry Nadler. They more or less agree with Trump, but they think it's rude to speak like that.

drguitar wrote:What if he continued to separate children from their families at the southern border?

Well, there we are back to policy and not outrageous statements. Every president has been doing this for decades. There is really nothing new or novel about it, other than the sheer number of people crossing the border illegally and the press framing the issue when Republicans occupy the White House.

drguitar wrote:In other words, what would it take for the "obnoxious ass" Donald Trump to be seen as a detriment to the office of the President of the United States?

Probably adopting the views held by the establishment--free healthcare for illegal immigrants, open borders, free trade with China, more pointless wars in the Middle East, etc.

Ultimately, it's really not about Trump the person. It's about working and middle class voters feeling like they have been getting screwed over by the people who govern them. It's not limited to the United States either. Brexit, the Gilets Jaunes, Lege, etc. are all examples of voters feeling they have been maliciously misruled by the "elites." When Tony Blair's former seat goes Tory, you know the world has turned upside down for the establishment.

That's why Trump has been very clever about his rhetoric, because he's putting himself on the side of the vulgar working classes. That culture is so absent in Washington DC, they simply cannot relate to it.

QatzelOk wrote:Do you think that the earth needs entertainers to lead it at this moment in history?

Do we just need a good laugh at this point?

I think we have a corrupt establishment that needs to be disestablished. Who does it right now doesn't concern me that much. For example, I find it highly amusing that Sanders is leading in the polls right now. The establishment is utterly vexed by this. They're impeaching Trump over the Biden matter, and Biden is not benefiting at all--even with Sanders sequestered in the Senate and unable to campaign. While I would prefer another four more years of Trump, I ultimately just don't want to see Biden win. In 2016, I just didn't want to see Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton.

That said, I do think the ability to entertain people can certainly be construed to be one of the five bases of power: referent power. That's why I think the impeachment is going badly for the Democrats--ultimately, it's not entertaining.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15061294
blackjack21 wrote:He gets pushback a lot. Lindsay Graham pushes back on his tweets a lot, for example. Rank and file folks say the same thing. However, that can be a sticky wicket as well: a lot of people agree with what he's saying, but prefer he not say it--like "He is a sleazebag" about Jerry Nadler. They more or less agree with Trump, but they think it's rude to speak like that.

Yeah, we like to hear someone in power say what we common folks have been thinking. Trump does that - like calling out the left-wing fake news networks.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15061302
blackjack21 wrote:a lot of people agree with what he's saying, but prefer he not say it--like "He is a sleazebag" about Jerry Nadler. They more or less agree with Trump, but they think it's rude to speak like that.


There are some who think jimjam's characterization of Impeached President Trump as "Obese Donald" of "Fatso" is rude …………… :lol:
By late
#15061356
blackjack21 wrote:
Boo hoo.




I was hoping the other shoe would drop. For whatever crazy reason, you want to destroy your country.
By Patrickov
#15061357
late wrote:I was hoping the other shoe would drop. For whatever crazy reason, you want to destroy your country.


Sometimes jealousy and hatred of people more righteous than oneself would suffice.

Of course, this is not true. I do think America or Anglosphere deserves greatness, just that we have different views on how it should be.
By late
#15061358
Hindsite wrote:
like calling out the left-wing fake news networks.



You love fake news. You do fake here constantly.

But it has to be extreme Right wing fake.

There are some crap Left wing sources, no doubt. But mostly they aren't nearly as awful as the batshit Breitbart/4chan/Putin nexus. They are a nexus because Putin's trolls will push crazy out there, and Breitbart will make it crazier, and then Russia or 4chan will add new, additional crazy. It's how you get child prostitution in a cellar that doesn't exist. Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows it's fake, if they read it, it's because they want fake.

But... most people are working within American traditions. So you will see supremely qualified experts like Prof Tribe, and other people that worked in the upper echelons of their field.

The difference is beyond cartoonish. It's responsible versus batshit crazy.
By Patrickov
#15061367
drguitar wrote:Patrickov, you answered that you believe Trump's actions speak louder than words. But you never said that you were okay with his constant lying.

So are you saying that you are okay with him lying all the time as long as his actions line up with your political view? Or are you saying that honesty does not need to be part of a person's moral compass? Or something else entirely?

If the second choice above is what you believe, how can our Allies work with someone they cannot trust at their word.

There was a time, not long ago, when a person's word was their bond. Some of us still believe in those words.



From personal experience I found it is impractical to hold people accountable for whatever they say, and for public figures, with their need to appeal their supporters, even less. Therefore, public figures should be judged by their honesty in action, i.e. how consistent their actions are, compared with their stance.

I have problem with people doing something opposite to what they believe (not necessarily what they say). For example, the Chinese government place nationalism in the top priority, but even themselves are eager to escape the country at the first opportunity. To me, that renders the person or organisation unbelievable.

Trump can be predictable in a bad way (i.e. if he says or does something, it is going to be bad), but I believe him in that he is pretty consistent to what he believes -- to upset the political establishment and surprise them if necessary, in order to achieve something he wants to.

Of course, he must have some actions / policies that I agree with in order to make me believe him, but that doesn't mean I think whatever he says is true -- again, it is impractical.

As I understand, "believe" is different from "agree". For example, I strongly disagree with Trump's Middle East policies, but so far he can be believed in that he did not blindly engage in wars. Yes, the Soleimani thing had me taken aback a bit, but the outcome turned out better than some pessimistic expectations, and I believe Trump and his administration did work to keep the side effects to a minimum.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#15061376
After being asked if the world really needs to be lead by entertainers, blackjack21 wrote:I think we have a corrupt establishment that needs to be disestablished.

And do you think a corrupt entertainer who is also a failed entrepreneur is honestly someone who is going to change the level of corruption? Perhaps by starting another war to add to all the wars that the last few presidents started (while pretending to care about fighting corruption)?

In World History, how many gambling casino owners have fought against corruption using entertainers?
#15061391
QatzelOk wrote:And do you think a corrupt entertainer who is also a failed entrepreneur is honestly someone who is going to change the level of corruption? Perhaps by starting another war to add to all the wars that the last few presidents started (while pretending to care about fighting corruption)?


Not that sophisticated I am afraid. Maybe some just wished to stir things up to an extent that the system in concern would implode.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15061409
late wrote:I was hoping the other shoe would drop. For whatever crazy reason, you want to destroy your country.

I want to destroy the establishment as presently configured. I've stated that very clearly. I'm not concerned with your scare tactics or your ridiculous leaps in logic. Similarly, I'm not that concerned with Russia. These ridiculous impeachment statements like we should fight Russia in Ukraine so we don't have to fight them here are patently ludicrous. We should not have to be ruled by lying morons.

late wrote:There are some crap Left wing sources, no doubt. But mostly they aren't nearly as awful as the batshit Breitbart/4chan/Putin nexus. They are a nexus because Putin's trolls will push crazy out there, and Breitbart will make it crazier, and then Russia or 4chan will add new, additional crazy. It's how you get child prostitution in a cellar that doesn't exist. Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows it's fake, if they read it, it's because they want fake.

Russiagate was also fake. Many of us are more concerned with establishment actors like Hillary Clinton. Want to know what's going on in France? FoxNews won't tell you. CNN won't tell you. Even LeMonde Diplomatique won't tell you. You can get it from RT though. They just set up live feed of protests in France with absolutely no commentary. The cheapest source of truth about what's happening in France.

late wrote:So you will see supremely qualified experts like Prof Tribe, and other people that worked in the upper echelons of their field.

He just another leftist college professor that uses his position to try to influence key players.

late wrote:It's responsible versus batshit crazy.

It's batshit crazy, or we're all secretly agents of Vladimir Putin? Which is it? We're all aware that the establishment will say anything to anyone or anything about anyone without a care in the world if there is a shred of truth to it.

QatzelOk wrote:And do you think a corrupt entertainer who is also a failed entrepreneur is honestly someone who is going to change the level of corruption?

Almost every successful entrepreneur is also a failed entrepreneur. It goes with the territory. I think he is going to disrupt the system, which is the benefit of having him in office.

QatzelOk wrote:Perhaps by starting another war to add to all the wars that the last few presidents started (while pretending to care about fighting corruption)?

He hasn't started a new war. If we had either Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, or if we get Joe Biden or possibly Elizabeth Warren, we'll see more wars.

QatzelOk wrote:In World History, how many gambling casino owners have fought against corruption using entertainers?

As I've said many times, I take issue with Trump's staffing decisions. I would have cut staff down to the bone--especially holdovers. For example, right now he's fine having no permanent Secretary of Defense--something I find quite remarkable. Yet, he's got people like Lt. Col. Vindman still serving in a national security capacity. Trump is the commander in chief. He should deploy Vindman outside of the US to a particularly regrettable locale for his role in getting this latest scandal going--maybe send him to Syria to monitor Russian activity there. However, while I think the impeachment process is an inherently good thing, because it is demonstrating to the American people that permanent bureaucrats think they have the right to rule, Trump is not the solution, because he's a soft touch. He talks tough, but he's a sweetie pie underneath the gruffness. Right now, I would prefer someone with the ruthlessness to destroy the careers of as many Washington bureaucrats as possible. Trump is not that guy, but neither is an establishment politician of any stripe. It would be more like a corporate raider of the 80s--someone like Carl Icahn, who's too old to run for president at this juncture. Corporate takeover/hostile takeover types would be my preference right now, because the first thing they do is fire every management person they can and bring in their own staff.

Patrickov wrote:Maybe some just wished to stir things up to an extent that the system in concern would implode.

Exactly. We should continue it too. It's working.
By late
#15061411
blackjack21 wrote:




It's batshit crazy, or we're all secretly agents of Vladimir Putin? Which is it? We're all aware that the establishment will say anything to anyone or anything about anyone without a care in the world if there is a shred of truth to it.




At the heart of it, you're a victim.

I don't have a problem with you watching RT, although they do throw out the occasional whopper. But using it as an authoritative source, that's another story entirely.

Protests are a tradition in France. The French do some things that are one upsmanship. I think protests are part of that gallic attitude.

But if you haven't looked at French history and culture, you could easily miss the differences. To be completely fair, the government does occasionally respond to those protests, where here they'd more likely double down with extra cops.

Hard to describe, easy to see. And Paris is lovely in the Spring. You should go.

My 2 cents is that most sources are flawed. Some deeply, others in a more limited fashion. I read a variety, like Asia Times, Bloomberg, guardian, WAPO, and economists' websites.

I try to cobble something close to the truth from them, although some days that is genuinely hard.

Btw, it's not just our 17 intel agencies that say Putin f**ked us. He did the same thing to a bunch of other vountries, and they have shiny new cyberdefense programs as a result. If we ever get a competent president, we need a proper cyberdefense, and a way to thank Putin for all his.... help.
By Finfinder
#15061435
Godstud wrote:@Finfinder Don't be all sanctimonious with me when you whine about an ad hominem then immediately use on on me. You do LOVE Trump. You have never posted anything but complete and utter support for everything and anything he has ever done(or said), and even a Canadian can see the obvious truth, for what it is.

You lost the argument the moment you attempted to imply that Trump lies just like other politicians. He doesn't, and that supported by facts. @drguitar pointed that out, and you lashed out at him in a most emotional manner.

The topic isn't dishonest. The Trump zealots who respond that Trump doesn't lie, are.


This topic is pointless LOL ok great you win only took 4 pages of posts :lol: hurray hurray :lol:

To celebrate Trump just appointed another constitutional conservative judge to the courts, that makes 187 so far. That freaking liar Trump. :lol: :lol:

Godstud wrote: You do LOVE Trump. You have never posted anything but complete and utter support for everything and anything he has ever done(or said), and even a Canadian can see the obvious truth, for what it is.

You lost the argument the moment you attempted to imply that Trump lies just like other politicians. He doesn't, and that supported by facts. @drguitar pointed that out, and you lashed out at him in a most emotional manner.

The topic isn't dishonest. The Trump zealots who respond that Trump doesn't lie, are.


LOL "Love" thats funny, I have been met with nothing but hostility since the day I started posting here. 99.95% of the topics are anti trump propaganda. Just not drinking the Kool Aid falling in line with the rest of the drones and despite all the attempts I'm still here. :D

As Trump celebrates the China deal, and saving the planet from World War III with Iran and North Korea. That freaking liar Trump. :lol: :lol: winning

Hey but you guys won the thread :lol:
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#15061467
When I asked him how many casino magnate-funded entertainers have cut down on corruption in world history, blackjack21 wrote:As I've said many times, I take issue with Trump's staffing decisions.

The answer was zero.

And his 'staffing decisions' are also due to himself being staffed (by a casino magnate). The same one that funded Benjamin Netanyahu, who is forever facing trial for corruption.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15061482
@Finfinder Anti-Trump is not anti-Finfinder. Why do you take people disliking Trump, for his actions and words, and equating that to a dislike of you? It's not, unless you are linking yourself to him. Don't do that!!!
By Finfinder
#15061485
Godstud wrote:@Finfinder Anti-Trump is not anti-Finfinder. Why do you take people disliking Trump, for his actions and words, and equating that to a dislike of you? It's not, unless you are linking yourself to him. Don't do that!!!


But I put smiley faces on my post . LOL I'm just one of the anonymous screen names playing the character just like everyone else, don't fool yourself as I don't take this serious or personal at all. Actually met a POFO member who now is a good friend, he has some of the most popular anti Trump threads here and we get along just fine. You misunderstand a good argument and me stating reality for the entertainment in posting. I take you as serious as you probably take me. :lol: If you are ever in South Florida let me know Ill take you fishing . :D enjoy
User avatar
By Godstud
#15061486
I am due a tour of the Southern USA... Texas and such, but probably not in the near future. If you're ever in Thailand, pop around for a drink. :D

I've met a couple Pofo posters, and they are pretty cool dudes. We have to be some level to even have the wherewithall to post.

Cheers.

Now stop evading the damn question! ;)
Conflict in the USA?

There are few paths that don't involve violence. O[…]

https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/ccp-announces-[…]

A little macro food for thought: National Acco[…]

Election 2020

the Supreme Court will insist that the laws be fo[…]