I think that president Trump has provided enough evidence of a consistent and persistent pattern of behavior that we have moved passed the point of whether it is a lie and to the point of where in what he says is there any truth.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Question for Trump Supporters
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
I think one truth that can be
The fact that he did it was the first clue.
Cooky
Veteran Member
No he didn't.
You're just bragging, because with an airhead, there is at least the possibility of them acting on or telling the truth by accident.
Of course. It was probably just my mistake and he hasn't been touting this game changer.
Cooky
Veteran Member
He said it works and people need to do it? That would be a tout.
...Or did he say: "maybe that’s correct, maybe it’s false, you’re going to have to check it out"..?
I see you are correct. Trump never mentioned hydroxychloroquine in the press. He has not called it a game changer. He has not repeated this. He has not urged anyone to try it, despite the fact that there is still no evidence that it is effective and that it is a very dangerous drug to mess around with. No one has made any attempts on their own to self-medicate with the drug or related substances and had any untoward results occur.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Because the average citizen does indeed have the skill set to test potential medical treatments on themselves. What was I thinking.
I strongly suspect that his supporters don't care for being called boot lickers.
This might explain why I don't see them conversing with you.
One tip I must force myself to use....
When a poster disagrees, I might give up on trying to change
their mind, & instead try to understand how they came to believe
what they believe. It can be interesting, even if there's no change.
At least I can avoid making one new enemy.
Last edited:
That is an excellent question with follow up info.
Kudos for your civility, insight, & specificity.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
What a shock. Hiding in the vagaries and dodges of trump's inane speech patterns to avoid accountability. So much for the party of personal responsibility.
That would be to dwell in a mindset of prejudice.
It's always useful to see politicians as neither all good or all bad.
And the same for their policies.
If one can see no good in others, then one should consider one's own goodness.
Goodness gracious....that sounds like some awfully weaselly circumspection.
(That's what it takes to avoid being banned.)
If I tell you that I am nine feet tall and weigh about three tons, calling that a lie is an opinion or is it a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence that you have?
Is it a reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence, that Trump's initial response was not as he now claims it was and he is sticking with that story? He cut off travel from China, but told us all that it would be over like magic and did not do much else.
There are Christians that all but accuse me of lying, because I do not believe in their particular version of Christianity.
I'm not a fan of creating hypothetical lies in order to justify calling others liars.
The reality of treating others to this accusation must be faced.
Tell me....
A well known & widely respected poster called me "the most dishonest poster on RF".
What do you think were the consequences of expressing this sincerely held opinion?
How is it prejudice to evaluate the credibility of a person based on what they tell me?
Many leaders have had some good policies, but that does not alone make them a good leader?
The mafia bosses of the early 20th Century were known to be good to the people of their neighborhoods. I suppose that would be enough to dismiss them from criminal investigation. It would be enough not to challenge or point out what they publicly claimed?
How much of the man that we see is the leader that we have? I fail to understand how that public display is not a reflection of a pattern of behavior that goes as the job is being conducted outside of public view. At the very least, it should raise questions that need answers.
To dismiss something as a lie without investigation would be prejudice.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that Tump is an honest man.
I don't see him that way.
But if he makes any statement significant to me, I'll consider
it fairly...it might be accurate...it might not. One should be fair.
OK. I am nine feet tall and weigh about three tons. I am also the greatest person that you will ever converse with.
You are citing an example that is an opinion of this well-known and widely-respected poster. When discussing Trump, there are a multitude of vetted and evaluated statements and claims he has made that are not consistent with the facts. Calling these out is not an opinion based on personal bias. These are two different things entirely.
Unfortunately, I must go. I will talk to you later.
stvdv
Veteran Member
I understand you say "calling something a lie is tricky"
But there was nothing trickiness going on in my example
As I was saying "calling a lie a lie is perfectly okay"
(It was already established that it was a lie)
*) The point was:
1) To illustrate the difference between saying "You ARE...." and "Your Actions ARE....."
2) The remark "You are stupid" = Ad Hominem (AND will be proven even wrong, if the person is smart just once)
*) BUT, I fully agree with your new subject "Beware before accusing someone of lying"
(Thank you for the below points...very useful...as I'm in this kind of situation right now; in real life)
1) Does it further the discussion (good point...even better maybe "IF he lies, should I go further with this discussion?")
You could just ask the person "Do you speak the truth and nothing but the truth, so helpe you God
"?IF he answers with YES, then so be it. But most people, who lied, will start stuttering (and avoiding YES), and that might be an indication
2) Will this person become an enemy, & respond with hostility too? (good point too...better safe than sorry)
IF someone is lying to me, it would be a good time for me to ask myself ... do I want "his company"?
Once a man threatened me "if you tell this to anyone, I might send someone over to you..."
I did not tell him, that I did not like what he did, but I did tell him, that I decided to not continue our contact; feels better to go my own way now.
3) Do I really know they intend to mislead?
In my case, the person admitted "of course I know you are right", but then continued "but, I do it anyway...you have a problem...your problem"
Sometimes you really know their intend is bad (narcissistic arrogance for example)
4) - Do I just not fathom that some can really believe so differently from me?
(I get this sometime from believers, ie, atheists are liars cuz they really do know God.)
Belief is subjective, so, as long as they don't claim their belief as a fact AND impose it on me, I am totally fine what others believe
Straw man. Trump is not hated no matter what he says. Trump is hated because of what he says (and in this case, doesn't say), not irrespective of his word choices as you imply. This is a common deflection - the contempt, it is implied, is irrational because it is based on an a priori hatred that existed before even knowing who the man was. Isn't that what Trump derangement syndrome is meant to imply - Trump's detractors are mentally unstable, deranged. Only a madman would object to such a fine person.
No. The angry condemnation of Trump is based on who he is, which is what makes it perfectly rational, moral, and just.
I think those that voted for him, especially those that are still carrying Trump's water are the deranged ones. It was obvious from before the election that he was corrupt, had no useful skills or experience, and was only there for himself.
How could Trump have done worse?
Amazing.
Yeah I thought I heard something. I heard Trump say that chloroquine had been approved for COVID-19, implying that things will be fine for you if you get this infection.
"President Donald Trump misstated the facts Thursday when he asserted that the Food and Drug Administration had just approved a decades-old malaria drug to treat patients infected by the coronavirus. After his FDA chief clarified that the drug still needs testing, Trump also overstated the drug’s potential upside in helping contain the outbreak. A look at his claims at a news briefing:
TRUMP: “And we’re going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately, and that’s where the FDA has been so great. They — they’ve gone through the approval process. It’s been approved.”"
AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims drug approval for virus
Then I heard Trump say that he would take that toxic drug even without the disease, implying that that treatment is safe and benign.
I also heard him say that he wouldn't be wearing a mask, implying that it was unnecessary. That may have cost the lives of 10,000 people or more right there.
First, prejudice / bias is a good thing when rational, that is, a preference based in experience (evidence). It is rational to consider Trump a chronic liar because he fits the definition - one who lies repeatedly and often.
Our prejudices, or our prejudgments, are the generalizations we have induced from living. If we have done so wisely, our prejudices will be against things that are dangerous, illegal, harmful, etc.. Feeling that Trump should not be believed is a prejudice derived from experience.
Second, you're deflecting as well. It's not about seeing all bad or good, but criticizing a specific failure of leadership, which can be done even by people capable of seeing good in others, another deflection. Was I supposed to think that if I disapprove of Trump and say so, that that means I see no good in others and should reexamine myself?
Trump is a proven liar. He should not be believed. And yes, that's a prejudice, just like looking both ways before crossing and not driving drunk - also good advice.