Even in Europe the truth about Trump is out in bold print

[james dixon]

presidential inauguration constitutes a "lie," then I would find cause to question the standard one is using to consider it as such.

Trump’s lies
With just 10 days before he finishes his first year as president, Trump has made 2,001 false or misleading claims in 355 days, according to our database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president. That’s an average of more than 5.6 claims a day.
https://tinyurl.com/yawy45sj

 

[Stevicus]

Trump’s lies
With just 10 days before he finishes his first year as president, Trump has made 2,001 false or misleading claims in 355 days, according to our database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president. That’s an average of more than 5.6 claims a day.
https://tinyurl.com/yawy45sj

Yeah, I've seen that before, but looking over the list, many of these items can be argued away as honest mistakes, idle boasts, and/or differences in perception. For example, the supposed "lie" that Trump said about the size of the crowd at his inauguration. Even if he was wrong about the size of the crowd, who cares? How does that affect the fate of the country? If this is the kind of statement being trotted out as one of "Trump's lies," then I have to wonder about the people who come up with this kind of stuff. This is mostly a lot of low-grade nitpicking, most of which is meaningless and affects nobody.

It's a given that politicians lie anyway, but in order to demonstrate that Trump is a pathological liar and deserving of impeachment on that basis alone, I would think there would have to be more than this.

 

[Altfish]

The guardian is hardly an unbiased source ......

Compared to Fox News it is totally unbiased.

 

[Cooky]

Voting twice in an election is illegal. But you knew that and did it anyway.

Shame on you. Your voting privileges should be removed.

Well, my wife said to fill in the dots on her mail ballot for her... Then she signed it.

...So I actually had permission to vote twice.

 

[Cooky]

The electorate was ignored this time around. Trump lost the popular vote.

Barely. Roughly half of America voted for him... Or at least allowed him to be voted for.

 

[Cooky]

Trump’s lies
With just 10 days before he finishes his first year as president, Trump has made 2,001 false or misleading claims in 355 days, according to our database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president. That’s an average of more than 5.6 claims a day.
https://tinyurl.com/yawy45sj

When they stop calling his opinions lies, then maybe I'll believe it.

...Reminds me of a satire article I read.
PolitiFact Issues Blanket 'Pants On Fire' Rating For Any Future Statements Made By Donald Trump

 

[Cooky]

Compared to Fox News it is totally unbiased.

Who watches Fox news? That's too liberal. Of course, I'm a Nationalist. Soo...

 

[Revoltingest]

The electorate was ignored this time around. Trump lost the popular vote.

Hillary failed to garner a majority, so at
least the electorate got part of their wish.

 

[Lyndon]

Barely. Roughly half of America voted for him... Or at least allowed him to be voted for.

BS roughly one quarter of america voted for him,

 

[Cooky]

BS roughly one quarter of america voted for him,

That's because many people did not vote. Out of the voters, though, about half of them voted for Trump.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think what strikes me about a lot of the rhetoric lately is the excessively strident use of adjectives like "dangerous," "deplorable," "despicable," "disgraceful," etc. They'd have more credibility if they used more factual nouns than opinionated adjectives.

Perhaps of greater diagnostic interest is that you apparently don't find the current administration to be "dangerous," "deplorable," "despicable," "disgraceful," and, in fact, "strident."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am not an American and neither am I a follower of Trump but it is obvious to me that much of this 'impeach Trump' hysteria is the result of sour grapes by his opponents who cannot accept the will of the electorate ...

Ignorant rubbish.

 

[Stevicus]

Perhaps of greater diagnostic interest is that you apparently don't find the current administration to be "dangerous," "deplorable," "despicable," "disgraceful," and, in fact, "strident."

Not any more than previous administrations.

 

[metis]

All I'm saying is that if one presumes to judge another person based on some sort of moral code, that code should be based in a consistent set of principles.

The "moral code" I was referring to was the basic teachings by Jesus, although even basic humanitarianism would suffice. And I would hardly refer to Trump as being a "humanitarian", would you?

You were talking about followers of Jesus supporting public figures who ostensibly do un-Christian things. How many un-Christian things can we cite that the U.S. government has done? I hinted at it slightly above mentioning Polk and Jackson - along with the racism, genocide, slavery, aggressive wars of expansion, and other un-Christian things which are attributed to our government.

Yes but, as I said, in a democracy we are the government, thus we have the right to try and change it if it's acting in ways that we may believe is immoral.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Yeah, I've seen that before, but looking over the list, many of these items can be argued away as honest mistakes, idle boasts, and/or differences in perception. .

A president is in a position where one is careful of too many honest mistakes, doesn't boast or act idle and takes into account differences in perception.

No. It is not the population's duty to adapt into understanding this brainwashed jar of orange paint - it is the presient' job to represent his people. Not "present himself to his people"

 

[Altfish]

That's because many people did not vote. Out of the voters, though, about half of them voted for Trump.

Based on his margin of victory the UK would still be in the EU

 

[Cooky]

0ooh, them sour grapes!

Based on his margin of victory the UK would still be in the EU

I think that's the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. In a Republic, such as the United States, only elected officials and their appointees make the decisions, hence the need for an "electoral college".

In a Democracy, or in a hybrid of one like the UK, things are different.

 

[Stevicus]

The "moral code" I was referring to was the basic teachings by Jesus, although even basic humanitarianism would suffice. And I would hardly refer to Trump as being a "humanitarian", would you?

Probably not, although if I was a follower of Jesus, I would abide by the admonition to "judge not, lest ye be judged." Along the same line, I would not point out the splinter in Trump's eye while ignoring the log in Hillary's eye (or any other establishment-level figure). That, to me, would be hypocrisy, and that would go against Jesus' basic teachings as well.

Yes but, as I said, in a democracy we are the government, thus we have the right to try and change it if it's acting in ways that we may believe is immoral.

Well, sure, but when you say "we," you're talking about you, me, and 300 million other people. Strictly speaking, even if we weren't a democracy, we'd still have the right to rise up and change the government. So, why don't people do that? What's wrong with them? Why do the people keep getting suckered, manipulated, and tricked at every election? Shouldn't the people be held responsible for that?

 

[Stevicus]

A president is in a position where one is careful of too many honest mistakes, doesn't boast or act idle and takes into account differences in perception.

No. It is not the population's duty to adapt into understanding this brainwashed jar of orange paint - it is the presient' job to represent his people. Not "present himself to his people"

Yeah, I guess, although I think the population's main duty in political matters is to keep a clear head, think for itself and not get suckered and manipulated into this recent wave of histrionics we've been seeing.

 

[metis]

Along the same line, I would not point out the splinter in Trump's eye while ignoring the log in Hillary's eye

So, Hillary's got a "log" but Trump's got only a "splinter"? I think our discussion just hit a wall.

BTW, just for the record, I didn't plan on voting for either of them but changed my mind at the last minute because I felt that Trump was too likely to win. I was right-- unfortunately.

Probably not, although if I was a follower of Jesus, I would abide by the admonition to "judge not, lest ye be judged."

"And you shall know them by the fruits they produce, ...".

Shouldn't the people be held responsible for that?

Yep.