People need to stop misrepresenting trump

[Revoltingest]

My impression is that Trump never meant for it to go this far.
I cannot help but wonder if he is scared he might actually win.

He seems to love power.
Fear it?
No.
He's probably giddy at the prospect.

 

[metis]

Plus he needs to be far more specific in exactly how he proposes to "Make America Great Again" as sound-bites are not explanations.

Also, he needs to put out his tax return for public consumption as he has been the one bragging about all that he makes and all that he supposedly gives to charity. If he had said nothing in this area, then we could probably at least cut him some lack, but since he has bragged and bragged and bragged some more about his wealth and charitable donations, his followers should insist that he put his returns out the for public consumption to verify what he has been saying. If he's telling the truth, there logically should be no problem.

 

[serp777]

Well, since you can't be bothered to provide citations, we have no idea if it's correct. You haven't provided any resources for us to fact-check you. Which, sorry, but to my mind, makes you guilty of the exact same things that you're complaining about. That, and it is standard practice to provide citations whenever you quote something that is not your own words... precisely so that the reader can fact-check the writer's references (and there's the whole plagiarism thing I suppose).

No. I complained about misrepresentation, not a lack of citation. Misrepresentation =/= a missing citation.

It isn't misrepresented and you're free to google search it. I don't care if quotes don't have a citation as long as they aren't misrepresented. Its not my concern to save people a 5 second google search to confirm a quote.

 

[serp777]

Who needs to misrepresent what Trump says, when he misrepresents himself, consistently.

I have no idea what he really means.

"Let's build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it." Uhm... Ok? How is that going to fix the immigration issue? One can't seriously expect that a wall is going to fix this? And is one seriously expecting Mexico to pay for a wall? I mean, is he being literal or figurative? Is he joking or is he serious? I don't support illegal immigration either and would love to understand the details of how this will be fixed. Is he deporting all illegal immigrants? How is he actually preventing more from entering the country. I can't believe that a wall will fix this.

He insinuates that Mrs. Khan is being coerced to be quiet because of her Muslim heritage. He never out right declares it. What does he exactly mean when he's suggesting that Mrs. Khan is not speaking at all? That she's being submissive? That her husband is oppressing his wife? That Muslims oppresses females? That the DNC is supporting sexism? And then, what the heck does this have to do with the original topic that Mr. Khan presented concerning Trump. It had nothing to do with the initial criticism. It's obfuscating and reflecting the subject.

Another example is the 2nd amendment and what can be done with Clinton. God dang it! Why do I and others have to debate this stupid quote. Seriously... We have millions of folks debating a stupid quote to understand the subject. Talk about making ado about nothing. This takes away from the real discussions. I don't want to spend time debating the meaning of a quote. I want to debate actual rhetoric.

Now he's calling Obama the founder of ISIS. Ok, I have to guess why he's suggesting this instead of being presented with further details on the matter. One could make an argument here but there are no further data. Let's assume that Obama was the mastermind of ISIS, then what? What is he going to do about fixing it? He's pointing the finger but not suggesting any resolution.

I said this before in a different thread, he's speaks too indirectly about the subjects. I don't know what to make of him and his policies. If he wants me to understand his proposals to fix this nation then he needs to get more specific than just saying "I'll fix it!"

It's all too ambiguous for me. He's banking on the "change" and "outsider" niches of politics, but what change is actually coming? I honestly have no idea. I'm not absorbing anything from Trump to understand his policies. Actually, I'm only referring that the GOP's constitutions to understand any possibly policies that will be in place if Trump wins the office.

Just because something is different, doesn't necessarily make it better.

I've made this point before, but just because Trump misrepresents things doesn't mean that everyone should misrepresent him. Its a moot point. The media heavily targets Trump with SJW nonsense in the form of misrepresentations that try to show racism or misoginy.

I mean i'm a Gary Johnson fan, so you don't need to convince me that Trump wouldn't make a great president. My issue is how the media will misrepresent politicians like Trump, whom they disagree with, to show that they're supposedly racist and sexist. I wish they would just discuss how ridiculous his ideas are, and not make up nonsense about racism that doesn't exist.

 

[Quintessence]

No. I complained about misrepresentation, not a lack of citation. Misrepresentation =/= a missing citation.

It isn't misrepresented and you're free to google search it. I don't care if quotes don't have a citation as long as they aren't misrepresented. Its not my concern to save people a 5 second google search to confirm a quote.

It's not your concern to provide references for readers to fact-check what you say in a thread complaining about things pertaining to fact-checking. Really? Wow.

 

[OceanSoul]

There are Trump Supporters who present him in distorted ways. Maybe there is a different universe some people come from when they call Trump honest. He just wants people to think he is. Based on what I've heard him say in debates and elsewhere, he seems pretty sexist and racist to me.

The extent that some go to to defend the indefensible out of Trump's mouth is amazing. Did he or did he not make fun of a disabled person? POWs? Judge Carly Fiorina on her physical appearance? Didn't he call Illegal Immigrant Mexicans rapists and murders? Oh and how about the Muslim database idea? Show your sources that disagree with these things then.

Hillary may not be perfect yet that doesn't mean Trump is better nor more "honest".

 

[metis]

There are Trump Supporters who present him in distorted ways. Maybe there is a different universe some people come from when they call Trump honest. He just wants people to think he is. Based on what I've heard him say in debates and elsewhere, he seems pretty sexist and racist to me.

The extent that some go to to defend the indefensible out of Trump's mouth is amazing. Did he or did he not make fun of a disabled person? POWs? Judge Carly Fiorina on her physical appearance? Didn't he call Illegal Immigrant Mexicans rapists and murders? Oh and how about the Muslim database idea? Show your sources that disagree with these things then.

Hillary may not be perfect yet that doesn't mean Trump is better nor more "honest".

Exactly, and it makes me wonder how many blatant lies that Trump can get caught in before certain people here realize he's very "truth-challenged".

BTW, I don't cut Hillary any slack on this either, although compared to Trump, she's a mere novice.

 

[columbus]

BTW, I don't cut Hillary any slack on this either, although compared to Trump, she's a mere novice.

You couldn't be more wrong. Trump is the noob, Billary is the top professional. That is one of the reasons Hillary is winning.
Don't get me wrong. In order to be an effective president you must be an effective politician. That means a lot of saying "what people want to hear", which often dramatically different from the truth.

Hillary didn't get the way she is because she was born with a demon in her head. She is a result of the process that we all voted for a little bit at a time. That process eliminated the less able competition and rewarded people like her with power.
Tom

 

[OceanSoul]

Exactly, and it makes me wonder how many blatant lies that Trump can get caught in before certain people here realize he's very "truth-challenged".

Indeed.

 

[OceanSoul]

You couldn't be more wrong. Trump is the noob, Billary is the top professional. That is one of the reasons Hillary is winning.
Don't get me wrong. In order to be an effective president you must be an effective politician. That means a lot of saying "what people want to hear", which often dramatically different from the truth.

Hillary didn't get the way she is because she was born with a demon in her head. She is a result of the process that we all voted for a little bit at a time. That process eliminated the less able competition and rewarded people like her with power.
Tom

Hillary is pretty experienced and seeing her move towards a more progressive direction from her center-left spot shows she is paying attention, especially with respect to those of us who were (or still are) Sanders supporters. Whether or not she will return back to her more moderate positions remains to be seen. She seems pretty professional to me though.

Candidates say what will get them voted in anyway. It's like playing Russian roulette with your vote instead of with bullets.

 

[metis]

You couldn't be more wrong. Trump is the noob, Billary is the top professional. That is one of the reasons Hillary is winning.
Don't get me wrong. In order to be an effective president you must be an effective politician. That means a lot of saying "what people want to hear", which often dramatically different from the truth.

Hillary didn't get the way she is because she was born with a demon in her head. She is a result of the process that we all voted for a little bit at a time. That process eliminated the less able competition and rewarded people like her with power.
Tom

My reference to Hillary being a mere novice is in regards to frequency, not history. According to Politifact, the Donald is head & shoulders above her during this year's campaign. Politicians do tend to lie a little , but Trump is off the charts.

 

[serp777]

It's not your concern to provide references for readers to fact-check what you say in a thread complaining about things pertaining to fact-checking. Really? Wow.

Again, it wasn't pertaining to fact checking or citations, it was pertaining to misrepresentation. Misrepresentation has nothing to do with citations. You keep trying to connect these things and I have rebutted it several times now. Changing up the words and saying "wow" isn't an argument.

You can misrepresent things with or without having a citation. Its not my concern for readers who can't look up quotes on their own since they should be doing that regardless if there is a citation or not. Trusting something just because there's some random citation makes no sense. So you might as well go check anyways to confirm. I already made this point.

 

[Milton Platt]

And misandrists will flock to Hilda.
Isn't all this criticism of supporters a rather shallow way to evaluate candidates?

Thank you, sir!

 

[Iti oj]

All the time I see many people constantly misrepresenting trump. He does say many questionable things and lies quite a bit, just like Hillary Clinton, but a lot of people just straight up lie and mis quote him entirely. One of the first things people bring up is that Trump is a racist because he said that Mexicans are rapists. That is a complete fabrication. First of all Mexican isn't a race, so that isn't racist. He's not saying people with brown skin are rapists. Here's what he actually said.



SO here's he's actually talking about illegal immigrants, not all Mexican immigrants. And then he says, some I assume are good people. This is a dubious claim at best, but its not a reflection of racism in any sense. I'm sure that a small minority of illegal immigrants are rapists, although I couldn't say the percentage. Everyone seems to misquote this all the time.

There's also the thing about the Mexican judge, where people again call Trump a racist because he doubted that the judge with Mexican ancestry was completely unbiased. Trump of course doesn't have the knowledge to claim whether the judge is actually biased or not, but once again Mexican isn't a race, and doubting the neutrality of one person doesn't make him doubt the neutrality of all Mexicans. I see misrepresentations like this all the time and people who misquote politicians are just as bad liars as Trump and Hillary.

I've watched almost all of his speeches on cspan and i see very little misrepresentation of him.

 

[Iti oj]

counter thread http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...present-trump-more-then-anti-trumpers.190090/

 

[columbus]

Julian Assange and Wikileaks are more than happy to attack the USA and the DNC and Hillary.
Not Russia or the GOP, for whatever that matters.

But Trump is in a class of his own. Assange thinks that he has nothing to add to Trumps daily doings.

http://www.redstate.com/brandon_mor...trump-cant-beat-trumps-public-ridiculousness/

“I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day,” Assange said.

I find it hard to believe that the GOP plan to cheat Trump out of the nomination, such as by awarding Cruz all the delegates from Colorado, is beyond the capabilities of Wikileaks. But apparently so.

Nevertheless, Trump doesn't need the blinding light of internet hacks turned on him. He is on the news every day.
Tom

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Part of the problem is that the use of the word has spread in meaning.
It used to be more specific, a black guy who doesn't like white people (because they're white) is a racist. French people who don't like the Irish weren't racists.
Now it is used for almost any kind of ethnic bigotry. Japanese people commonly look down on Chinese or Korean people, I can't tell any of them apart. Jews and Palestinians aren't very different racially, when compared to German, Yoruba, or Cherokee people. But the word gets used.
The word in English has just broadened in meaning, not changed fundamentally.
Tom

By that logic, if 40% of Americans openly supported Communism, then the word "Communist" would cease to have any meaning.

The uncomfortable truth is that people, when called on their racism, almost immediately lock down and fiercely deny what is obviously true to anyone with critical awareness of the situation.