|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 17, 2017 9:37:24 GMT -5
Transparently lying about what his predecessors have done regarding fallen soldiers. This is not a partisan issue. Every Democrat, Republican and Martian knows that both Obama and Bush did what Trump claims they didn't do. When caught lying, his defense is to what he supposedly "heard." Where does one go to "hear" such nonsense? Why lie about this, of all things? What is the point? Is he crazy? Is he a compulsive liar? Is he, as some like to assert, just "shaking things up?" Is it because he is impulsively defensive about the fact that more than a week went by since four soldiers died in Niger and he has not contacted the families or made any public statement? (Busy golfing and Tweeting, I guess.) This is not normal behavior. www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-falsely-claims-obama-didn-call-grieving-military-families-article-1.3566878President Trump on Monday falsely suggested he is one of few commanders-in-chief to call the families of fallen U.S. soldiers, and wrongly singled out his predecessor Barack Obama as a leader who never did so. “The traditional way, if you look at President Obama and other Presidents, most of them didn’t make calls,” Trump said during a White House Rose Garden press conference with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “A lot of them didn’t make calls. I like to call when it’s appropriate, when I think I’m able to do it.” Minutes later, after a reporter challenged Trump’s comments, the President said he wasn’t sure if his allegation about Obama was true. “I don’t know if he did (call),” Trump said. “I was told he didn’t often and a lot of Presidents don’t. They write letters ... I do a combination of both. Sometimes it’s a very difficult thing to do, but I do a combination of both. President Obama, I think, probably did sometimes and maybe sometimes he didn’t. I don’t know. That’s what I was told.”
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 17, 2017 10:05:03 GMT -5
He lies to make you happy.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 17, 2017 10:15:04 GMT -5
Shiny objects to keep the opposition occupied.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 17, 2017 10:41:22 GMT -5
1. He lies. He sure does. 2. He's often wrong. 3. Whenever #2 is described as #1 Trump gains a new fan or two.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 17, 2017 10:51:15 GMT -5
All of them lie.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 17, 2017 10:51:44 GMT -5
I think there is a meta-game at play here. I'm not sure how much of this is a deliberate strategy vs just gut instinct, but either way, I do think there is some method to all of this. If you want to make sense of it, consider this photo: Now ask yourself how military families (not all, of course, but many) would view that photo. Bowe Bergdahl sends an email to his parents declaring, among other things, that he is "ashamed to be an American", then deserts his post, then six men are killed trying to find/rescue him, then he is used as part of a prisoner exchange where he was traded for five Taliban. Now look at his dad. The consider the decision making inside the White House when they concluded that they wanted to hold a Rose Garden ceremony announcing this prisoner exchange. Consider the optics. You have this guy with a bushy beard and a pony tail. The "blink" reaction from many in the military culture is simply "he's not one of us". Ask yourself if people inside the West Wing anticipated that. Ask yourself the implications of either possibility (that they did, or they did not). Either answer presents a damning conclusion. If they did anticipate it, then they had to further anticipate that his presence would be taken by many in the military culture as a deliberate "thumb in the eye". If they did not anticipate such a reaction, that is almost worse, showing a complete blind spot to the feelings of a large number of Americans. Boil this down and you can start making some sense of Trump's statement. The old "take him seriously, not literally" thing applies here. He was, to use a contemporary term, "virtue signaling". He was signaling to the military families in America that he is "on their side", in contrast to Obama, with whom a large percentage of those families have always had doubts. In his own way, Obama did the same thing. He was far more graceful and delicate about it, but that Rose Garden ceremony was his form of "virtue signaling". His talent was always being subtle and ambiguous enough to allow for "plausible deniability" when his critics made their inevitable charges. But there was no imperative for a Presidential Rose Garden ceremony. They made a conscious choice to send Obama out there with that couple and knew precisely what message they were sending.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,878
|
Post by Dub on Oct 17, 2017 10:58:04 GMT -5
1. He lies. He sure does. 2. He's often wrong. 3. Whenever #2 is described as #1 Trump gains a new fan or two. Probably true. The strange thing is most administrations have employed skilled and learned people to prepare and or edit everything a president says publicly. They take out the stuff that's just demonstrably wrong and craft weasel words around the lies to make them seem truthy and patriotical. One would think this administration might have heard of the strategy somewhere along the line.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 17, 2017 11:00:45 GMT -5
Half of the Vets I know have beards and several have or had pony tails. Vets have Dads with beards. Vets have Dads with ponytails. Would you keep Doug off the podium? (assuming he is not carrying?). Would you have kept Doug's dad off the podium, assuming he looked like Doug and assuming he wasn't carrying?
You are working this one over pretty hard, Jeff. Yes, the kid was a weasel and not worth the cost. But, he is an American and this country sent him over there. And the policy is and has long been, bring them home, in a plane, boat, box, or cuffs, but try bring them home. And the weasel has parents. Do you hide them? Because of a beard and pony tail? Like half the Vietnam Vets that came home? Like Doug?
Optics? Who gets to choose the glasses? Comrade Opticvoskinov?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 17, 2017 11:04:18 GMT -5
Half of the Vets I know have beards and several have or had pony tails. Would you keep Doug off the podium? (assuming he is not carrying?) You are working this one pretty hard, Jeff. Yes, the kid was a weasel and not worth the cost. But, he is an American and this country sent him over there. And the policy is and has long been, bring them home, in a plane, boat, box, or cuffs, but try bring them home. And the weasel has parents. Do you hide them? Because of a beard and pony tail? Like half the Vietnam Vets that came home? Like Doug? When your pony tail gets down to 3 hairs it's time to cut it off. I wanted to braid the hair from my ears but Chris wouldn't let me and keeps cutting them off.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 17, 2017 11:09:52 GMT -5
Half of the Vets I know have beards and several have or had pony tails. Would you keep Doug off the podium? (assuming he is not carrying?) You are working this one pretty hard, Jeff. Yes, the kid was a weasel and not worth the cost. But, he is an American and this country sent him over there. And the policy is and has long been, bring them home, in a plane, boat, box, or cuffs, but try bring them home. And the weasel has parents. Do you hide them? Because of a beard and pony tail? Like half the Vietnam Vets that came home? Like Doug? That's almost exactly my point. Which is to say, of course there are a thousand ways to argue against the position I articulated. None of them contradict the underlying truth that there really are a large number of military families who were disgusted and offended by that whole kerfuffle. Yet official Washington and the coastal media alliance talk themselves into a perfectly circled set of wagons deciding that Obama was absolutely the pinnacle of virtue in all this. Having done so, they further convince themselves that any contrary view is not only simply to be ignored, but downright contemptible. All of which leaves a non-trivial swathe of the population feeling like the President just dissed them, AND the entire official apparatus of Washington defended him in the process. This is how you get President Trump.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 17, 2017 11:14:46 GMT -5
I think you have to be in another tight circle of wagons to work that photo into an issue.
Sheesh. Do you put a bag over the guy's head? Shave him and tattoo a flag on his head? Hire a stunt Dad? Optics? Good grief.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 17, 2017 11:17:42 GMT -5
I think there is a meta-game at play here. I'm not sure how much of this is a deliberate strategy vs just gut instinct, but either way, I do think there is some method to all of this. If you want to make sense of it, consider this photo: Now ask yourself how military families (not all, of course, but many) would view that photo. Bowe Bergdahl sends an email to his parents declaring, among other things, that he is "ashamed to be an American", then deserts his post, then six men are killed trying to find/rescue him, then he is used as part of a prisoner exchange where he was traded for five Taliban. Now look at his dad. The consider the decision making inside the White House when they concluded that they wanted to hold a Rose Garden ceremony announcing this prisoner exchange. Consider the optics. You have this guy with a bushy beard and a pony tail. The "blink" reaction from many in the military culture is simply "he's not one of us". Ask yourself if people inside the West Wing anticipated that. Ask yourself the implications of either possibility (that they did, or they did not). Either answer presents a damning conclusion. If they did anticipate it, then they had to further anticipate that his presence would be taken by many in the military culture as a deliberate "thumb in the eye". If they did not anticipate such a reaction, that is almost worse, showing a complete blind spot to the feelings of a large number of Americans. Boil this down and you can start making some sense of Trump's statement. The old "take him seriously, not literally" thing applies here. He was, to use a contemporary term, "virtue signaling". He was signaling to the military families in America that he is "on their side", in contrast to Obama, with whom a large percentage of those families have always had doubts. In his own way, Obama did the same thing. He was far more graceful and delicate about it, but that Rose Garden ceremony was his form of "virtue signaling". His talent was always being subtle and ambiguous enough to allow for "plausible deniability" when his critics made their inevitable charges. But there was no imperative for a Presidential Rose Garden ceremony. They made a conscious choice to send Obama out there with that couple and knew precisely what message they were sending. I think you are over-thinking. I can't follow the intellectual contortions required to get from these lies to smearing Obama for Bergdahl? He gets caught in a lie. He says he’s “heard” it’s true. He looks like a lying fool to all but the 35% of people who are convinced that, somehow, he is not a liar or – and this should scare everyone- that his bold-faced lies not matter. (The “shaking things up” rationalization.) This is not a way for an adult to act. This is not a way to govern a nation. He insults previous Presidents. He insults the military. He golfs. This should not be normalized.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 17, 2017 11:19:52 GMT -5
I think you have to be in another tight circle of wagons to work that photo into an issue. Sheesh. Do you put a bag over the guy's head? Shave him and tattoo a flag on his head? Hire a stunt Dad? Optics? Good grief. Or just say "this guy is the wrong guy to have standing next to the President under these circumstances" and don't hold the ceremony at all.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 17, 2017 11:22:36 GMT -5
That's almost exactly my point. Which is to say, of course there are a thousand ways to argue against the position I articulated. None of them contradict the underlying truth that there really are a large number of military families who were disgusted and offended by that whole kerfuffle. To have been offended by that kerfuffle is arguably understandable. To have been offended by that but, somehow, cheered by Trump's lie- along with tweeting his pissy orange head off and golfing, while not saying squat about four dead soldiers for over two weeks- requires absolute moral bankruptcy.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 17, 2017 11:22:41 GMT -5
Disagree with Jeff. Fine. But try to understand that the fact that you aren't even capable of empathizing with the point he's making is making his point.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 17, 2017 11:23:40 GMT -5
I can't follow the intellectual contortions required to get from these lies to smearing Obama for Bergdahl Exactly. But do you recognize that there really were military families who were hurt/troubled/offended by that whole thing? I'm not asking if you agree with their reasons, and I'm not even asking if you understand their reasons. I'm just asking if you recognize that those people exist. "Those people" felt like as far as the Obama administration was concerned, they did not exist.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 17, 2017 11:26:34 GMT -5
...and, of course the cross-posting disproves my point. And I am never cheered by Trump lying. Never. But neither am I blind to the fact that every misstatement is placed in Trump's "Lies" folder. And every time that happens, he gets more popular. And since my end goal would be an un-popular Trump, I wish people could resist the constant mischaracterizations upon which his base is built and getting stronger.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 17, 2017 11:32:35 GMT -5
...and, of course the cross-posting disproves my point. And I am never cheered by Trump lying. Never. But neither am I blind to the fact that every misstatement is placed in Trump's "Lies" folder. And every time that happens, he gets more popular. And since my end goal would be an un-popular Trump, I wish people could resist the constant mischaracterizations upon which his base is built and getting stronger. Which gets back to my opening point. All "those people" hear from Trump is "You exist and I love you". That's it. You can argue with the facts, and point out inconsistencies, and demonstrate the abundant number of times he exaggerates or lies or whatever you want to call it. And none of that means anything. "You exist and I love you" is the message. The rest is just noise.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 17, 2017 11:37:35 GMT -5
I can't follow the intellectual contortions required to get from these lies to smearing Obama for Bergdahl Exactly. But do you recognize that there really were military families who were hurt/troubled/offended by that whole thing? I'm not asking if you agree with their reasons, and I'm not even asking if you understand their reasons. I'm just asking if you recognize that those people exist. "Those people" felt like as far as the Obama administration was concerned, they did not exist. Mostly, I recognize that Obama is no longer President, Neither is Bush. Both were smeared by a lie that Trump claims he "heard." Trump is the current President. He should act like one. "Those people" hate the previous President so much that they will cut endless slack to the current President and his fantasy world of lies? Maybe you're right. But that seems kind of insulting and condescending to those people. I pretty much detested W Bush. I did not spend the first year of Obama's Presidency looking for him to help me work through my bad feelings. This President's petty war with the previous one are pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 17, 2017 11:41:50 GMT -5
What makes Trump a better president is that he's not a politician. I don't like a lot of what he's doing but I'm enjoying him destroying the good ole boy network of DC. Always vote against the incumbent because you know he's a crook.
|
|