Trump incorrectly blames Obama for release of 122 'vicious' Gitmo detainees

[Emjay]

Right now we're waiting for him to get off of Twitter and take this job seriously.

He is taking the job seriously.  He is also Trump.  Try to digest this information.

Many here, me among thing, fought hard against Trump getting the nomination.  We gleefully discovered and made fun of all the stupid and bad things he's done.  It was so much fun.

But, why am I able to give up Trump hate when so many of you are not?  He's given the country a huge lift.  Bills are being brought up seriously in Congress.

Yes, I know... Congress could have done this without Trump ...they are in the majority.

However, many of them can read.  They saw how the citizenry reacted to Trump.  What we saw as overblown rhetoric, the majority of Americans saw as stuff they wanted to happen.

Congresspersons need courage and they have to run occasionally.  Trump winning gave them a dash of courage.  Many of the things we wanted done are getting done.  Maybe not exactly to everyone's liking ... a nit here, a pick there ... but they are getting done.

Are we going to waste our forces counting exactly how many people Obama released?

There may come a time when Trump does something we need to fight against.

This is not that time.

[txradioguy]

They saw how the citizenry reacted to Trump.  What we saw as overblown rhetoric, the majority of Americans saw as stuff they wanted to happen.

When you say majority of Americans...are you referring to the 9 million more that voted for his opponent?

He's given the country a huge lift.

What lift specifically? 

Bills are being brought up seriously in Congress.

We discussed this yesterday...there's nothing to indicate those bills wouldn't have been presented anyway.

And it doesn't appear that the Congress critters that you say "can read"...haven't seen anything come out of Congress that indicates they've jumped on the Trump train...especially where things like Healthcare is concerned.

[DiogenesLamp]

Does it matter to you that Trump would get a lot farther in his supposed goal of destroying the left if he bothered with tweeting actual facts?

If i've actually worked out what is going on here,  I would say tweeting actual facts would be counterproductive.    The point here is to stir outrage so as to attract attention to the particular item he is interested in getting people to focus on.   It's like a stage magician who means for the audience to look at a certain thing,  and so uses a flamboyant flourish to attract their attention.   


Trump has *NEVER*  been accurate in his tweets.   He is always "talking past the sale" on everything he does. 


http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

[DiogenesLamp]

That would be a great thing to test out.  Why doesn't Mr. Trump try being accurate for a few months just to see.

BORING!

[DiogenesLamp]

IMHO it makes for a bigger response that stirs up his base into a frenzy.  Especially where Obama is concerned.

It's also Rule #9 “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

There you go.   

[r9etb]

"Accuracy"  isn't the important factor here.

Golly.   

[DiogenesLamp]

We dont know exactly how the Trump surveillance was done, but the incidental references in the international media to 'get' Trump are too numerous to ignore.    Hillary claimed in the Oct 31 tweet that it was 'computer scientists' .  And there is the old echelon loophole that Blair used to do for Clinton. 

Dan Bangino thinks the Sec Service may have found the method during a counter measures sweep.  And the paper version of NYT refers to wiretapping Trump.   Going to be interesting to see the exact nature of the truth when it comes out.

I saw that article.    Dan Bangino also said this issue is going to break wide open this week.   Let's hope it does,  and Obama has his fingerprints all over it.   


People went to prison for Watergate.   This is worse by far. 

[Emjay]

When you say majority of Americans...are you referring to the 9 million more that voted for his opponent?
 

What lift specifically? 


We discussed this yesterday...there's nothing to indicate those bills wouldn't have been presented anyway.

And it doesn't appear that the Congress critters that you say "can read"...haven't seen anything come out of Congress that indicates they've jumped on the Trump train...especially where things like Healthcare is concerned.

There is a lot to indicate those bills would not have been brought up ... or at least not pushed hard for if we didn't have Trump.

You are just arguing now.  You have made no real points refuting what I said.

[musiclady]

Trump's not a conservative.  Remember???

Truth always matters.  Inaccuracies are a frailty of most humans.  He may have been wrong about the numbers, but he was spot-on about the intent.

Of course he's not a conservative.  He's a liberal populist.

But there are people claiming to be conservative that say his lack of truthfulness not only doesn't matter, but are defending it as though it's a good thing.

I don't believe in situation ethics, parsing the meaning of truth, or that the right intentions when couched in untruthful rhetoric, are just hunky dory.

If Trump wants to do damage to the left, he needs to tell the truth, and he's not doing that.

Ergo, he's hurting those who voted for him on the right, and who continue to defend him.

Which, I think, might not be a good thing........... wouldn't you agree?

[musiclady]

If i've actually worked out what is going on here,  I would say tweeting actual facts would be counterproductive.    The point here is to stir outrage so as to attract attention to the particular item he is interested in getting people to focus on.   It's like a stage magician who means for the audience to look at a certain thing,  and so uses a flamboyant flourish to attract their attention.   


Trump has *NEVER*  been accurate in his tweets.   He is always "talking past the sale" on everything he does. 


http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

Which, of course, is the issue for those of us who couldn't vote for a guy for whom accuracy and truth telling are secondary issues, and making an attention-drawing scene is the priority.

When one lacks character (and self-control), one cannot be trusted.

[DiogenesLamp]

When you say majority of Americans...are you referring to the 9 million more that voted for his opponent?
 

I forget.  Were you one of the ones who was going on about how important it was to have accurate numbers?   

[musiclady]

Golly.   

That's what we're dealing with among conservatives these days.

Used to just be on the left.  Now the enemy is 'us.'

[DiogenesLamp]

Golly.   

If you want your doctor you can keep your doctor.   

[Idiot]

I forget.  Were you one of the ones who was going on about how important it was to have accurate numbers?   

[LonestarDream]

There is a lot to indicate those bills would not have been brought up ... or at least not pushed hard for if we didn't have Trump.

You are just arguing now.  You have made no real points refuting what I said.

Your list of bills being brought in a Hillary regime is very implausible , @Emjay

[r9etb]

I forget.  Were you one of the ones who was going on about how important it was to have accurate numbers?   

His numbers are correct.  You're looking only at Clinton's numbers.  But accuracy doesn't matter, right?

Out of the 135,719,964 total votes cast, Trump received 62,985,106 votes.

So Trump's opponents received 9,749,752 more votes than he did.

[Emjay]

Of course he's not a conservative.  He's a liberal populist.

But there are people claiming to be conservative that say his lack of truthfulness not only doesn't matter, but are defending it as though it's a good thing.

I don't believe in situation ethics, parsing the meaning of truth, or that the right intentions when couched in untruthful rhetoric, are just hunky dory.

If Trump wants to do damage to the left, he needs to tell the truth, and he's not doing that.

Ergo, he's hurting those who voted for him on the right, and who continue to defend him.

Which, I think, might not be a good thing........... wouldn't you agree?

Here's what I agree.

Trump is President.  He is also Trump.  He will always be Trump.  He will never be Ted Cruz or Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush.

But he is what we have and he has done extraordinarily well so far.

He has also been unbearably annoying to a lot of you.

My point is... are we going to join the New York Time, CNN and the Washington Post in pouncing over every little thing he does they don't like.

Or, are we going to support him in his agenda which most of us like.

Can't we hold our fire at least for a few weeks?  He may do something really bad someday but he hasn't yet.

[LonestarDream]

His numbers are correct.  You're looking only at Clinton's numbers.  But accuracy doesn't matter, right?

Out of the 135,719,964 total votes cast, Trump received 62,985,106 votes.

So Trump's opponents received 9,749,752 more votes than he did.

The claim was opponent , not opponentS.    Nit pick much.

@DiogenesLamp

[r9etb]

The claim was opponent , not opponentS.    Nit pick much.

@DiogenesLamp

The number is correct, and you're nitpicking about an "s."

Sorry, Mr. Clinton.

[DiogenesLamp]

His numbers are correct.  You're looking only at Clinton's numbers.  But accuracy doesn't matter, right?

Out of the 135,719,964 total votes cast, Trump received 62,985,106 votes.

So Trump's opponents received 9,749,752 more votes than he did.

Apparently accuracy isn't important to you either.   txradioguy did not use the word "opponents." He used the word "opponent."  (singular.)    You inaccurately added an "s".   (which made it plural.)



I made very certain that "s"  was not there before I posted the ~ 2 million difference between him and his  OPPONENT.

[DiogenesLamp]

The number is correct, and you're nitpicking about an "s."

Sorry, Mr. Clinton.

Pardon me,  but I somehow got the impression that nitpicking was the entire point of this thread.   Did someone present this thread inaccurately?   Is it not about nitpicking?   


What is it about then? 

[musiclady]

Here's what I agree.

Trump is President.  He is also Trump.  He will always be Trump.  He will never be Ted Cruz or Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush.

But he is what we have and he has done extraordinarily well so far.

He has also been unbearably annoying to a lot of you.

My point is... are we going to join the New York Time, CNN and the Washington Post in pouncing over every little thing he does they don't like.

Or, are we going to support him in his agenda which most of us like.

Can't we hold our fire at least for a few weeks?  He may do something really bad someday but he hasn't yet.

Here's where I disagree.

I think that lying actually IS really bad.

That isn't really joining the left is it?  After all they're the ones who've been lying for decades and excusing it as alright.

The way I look at it, is that those of us who still believe that deliberately telling untruths for a political purpose is bad, are the ones who are staying away from agreeing with the left.

Those who say it doesn't matter are the ones who are joining them.

[LonestarDream]

Nope DLs numbers are correct, for opponent - Mz Clinton.

The number is correct, and you're nitpicking about an "s."

Sorry, Mr. Clinton.

[r9etb]

Nope DLs numbers are correct, for opponent - Mz Clinton.

I showed you where the 9 million number came from and you're running away from it as hard as you can.

Pathetic, but predictable.

[Chosen Daughter]

Here's where I disagree.

I think that lying actually IS really bad.

That isn't really joining the left is it?  After all they're the ones who've been lying for decades and excusing it as alright.

The way I look at it, is that those of us who still believe that deliberately telling untruths for a political purpose is bad, are the ones who are staying away from agreeing with the left.

Those who say it doesn't matter are the ones who are joining them.

Truth matters to me.  Can't take a person seriously if they can't even check their information before making it public.

In the Bible it is called bearing false witness.  Honesty is everything.