Trump said he will again "build the greatest economy in history." It's a pure lie -- his first economy was nothing special at all:
Here's his economic growth compared to the last 30 years -- average at best:
Trump said he will again "build the greatest economy in history." It's a pure lie -- his first economy was nothing special at all:
111 comments:
David - A biased political move is to take a reasonable comment and misinterpret it so as to be unreasonable. Regarding the criticisms of Trump's comment
1. It's accurate, not generous, to leave out this year's crash. Trump's comment specifically referred to the state of the economy before the virus. You may hold him responsible for the post-virus economy, but that's a different issue from whether Trump lied. His statement accurately referred to the pre-virus economy.
2. There are many ways to measure how "great" an economy is. In a number of ways, the 12/31/2019 economy was "great":
-- Highest GNP
-- Lowest unemployment rate for blacks, Hispanics, Asians
-- Most people employed
Cheers
Remember when Trump said in Feb 2016 'don't believe those phony 4.9 or 5% unemployment numbers. The numbers are 28, 29 or even as high as 35%, i've heard 42% recently."
Why did Trump stop claiming they were "phony" gov't unemployment numbers?
Was Trump telling a lie then or are his 2019 unemployment numbers also a lie?
Discussing individual Trump lies seems pointless to me. He doesn't tell the truth or have any particular interest in it. Picking up on individual statements, as though people might accidentally believe him, makes no sense. Fact checking his speeches makes no sense. The discussion needs to move on.
I doubt DiC would concede that "He doesn't tell the truth or have any particular interest in it."
I also doubt he'd agree that his faith in Trump is an accident.
Layzej - Actually I agree that Trump doesn't have any particular interest in the truth. He uses words as tools. His interest is in whether a statement will help him achieve his goals. That practice is both disgusting and effective.
Fortunately, many of the goals that Trump is achieving are things that I consider desirable, such as ending US participation in wars, bringing peace to the middle east and improving the lives of downtrodden minorities.
Cheers
P.S. Most politicians also tend to say whatever they think will be effective, although perhaps not as much as Trump. You probably know the old joke: The way to tell if a politician is lying is that his lips are moving. I don't want to get into a pissing contest comparing false and misleading statements by Biden and by Trump. It's too depressing.
Because politicians' words are unreliable, I look more at a politician's actions and achievements than his words.
I understand valuing actions over words, but you do fall for his BS more often than not. Does it not bother you to have a distorted view of reality?
Layzej - you hit on a paradox. A person cannot disbelieve what he believes.
Re-stating your point, my view of reality differs from your view of reality. More generally, conservatives' view of reality differs from liberals' view. This bothers me a great deal. Our media is so biased and unreliable that one's view of reality depends on where one gets his news from. How can liberals and conservatives agree on policy if we can't even agree on what's real?
I recommend to you a blog http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/ The blogger was Al Gore's roommate at Harvard. He values accuracy. Although he's very liberal and very anti-Trump, he criticizes liberal news sites when they're inaccurate. If you read this blog regularly, you will learn that a number of liberal beliefs are inaccurate.
Cheers
Trump tweeted or retweeted 89 times between midnight and 8 am this morning. Most of them were nuts including a tweet from a qanon supporter suggesting that only 6% of reported coronavirus deaths were actually down to covid. Another retweet was to a fake polling site that suggested Trump was way ahead in the polls.
Is it wrong to think that it's better to have someone in charge who isn't bat shit crazy? Especially when this one keeps peddling misinformation during a pandemic.
J.D. -- four years ago it was reasonable to guess about Trump's performance as President based on his tweets. However, now we can look at his actual performance.
I admire that he got us into no new wars and is getting us out of wars. I admire the defeat of the ISIS Caliphate. I admire the improvement in the lives of poor blacks and Hispanics. I admire his support for fighting Human Trafficking. I admire the fact the he finally recognized China's aggressive actions and is beginning to deal with the problem. I could list a number of other successes that I admire.
Cheers
If there weren't some things that a trump supporter could point to that he thought were impressive after more than three years then that would be amazing. Often when the claims are checked it turns out that Trump's performance is sub par anyway. For instance this is a fact check of claims made about his performance regarding human trafficking.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/12/viral-image/graph-showing-rising-human-trafficking-arrests-und/
Anyway DiC, you have a habit of glossing over anything that suggests Trump has none of the qualities that most people would look for in a president. Using his Twitter feed as a bully pulpit and to put out misinformation is a case in point. He should be using it to inform and to unite the nation. Instead he uses it to rally his supporters against anyone he perceives as his enemy and to gaslight. Right from the start he used it to bully athletes taking the knee which is harmless peaceful protest. He won't say anything against movements like qanon that are far from harmless because they are his supporters.
David in Cal wrote:
"I admire the improvement in the lives of poor blacks and Hispanics."
David, how has Trump improved the lives of these people? Their unemployment rates have soared under Trump!
Hispanics, now 12.9%:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=uZc9
Blacks, now 14.6%:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=uZcp
Do you have some other metric(s) in mind?
J.D. you're entirely right about Trump. He's un-Presidential, to say the least, in a number of ways, such as:
-- no political experience
-- stream of consciousness tweets
-- sexual hanky panky and maybe a sexual predator
-- nasty, childish insults
-- lies and frequent wild exaggerations
Given these liabilities, his victory in 2016 was remarkable. His excellent performance as President was surprising. Bear in mind that the media exaggerate his weaknesses and minimize his strengths. E.g., a friend of mine insists that Trump is dumb, even though his achievements show that he's brilliant. His enemies call him a bigot, even though he was a civil rights pioneer for opening up ritzy Palm Beach to Jews.
He particularly looks good in comparison to his two predecessors. Getting out of the war in Afghanistan instead of expanding it would seem obvious, but Trump is actually doing it. It should have been obvious to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's Capital and to kill terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani. Again, Trump was the one who did it. Trump showed better judgment in the middle than Obama and Bush. They may have thought these two steps would lead to more trouble; they led to less trouble. In fact, they may have contributed to the surprising peace treaty between Israel and the UAE.
Cheers
David - of course you knew I was referring to Trump's economic performance before the pandemic hit. The longest economic expansion of all time, the lowest unemployment rate for blacks, Hispanics and women for all time. These are significant achievements. His policies worked extremely well, at least in the short run.
Post pandemic economic results are not easy to measure, because there's no obvious comparison with the past. Based on the stock market the US looks quite good compared to other countries. Since the beginning of the year, US up 8%, Germany down 3%, France down 16 %, UK down 18%.
Cheers
David in Cal
"to kill terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani. "
The danger of assassinating the leaders of your enemies is that it legitimizes the tactic.
They can now asassinate Trump or some later POTUS and claim that they are using a tactic that the US itself regarded as legitimate.
To quote a historical example, Elizabeth I executed Mary, Queen of Scots. In doing so she demolished the "divine right of kings" and gave Oliver Cromwell a legitimate excuse to execute Charles I.
You've another problem.
As a global power China has already overtaken the US by several measures of economic, political and military strength such as this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
They also put "China First" as the US puts "America First", but China has 3000 years more practice.
David in Cal
"A person cannot disbelieve what he believes."
Scientists do it all the time.
We are trained to build our beliefs around the evidence and change our beliefs as extra evidence comes in.
I fear that David in Cal has taken the methods of Trump to his heart. When he writes "He uses words as tools. His interest is in whether a statement will help him achieve his goals. That practice is both disgusting and effective." he could as well refer to himself.
Trump has not withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, victims of drone strikes keep increasing etc. And lets not forget that the assassination of Soleimani not only killed five Iranians, it also killed five important Iraqis. What Trump did is cement the role of USA as a terrorist state.
"I fear that David in Cal has taken the methods of Trump to his heart. When he writes "He uses words as tools. His interest is in whether a statement will help him achieve his goals. That practice is both disgusting and effective." he could as well refer to himself.
Trump has not withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, victims of drone strikes keep increasing etc."
It doesn't matter what Trump says. It matters what he does. And Trump says he does great things. The proof is in the pudding. Veterans Choice is a great example. They had been trying to pass it for 45 years. No other president could have done that.
(for the record, Obama passed Veteran's Choice, but Trump has claimed this as his victory over 140 times.)
Likewise, he has claimed that no one has done more for minorities. DiC echos that here. I've done some research to find out what he's actually talking about and it seems he's touting black unemployment vs white unemployment rates. The problem is that this hasn't really improved under Trump. Black unemployment has historically been 2x white unemployment. It was 2x at the start of the Trump administration, and hasn't improved since. Even if you look at absolute numbers, most of the gains under the Obama administration.
But it doesn't matter what Trump says, it matters what he does. And Trump says he does great for minorities, so there you have it.
Layzej - I said Trump is getting us out of wars. That's correct.
Trump has been touting actual black unemployment rates, rather than rates compared to whites. IMHO it's incredibly important for every young person to get into the workforce. Bernie Sanders was right to focus on the near 50% actual unemployment rate for young black Americans.
On April 19, 2017, President Donald Trump signed a bill into law extending the [Veteran Choice] act and expanding the eligibility for the program, where veterans are given the option for a private doctor if their VA wait is only 20 days (28 for specialty care) or their drive is only 30 minutes.
Cheers
President Donald Trump signed a bill into law extending the [Veteran Choice] act and expanding the eligibility for the program
Ok. We agree that "no president in 45 years" stuff is garbage. No points to me for that one since we already agreed that most of what he says is a lie. I'll drop it.
Trump has been touting actual black unemployment rates"
Sure, but this improved far more under Obama. Trump actually slowed the progress. You may think you are not affected by the barrage of lies, but would anyone consider the reduced rate of improvement a win if Trump wasn't constantly touting it as such?
"Layzej - I said Trump is getting us out of wars. That's correct."
That was Thomas's comment. Trump is not a war hawk. I'm grateful for that.
David in Cal wrote:
"David - of course you knew I was referring to Trump's economic performance before the pandemic hit. The longest economic expansion of all time, the lowest unemployment rate for blacks, Hispanics and women for all time. These are significant achievements. His policies worked extremely well, at least in the short run."
David, I'm sorry to have to say this, but you aren't being honest here.
I could write many things here, but I'll simply present this for you consideration -- US employment since Obama was sworn in:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=v1S8
Can you show me where Trump's policy made a difference?
David - Here are 12 of the things Trump did that helped the economy. Can you provide a comparable list for President Obama?
1. Cut personal income tax
2. Cut corporate income tax
3. Provided major regulatory relief
4. Approved the Keystone pipeline
5. Encouraged energy production via fracking
6. Encouraged energy production via coal. More energy meant lower energy costs for businesses.
7. Appointed judges who were less apt to extend and increase liability awards against businesses.
8. Kept the minimum wage where it was, rather than raise it.
9. Promoted a more pro-business climate throughout the Executive Branch of government
10. Replaced NAFTA with a more favorable trade treaty
11. Negotiated a more favorable trade agreement with China.
12. Produced economic stimulus by increased federal spending
Cheers
P.S. Obama presided over an economic recovery after a recession. That's normal. Trump extended the expansion to be longer than any in history. That's extraordinary.
David,
But where is the data showing that Trump's policies helped the economy beyond an extension of Obama's economy? There is none. In fact, job grown slowed down under Trump, even before the pandemic.
Up to Feb 2020, in the 37 months Trump was president, 6.84 M jobs were created. In Obama's last 37 months, 8.25 M jobs were created. That's a difference of 1.42 M jobs.
Job growth slowed down under Trump.
Not only that, the current recession started in February, before the pandemic hit the economy. It's Trump's recession.
Not only that, Trump's economy was juiced by $trillion/yr deficits -- when he promised to eliminate the deficit.
No excuse for that in such a good economy -- it was another Trump lie.
I just don't see any evidence that Trump's economy was anything other than an extension of Obama's economy -- and a wilting extension at that.
David - You're assuming a kind of economic inertia -- that an expanding economy naturally tends to keep expanding. That an economic expansion will tend to keep expanding. History shows that's not accurate. On the contrary, history shows that an economy NEVER keeps expanding beyond 120 months -- that is never before Trump.
I agree with your other point. Trump's huge deficit was one of many policy reasons for the economic expansion. Increasing the deficit was a failure to fulfill a campaign promise.
Cheers
The 120 months number is not a hard and fast rule.
Yes, I think economies have inertia, up to a point. But it sounds like you're now agreeing that Trump's economy wasn't anything special, but actually a downturn from Obama's economy, to a real recession before the pandemic.
Yet Trump makes it sound like he had the greatest economy in the history of the world (literally). He certainly did not, as the numbers show. It's another of his many, many lies. And now, of course, the economy is in the toilet, for which Trump DOES bear a lot responsibility, for mismanaging entirely the pandemic.
Trump has created a large mess in almost every aspect of American society, and he is destroying the country.
Is Trump really getting out of wars?
"In the summer of 2017, with 8,400 U.S. troops already authorized,[186] U.S. President Donald Trump gave the U.S. military decision-making authority to increase troop numbers for U.S. military operations in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan without first seeking formal agreement from the White House."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Afghanistan#Plans_by_the_administration_of_Donald_Trump
"Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama’s numbers"
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers
and so on. What Trump has managed to do is focus attention on his twitter rantings and inernal chaos in the USA so these wars have been largely forgotten even if they haven't ended. Od course, when Trump did an obvious escalation of the conflict with the assassinaton of Soleimani and nine others David support that too, so at best I expect him to change to "Oh,it's actually good that Trump keeps the wars going".
"President Donald Trump gave the U.S. military decision-making authority to increase troop numbers for U.S. military operations in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan without first seeking formal agreement from the White House."
It looks like I fell for Trumps BS as well.
history shows that an economy NEVER keeps expanding beyond 120 months -- that is never before Trump.
Did Trump tell you that? The US economy grew between 1992 and 2008. That's 192 months. That's only the most recent example. Trump's run started 2 years later
Layzeh - The longest economic expansion in history was in all the news. Here's a link with links to a bunch of news stories about it. https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+longest+economic+expansions&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=trump+longest+economic+expansions&aqs=chrome..69i57.6182j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Cheers
Thomas - Yes, I applaud the killing of monster Soleimani. He was responsible for the deaths of perhaps hundreds of Americans and thousands of others in the middle east. Eliminating Soleimani led to greater peace. Notice that we haven't heard about as many terrorist killings in the middle east since his demise.
On this issue, as in a number of others, Trump's judgment was superior to Democrats' judgment. Democrats predicted that Soleimani's killing would inflame the middle. Instead, it calmed things.
Cheers
David, and what about the other nine people killed? Did they deserve to die or were they just acceptable collateral damage? What about Soleimani's fight against ISIS? What about how Iran offered to help USA against the Talibans in Afghanistan, but USA turned them down. If killing thousands makes you a monster, what about all the thousands Trump has killed with his drone strikes over his presidency? Essentially every US president can be described as a monster given your definition. Should we kill them all?
So many questions, but I don't expect answers from a true believer like you.
"Layzeh - The longest economic expansion in history was in all the news"
Fair point.
Thomas - your questions point out that assassinating Suleiman had some downsides. I agree. However, I ask you where you stand overall. Do you approve or disapprove of killing Soleimani?
Cheers
David, I disapprove of political assassinations. Do you approve of them? Lets start with a former democrat president to make it easy for you: Bill Clinton bombed the largest pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, denying medicine to one of the poorest countries in the world. Do we kill him?
I note that you refuse to anser any of my questions, or for that matter comment on the fact that Trump had troops increased, not reduced as you claimed.
Thomas - I know nothing about the troop increases you address.
I thought I did answer your question by acknowledging that Trump's action had downsides. Regarding the others killed along with Soleimani, I believe they were his supporters. This is essentially war. IMHO Soleimani was more immoral than Trump or Clinton, because Soleimani had no need to murder Americans and others. However, even if you think Soleimani's killings were morally justified, then it was reasonable for America to kill someone who was killing Americans.
The drone strikes you allude to were part of a war.
Now, I ask you to answer my question: Do you approve or disapprove of killing Soleimani?
Cheers
David,I did answer your question: I oppose political assassinations and the murder of Soleimani and the rest was a political assassination. It makes sense that Trump now add sanctions to the ICC in his war on Internatonal law and common decency.
What Americans do you even mean that Soleimani have murdered?
Do you really want to argue that Trump or Clinton had a *need* to kill civilians? That it is OK to kill civilians in a war you started yourself? That USA is at war not only with Afghanistan and Iraq, but with Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Libya and probably some more countries where drone strikes haven't hit the headlines.
It's good to see so many prominent Republicans putting party politics aside and saying publicly that they will vote for Biden. They obviously don't share everything Biden believes in but realise that democracy is under threat from a divisive narcissist who every day does more to inflame divisions rather than heal them. It's obvious that he is corrupt and will only get worse if he is re-elected. Probably much worse as he has got rid of all the adults in the room and replaced them with sycophantic yes men.
You would think that the recent senate inquiry that showed that Trump's campaign, and almost certainly Trump himself, did collude with a foreign power during the last election would be enough to persuade any patriot not to vote for him. However when you see opinion polls suggesting that around half of Republican voters believe that the qanon conspiracy theory is at least partly true then it makes you realise what we're up against. The amount of Republicans that say Trump is the last person they would vote for at least means there is some hope though.
Even David Cross is starting to regret his vote for Trump :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1wkqZIJOAQ
David in Cal
"The drone strikes you allude to were part of a war. "
IIRC the US President can only declare war after a vote of support by Congress.
Could you show me in the Congressional Record when this vote took place.
Entropic Man -- Based on laws and traditions, the President can indeed fight a war before getting Congress to formally declare war. Many recent examples can be pretty easily found.
I think you know this. I suspect your comment is really a way of deploring a President's ability to make war based on a unilateral decision.
Cheers
Lazej: I hadn't seen that. It's both very funny and disturbing at the same time. It's disturbing because I don't think any of the things he lists at the end are untrue or exaggerated even.
David in Cal
"I think you know this. I suspect your comment is really a way of deploring a President's ability to make war based on a unilateral decision. "
I hadn't known it. I thought you had the same system as the UK, in which the Prime Minister cannot declare war without a majority vote in favour from the House of Commons.
If an unhinged POTUS can do a General Ripper and decide to go to war on his own, it is indeed deplorable (and terrifying for outside observers like myself)
Have you no safeguards?
Wikipedia indicates the assassination was likely illegal under both US and international law. I don't think the US has any safeguards other than impeachment. The president cannot be charged for crimes he commits.
The link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_Soleimani
Layzej - Under the War Powers Act, the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad...or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." (Wikipedia)
Since Suleimani had attacked US armed force, a President could have plausibly considered this to be an "emergency", permitting him to send US Armed Forces into action abroad.
Now, look at the morality. An Iranian General attacked an murdered a large number of Americans. This was grounds to make war on Iran. How much better to simply take action against a single perp and a few of his henchmen.
Now, look at the reality. For many decades, Presidents have sent troops to fight abroad without a declaration of war. Truman and Eisenhower fought in Korea without a declaration of war. Kennedy and Johnson sent troops to Vietnam without a declaration of war. Bush Sr. sent troops to Kuwait and Iraq without a declaration. Clinton bombed the former Yugoslavia (and very effectively). Bush and Obama sent troops to various middle eastern countries without a declaration.
In short, the requirement to formally declare war is old fashioned and almost obsolete.
Cheers
David "Since Suleimani had attacked US armed force". Previously you claimed that Soleimani had "murdered" Americans, presumably these military forces who didn't even have any right to be there, having participated in a war of aggression. At the same time you excused murder of civilians, as long as they were killed by Americans.
You are an example of the nasty type of US jingoism that gives the country a bad reputation in the rest of the world.
I think it is considered illegal in the USA because he didn't have the support of congress, not because there was no declaration.
According to the article, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions are justified under international law only if it had been a response to an "imminent threat."
It is beyond me whether this was good or bad for the region or the world. Apparently ISIL praised the killing of Soleimani as a divine intervention.
It does further the perception that the US is generally lawless. Russia has executed enemies of the state on UK soil. Trump is probably right when he defends Russia saying "You think our country's so innocent?"
It looks like Fox News have flipped over to the Fake News dark side. One of their correspondents has confirmed the story that Trump called soldiers who were captured and killed losers and suckers. Hopefully this is a sign that the rats are leaving the sinking ship.
Is this the man who decides whether you should go to war?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53979819
Trump's supporters tell us he is a genius but he wasn't aware that if you make it clear to those around you that you are a threat to American interests then come election time they will see it as their patriotic duty to speak out. Expect more of this before the election.
Entropic man - that story is bogus. It supposedly comes from 4 anonymous sources. Are they reliable? Are they enemies of Trump? Were they present when the words were allegedly spoken? Do they even exist?
OTOH the allegation was denied by 10 on-the-record sources, 8 of who, were present when the offensive words were allegedly uttered. Some of those denying the story are enemies of Trump who favor the truth. Several others confirmed that they had never heard Trump insult the military. On the contrary, he has always shown and expressed the greatest admiration and appreciation.
BTW Atlantic Magazine is owned by a huge Biden supporter.
Note also the violation of proper journalistic practice. Atlantic ran this story without including a response from Trump.
Trump is doing a big service to the country by pointing out all the fake news. I hope his re-election will be a wake-up call to the media to start focusing on fairness and accuracy.
Cheers
Both AP and Fox News have confirmed The Atlantic’s story.
David, please explain which aspects they confirmed and which ones they did not confirm.
Cheers
Fox News:
https://twitter.com/hunterschwarz/status/1301996761309802496
AP:
https://apnews.com/b823f2c285641a4a09a96a0b195636ed
The only one denying it is the president, and we all agree that Trump doesn't have any particular interest in the truth.
Layzej - first, please explain what you mean by "it"? The Atlantic article made a number of assertions. Which ones are you referring to? Which ones have been denied by people other than the President?
David - I cannot access your FoxNews link. Your AP link says, "A senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press, including the 2018 cemetery comments."
Two anonymous sources, one who wasn't even there, are inherently unreliable. Furthermore, they claim to have confirmed only some of the Atlantic assertions.
Sorry to be critical, but your blunt claim that AP confirmed the Atlantic story is an exaggeration, worthy of Mr. Trump.
Cheers
David, one more thought. Since the sources for Atlantic are anonymous, the AP couldn't know whether their anonymous sources are the same as Atlantic's anonymous sources. The two sets of sources may be the same people, for all anyone knows. In that case, the AP would not have independently confirmed the allegations.
Cheers
I made the above comments before looking at the Althouse blog. She makes the same points about FoxNews that I did about AP. It's always nice to find agreement.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2020/09/journalism-question-what-does-it-mean.html
Cheers
The problem here is that if you take the opposite of what Trump says and assume that to be the truth then most of the time you would be right. That's the problem with being a pathological liar is that in the end nobody believes you.
What makes it worse is that he gets everyone around him to lie too. Remember how right at the start of his presidency kellyanne Conway coined the phrase "alternative facts".
Trump has been caught out in a couple of lies while trying to undermine the Atlantic's reporting too. He says he called his wife back home to say he was devestated at not being able to go to the cemetery but she was in Paris with him. He says he didn't call John McCain a loser but he did and insulted him for getting caught by the Vietnamese. There is also a named source saying Trump did have a tantrum over flags flying at half mast when McCain died. Michael Cohen also claimed he told him that he didn't go to fight in Vietnam because he wasn't dumb.
It's also worth noting that Trump isn't saying that the Atlantic is making it up which is what he usually would say. He's trying to guess who the sources are and has said one of the sources could be John Kelly. Why pick Kelly who is far more believable than him unless it's because he knows Kelly was present at the time he said it.
Does anybody really believe that this draft dodger has any respect for the troops? He pays them lip service, but we all agree Trump doesn't have any particular interest in the truth. He uses words as tools. His interest is in whether a statement will help him achieve his goals.
I doubt there are many left who fall for his BS.
Liberal Glenn Greenwald makes similar points to mine in a well-written column. An excerpt is below, but the whole column is worth reading.
Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite
Outlets claiming to have “confirmed” Jeffrey Goldberg’s story about Trump’s troops comments are again abusing that vital term.
...But whatever happened, neither AP nor Fox obtained anything resembling “confirmation.” They just heard the same assertions that Goldberg heard, likely from the same circles if not the same people, and are now abusing the term “confirmation” to mean “unproven assertions” or “unverifiable claims” (indeed, Fox now says that “two sources who were on the trip in question with Trump refuted the main thesis of The Atlantic’s reporting”)....
Cheers
They just heard the same assertions that Goldberg heard, likely from the same circles
People heard him say it. Of course it corroboration would have come from the same circles. There were only so many people on the plane with him. You can believe Trump, or the folks on the plane who heard him say it. Not a tough choice.
Trump also says he never called John McCain a loser. Here's video of him doing just that.
"I don't like losers... He's not a war hero. He's a war hero 'cuz he was captured. I like people who weren't captured ok?"
I've been Watching Donald Trump from the UK for four years now.
I've read many descriptions from a variety of sources, but one word really suffices.
He is inept.
Here are just the insults Trump has leveled towards military members publicly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17tmyBeiYC0
Does anyone doubt he does the same in private?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54045115
Layzej - I don't want to watch the entire CNN report. Can you tell us where the public insults are?
Cheers
Layzej - David will understand the following comment. In mathematics there are two important symbols called "quantifiers": The traditional symbol for the universal quantifier is "∀", a rotated letter "A", which stands for "for all" or "all". The corresponding symbol for the existential quantifier is "∃", a rotated letter "E", which stands for "there exists" or "exists".
News people often omit the quantifiers. CNN says Trump publicly called military people bad names. They make it sound as if Trump publicly criticized military people in general. He actually criticized a small handful of military people, for reasons specific to them.
CNN also omitted the huge number of times that Trump praised specific military people. That CNN broadcast makes no effort to be fair.
Cheers
Layzej - I want to address Trump's criticism of McCain - that he doesn't admire losers. I don't agree with Trump about McCain. However, Trump may have been alluding to the current trend to lionize victims rather than people who achieve things. E.g., there is a memorial to juvenile delinquent Trayvon Martin. There's no memorial to David Blackwell.
One can see the difference in two visits to Kenosha. Trump praised the police, who had risked life and limb to stop the rioting. Biden praised criminal Jacob Blake, whose only accomplishment was to get shot while resisting arrest.
IMHO lionizing victims instead of achievers is unhealthy for our society. It's particularly unhealthy for African Americans.
Cheers
How can you possibly link Trump's disgraceful treatment of John McCain and his family to Trayvon Martin? Trump wasn't alluding to anything but that he had a grudge against Cain. He acts like a crime boss pursuing a vendetta against someone who has crossed him. Look at the way he hounded Jeff Sessions even after he left the White house because he did the decent thing and recused himself from the Russian interference probe. Trump wanted a corrupt AG who would look after his interests rather than America's. Now he has got one with Bill Barr.
Trump kept up the vendetta against McCain even when he was dying and after he died. If you think that he did that because he was connecting him to a kid in Florida who was shot whilst going to a store to buy skittles then that makes him more mentally unstable and unfit for office than most people already think he is.
Just in the last couple of days Trump has encouraged people to harass Steve Jobs widow because she owns The Atlantic, said that Fox News should fire their reporter who confirmed the story, and called the reporter who broke the story a slimeball. Does anyone really think it would be out of character for him to lash out at the troops while he was having a tantrum because John Kelly was trying to make him go to the cemetery in horrible weather?
Liberal Glenn Greenwald makes similar points to mine in a well-written column.
Wiki quotes him as saying that he is neither Liberal nor conservative. It seems anyway that he has supported Trump since he was president by calling Russian election interference a conspiracy theory. Yet a recent article in the same publication he writes for and your quote is from says of the recent senate report
The report reveals the true nature of the counterintelligence threat posed by a president willing and eager to accept the help of a foreign adversary to win American elections.
Ouch!
I should also point out that Glenn Greenwald doesn't seem to be aware of deep throat and how the Watergate scandal came to the attention of the public.
J.D. -- Actually wiki quotes Greenwald as "describing his 'pre-political' self as neither liberal nor conservative as a whole, voting neither for George W. Bush nor for any of his rivals (indeed, not voting at all).[77]
"Bush's election to the U.S. presidency "changed" Greenwald's previous uninvolved political attitude toward the electoral process "completely""
Cheers
David in Cal wrote:
"However, Trump may have been alluding to the current trend to lionize victims rather than people who achieve things. E.g., there is a memorial to juvenile delinquent Trayvon Martin."
Was Trayvon Martin ever arrested?
So George Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin because Martini was supposedly a "juvenile delinquent?"
Does it count that Martin saved his father's life when he was 9 by pulling him out of a burning apartment?
David in Cal wrote:
"Trump praised the police, who had risked life and limb to stop the rioting."
Trump also defended vigilante, criminial and murderer Kyle Rittenhouse.
Trump also defended paintball shooters and peppersprayers in Portland, who were doing it offensively.
"CNN also omitted the huge number of times that Trump praised specific military people. "
Trump needs veteran and military vote. He uses words as tools. He has no interest in truth.
His interest is in whether a statement will help him achieve his goals. Anything he says in favour of the military is clearly self serving.
Remember "I always wanted to get the purple heart"?
He has no clue.
Trump was also just caught lying about this trip to France. He said he was devastated by not being able to go to the cemetery and called home to his wife to talk about it. Except his wife was also in France on the same trip. From CNN:
"Trump insisted Thursday evening that the Secret Service had prevented him from attending the ceremony.
"I was ready to go to a ceremony. I had two of them, one the following day, it was pouring and I went to that. The reason it couldn't fly because it was raining about as hard as I've ever seen, and on top of that it was very, very foggy and the helicopter was unable to fly," he said.
The Secret Service, Trump recounted, "told me you can't do it. I said I have to do that, I want to be there."
Trump said he then "called home, I spoke to my wife and I said, 'I hate this. I came here to go to that ceremony.' And to the one that was the following day, which I did go to. I said I feel terribly. And that was the end of it."
As CNN has reported, first lady Melania Trump was on the same trip and was scheduled to visit the cemetery with the President. She was not in the US."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/trump-marines-cemetery-france/index.html
David - Kyle Rittenhouse needs defending from people who call him a criminal and murderer. Even the liberal New York Times reported that the video makes a strong case that Rittenhouse acted in self defense.
For media to equate paintball shooters with arsonists and looters shows their huge bias. E.g., last night a rioter sent another rioter on fire. The rioter perp shot a fire bomb at police and missed, hitting his own man. You can see videos of the victim rioter on fire. Compared to this, getting paint on someone is obviously trivial.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/06/portland-police-deploy-tear-gas-declare-riot-as-protester-catches-fire/
Cheers
David - Trayvon Martin was staying with a relative in Zimmerman's complex because he had been suspended from school. He had been stealing from other kids' lockers. He also had some other unsavory stuff in his background, but I don't recall what it was. The media pretty much ignored Trayvon Martin's negatives. BTW the media also underplayed Zimmerman's positives. He was most helpful to his neighbors, regardless of race. The media portrayed Z as a racist, which was the opposite of the truth.
The trial witnesses showed pretty clearly that Martin had made an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman. Martin was on top of Zimmerman, banging Zimmerman's head on the pavement when Z shot him. This could have been fatal. That's why the jury acquitted Z of charges based on self-defense. Those of us who followed the factual reporting were not surprised by the fairly rapid unanimous acquittal. Those who believed the media were surprised.
David, your ignorance is forgivable. You relied on media reports. It's not your fault that the media coverage was dreadfully inaccurate.
Cheers
I confess, I'm finding the Donald Trump Show very entertaining at the moment.
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53498434
So DiC has managed to change the subject again. It illustrates why there is no chance of changing the minds of Trump’s base though. They will just say "it's a hoax". Or in this case that the insult wasn't really aimed at the person we have all seen him insult multiple times, it was aimed at a completely different person.
From what I've seen regarding the Atlantic story it's an open secret that John Kelly is the main source. He is being heavily criticized for not talking publicly about it but working with an unstable president left him drained and he knows that if it's right out in the open that he is the source Trump will set his attack dogs on him.
What is encouraging is that a lot of operatives from past Republican campaigns know that Trump is unfit for office. They are working in tandem with the Biden campaign to get Trump out of office and put an end to his corruption.
DA: Except his wife was also in France on the same trip
A twisted web indeed.
JD: It illustrates why there is no chance of changing the minds of Trump’s base
He may be losing the military though: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/
Entropic man post about QAnon above.
DiC, you noted that "Trump doesn't have any particular interest in the truth. He uses words as tools. His interest is in whether a statement will help him achieve his goals. That practice is both disgusting and effective."
It may be effective, but does it bother you that the republican party has become quite so divorced from reality?
Layzej, don't lots of military vote by mail anyway? Then their votes risk not being counted so it doesn't matter if they start leaning Biden.
Thomas - the risk of mass mail voting is not so much that a vote might not be counted. It's more the risk that a whole bunch of phony votes will be sent in. It would be easy for a partisan or for Russia or China to print a bunch of forged ballots and mail them in.
See Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots
A top Democratic operative says voter fraud, especially with mail-in ballots, is no myth. And he knows this because he’s been doing it, on a grand scale, for decades.
https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/
Cheers
Layzej - IMHO almost all politicians of both parties are substantially divorced from reality. That's why problems persist despite expensive government programs. The War on Poverty is Example #1.
According to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, since the Johnson Administration, almost $15 trillion has been spent on welfare, with poverty rates being about the same as during the Johnson Administration.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cost+of+war+on+poverty&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=cost+of+war+on+poverty&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.3407j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Cheers
David: Oddly, Wikipedia doesn't have any mention of Martin first attacking Zimmerman. But it does make clear that Zimmerman was clearly itching for a fight:
"On the evening of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman observed Martin as he returned to the Twin Lakes housing community after having walked to a nearby convenience store.[41][Note 3] At the time, Zimmerman was driving through the neighborhood on a personal errand.[42]
"At approximately 7:09 p.m.,[Note 4] Zimmerman called the Sanford police non-emergency number to report a suspicious person in the Twin Lakes community.[44] Zimmerman said,
"We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy …".[2] He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[45] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.[46] He also mentioned that Martin was wearing a "dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie."[47] On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away."[48][49]
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running".[50] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[51] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[52] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[50] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[53] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[50] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.
After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between him and Martin. It ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin 70 yards (65 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting
It was only Zimmerman who claimed Martin beat him -- and he's hardly a unbiased source.
The fact is that Zimmerman had no business repeatedly pursuing Martin, who was simply walking through the complex, for which he was pursued and killed.
BTW, Zimmerman has hardly been an angel since the Martin shooting and has shown he has difficulty controlling his emotions and actions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman#Life_after_the_trial
And if Trayvon Martin doesn't deserve a memorial -- which really isn't any of your business -- does George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or any Confederate general or soldier?
Washington and Jefferson owned dozens of slaves -- far more serious than being a "juvenile delinquent" -- and Jefferson even committed adultery with at least one of his, and fathering children, all in secret. Where does this rank on the delinquency scale?
What about the Confederates? Not just treasons, but treasons for the cause of being able to own people and force them to do anything told of them and beat them as desired. Tough to get more delinquent than that -- and they were adults, not juveniles with still developing brains. Well, at least they didn't burn blacks in ovens, so they weren't total pieces of shit on the delinquency scale from -1 to 0. Still, they got plenty of memorials, didn't they?
Wow. That's some equivalency your trying to maintain there. QAnon comspiracy = Welfare policy? Really?
David in Cal wrote:
"Kyle Rittenhouse needs defending from people who call him a criminal and murderer. Even the liberal New York Times reported that the video makes a strong case that Rittenhouse acted in self defense."
Before the skateboard incident, Rittenhouse shot a man in the head and killed him at a gas station.
Furthermore, Rittenhouse wasn't legally allowed to carry a gun there in Wisconsin, let along an assault rifle.
"For media to equate paintball shooters with arsonists and looters shows their huge bias."
I'm not equating anything, and you yet are again trying to change the subject. I'm talking about the people on the caravan through Portland who choose to, unprovoked, shoot people with paintball guns and spray them with pepper spray. Paintballs can hit someone in the eye and potentially blind them. What of these sins? They don't matter, huh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H2o1BgAzA0
David - Much of what you wrote is incorrect. I suggest that we either stop debating Trayvon Martin or else base our discussion on the trial transcripts.
BTW you say Trayvon Martin's memorial is none of my business. However, I am not a racist. I disapprove of a memorial that hurts black people bothers me.
Cheers
DiC: An article in a Murdoch newspaper using an anonymous Joe as a source. I didn't quote the story about Trump denigrating soldiers until it had been confirmed by various sources including one that is normally pro Trump. Which made it highly likely that the original article was quoting sources who had worked inside the Trump administration. What makes your story even less credible is that the only organisation they quote to say that it might be true is the Heritage Foundation. Who are a right wing libertarian propaganda group. Sorry David this looks just as credible as Bill Barr saying on CNN the other day that there was a case of electoral fraud in Texas involving 7000 votes. Which turned out to be a lie.
Layzej - There's no equivalence. QAnon in unimportant. Media claim that some specific large number of people believe various crazy conspiracy theories. However, the media have no actual measure of how many believe in any give conspiracy. Nor have the media pointed out any way in which the QAnon believers harm the country. They get a lot of publicity only because they support Trump.
The War on Poverty is extremely important. It has cost a stupendous amount of money, yet it has not succeeded. That makes it terribly important and terribly sad.
Cheers
Wow. That's some equivalency your trying to maintain there. QAnon comspiracy = Welfare policy? Really?
I can see a connection. Welfare is about providing money to feed poor babies and Qanon is about stopping the rich elite eating poor babies. Both perfectly commendable IMO.
David in Cal wrote:
"According to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, since the Johnson Administration, almost $15 trillion has been spent on welfare, with poverty rates being about the same as during the Johnson Administration."
This really isn't very much money.
US population in 1965 = 194 M
US population in 2020 = 331 M
So the average population over this time period is 263 M.
The poverty rate fluctuates a little, but averages about 13% over this time period:
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/files/imagecache/lightbox/main-images/poverty_rate_historical_0.jpg
so every year about 34 M people are in poverty over this time period, on average.
Over 55 years that's 1,870 M peopleinpoverty*years.
So $15 T comes to $8,000/peopleinpoverty/yr.
It's pretty tough for a person to live on $8,000 per year. Very tough.
You didn't give a source for CATO's number, so I don't know if it's corrected for inflation. I suspect it is, because $8,000/personinpoverty/yr sounds about right to me -- the US does not treat the poor well and is very stingy in how it supports them. It's almost a crime to be poor in America -- many of whom, by the way, are white and live in rural America.
There's no equivalence. QAnon in unimportant. Media claim that some specific large number of people believe various crazy conspiracy theories.
There was a poll which found 50% of Republicans either believed the Qanon conspiracy theory or partially believed it. It's quite frightening that half of the people who are going to vote for Trump are so divorced from reality. Twenty years ago if someone told a doctor they believed that stuff he would have considered having them admitted to a mental institution.
Blogger David in Cal said...
"David - Much of what you wrote is incorrect. I suggest that we either stop debating Trayvon Martin or else base our discussion on the trial transcripts."
Our sources have differing accounts. As for the trial transcripts, they aren't trustworthy, because George Zimmerman isn't trustworthy. He's of low character, as he's shown again and again over the years since he murdered Martin (who he had no business following in the first place).
David in Cal said...
See Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots
https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/
Oh please. That article uses an anonymous source. Up above you criticized The Atlantic for using anonymous sources.
You aren't consistent, David. You believe what you want/need to believe, regardless of its source or support, while claiming you do the exact opposite! But here you slipped up and showed the truth.
David: Neither the anonymous source in the NY Post article, or the NY Post, provides any evidence to support any of his claims. Nothing. There's no reason to believe him whatsoever. He could just as easily be someone working for Trump looking to create uncertainty about mail-in-voting. The article is worthless.
JD: and even the Heritage Foundation report, right-wing as they are, found 1,071 cases of election fraud in (according to my searching) the year starting 1982 and ending in 2017. That's 36 years, so 30 cases/yr. That's in a country that casts ~a billion votes/year, when you count all races, (and probably more). Taking a billion, it comes to a fraud level of 0.000003%.
There are problems with voting, whether in person or by mail, that are far bigger than this, and no doubt inevitable, so complaining about such fraud is not productive or worth it.
QAnon in unimportant.
Is it? There are people who believe in QAnon now getting elected to Congress.
There was a poll which found 50% of Republicans either believed the Qanon conspiracy theory or partially believed it. It's quite frightening that half of the people who are going to vote for Trump are so divorced from reality.
It's a chicken/egg dilemma if you ask me.
It doesn't bode well for democracy in the USA. How could you have a discussion about the relative merits of welfare if one party can't even agree on whether the Mueller investigation was actually led by Trump, who pretended to collude with Russia in order to hire Mueller to secretly investigate the Democrats?
Post a Comment