[Closed] Donald! Trump!

Yes, it is. Is there something new? Can the opponents actually come up with something new?

Well we are apparently at the stage where Trump can appear to just make stuff up (as above) and when people question it, you and his other loyalists will still defend it without question.

The history books are obviously part of the "liberal elite" conspiracy, along with science.

[i]"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."[/i]

Dates from nineteenth century written history are subject to a +/- 15 year correction.

'Why was there the Civil War?'

Seem he shares a script writer with Philomena Cunk. 🙂

Ah the troll defends execution/murder without trial as OK because the government says so. Bit like Hitler then, I'd expect the Dunterton team to find themselves in an international court at some point.

Deadlydarcy, so if dates from then can be +/-15 years then 16 years after his death is fine. I think that's your point but unsure. Oh and Trump is a Bawbag.

Ah shite. I had '46 and '51 in my head. That'll teach me to factcheck. 😀

I'm assuming that Jackson told Trump personally how angry he was about the civil war, and Trump reassured him that it would be over soon.

Jackson will be seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for 2020. Only right that its founding father comes back to reprazent. Bigly.

His interview with Dickerson at CBS is equally bizarre and incoherent.

The ending is particularly interesting as Trump comments on his wiretapping allegations:

JOHN DICKERSON: Did President Obama give you any advice that was helpful? That you think, wow, he really was--

DONALD TRUMP: -- Well, he was very nice to me. But after that, we've had some difficulties. So it doesn't matter. You know, words are less important to me than deeds. And you-- you saw what happened with surveillance. And everybody saw what happened with surveillance--

JOHN DICKERSON: Difficulties how?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: -- and I thought that -- well, you saw what happened with surveillance. And I think that was inappropriate, but that's the way--

JOHN DICKERSON: What does that mean, sir?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You can figure that out yourself.

JOHN DICKERSON: Well, I-- the reason I ask is you said he was-- you called him "sick and bad".

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Look, you can figure it out yourself. He was very nice to me with words, but-- and when I was with him -- but after that, there has been no relationship.

JOHN DICKERSON: But you stand by that claim about him?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don't stand by anything. I just-- you can take it the way you want. I think our side's been proven very strongly. And everybody's talking about it. And frankly it should be discussed. I think that is a very big surveillance of our citizens. I think it's a very big topic. And it's a topic that should be number one. And we should find out what the hell is going on.

JOHN DICKERSON: I just wanted to find out, though. You're-- you're the president of the United States. You said he was "sick and bad" because he had tapped you-- I'm just--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You can take-- any way. You can take it any way you want.

JOHN DICKERSON: But I'm asking you. Because you don't want it to be--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You don't--

JOHN DICKERSON: --fake news. I want to hear it from--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You don't have to--

JOHN DICKERSON: --President Trump.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --ask me. You don't have to ask me.

JOHN DICKERSON: Why not?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Because I have my own opinions. You can have your own opinions.

JOHN DICKERSON: But I want to know your opinions. You're the president of the United States.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Okay, it's enough. Thank you. Thank you very much.

-- http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trump-oval-office-interview-cbs-this-morning-full-transcript/

[b][i]"I don't stand by anything."[/i][/b] - bold words indeed 😆

Do your own research

^ Wow ^

It just beggars belief that somebody who's so inarticulate managed to convince so many people to vote for him.

But I guess we have our own case-studies right here - one wonders what he'd have to do to to lose their support. We know Chewkw doesn't see an issue with a president personally murdering people.... so I'd be interested where the line is. Probably something to do with email servers 😕

I'm not sure inarticulate is strong enough.... incoherent?

GrahamS - Member
Well we are apparently at the stage where Trump can appear to just make stuff up (as above) and when people question it, you and his other loyalists will still defend it without question.

The history books are obviously part of the "liberal elite" conspiracy, along with science.

"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."

GrahamS - Member
His interview with Dickerson at CBS is equally bizarre and incoherent.

batfink - Member
It just beggars belief that somebody who's so inarticulate managed to convince so many people to vote for him.

We know Chewkw doesn't see an issue with a president personally murdering people....

so I'd be interested where the line is.

We know Chewkw doesn't see an issue with a president personally murdering people....
Show me the evidence that any of the President since WWII that actually pull the trigger ...

You mean Duterte publicly admitting he'd done exactly that?

so I'd be interested where the line is.
No imaginary line to cross and if the Filipino dealers have done the deed they get it. Simple.

I was saying that as somebody who'll quite happily defend a president who has openly admitted to murdering people, what would Trump have to do for you to stop excusing his malicious incompetence?

not a rhetorical question.... what would cause you to stop supporting his actions? Wheres the line for you?

OMG, he is really off his head on some really powerful stuff. It's like one stupid statement after another.

[url= http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/they-get-along-unbelievably-well-trump-abruptly-claims-israel-and-palestinians-work-together-beautifully/ ]‘They get along unbelievably well’: Trump abruptly claims Israel and Palestinians ‘work together beautifully’[/url]

It's the word of trump the truth is whatever the donald says it is.

@graham well they do co-operate on a variety of issues including security, however I think "beautifully" is stretching it a bit. Hats off to Trump for inviting Abbas to Washington but he is 82, was supposed to stand down in 2009 and has little credibility so anything Trump may "agree" with him is worthless really

During a press conference with State of Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas, Trump praised Palestinian National Authority for its efforts to combat ISIS.

His comments were related to the above were there is cooperation. Beautiful is stretching things a bit, but you all know that's how he talks, people should be getting used to it by now.

It just beggars belief that somebody who's so inarticulate managed to convince so many people to vote for him.

Not really. He speaks their language.

Well what ever it is, it's not English.

"Two nations divided by a common languge" G.B.Shaw I think.

‘

[IMG] [/IMG]

^ Wow ^

It just beggars belief that somebody who's so inarticulate managed to convince so many people to vote for him.

A version of this has been posted up some pages back, but you really need to watch it in order to begin to understand.

https://qz.com/929038/would-donald-trump-be-less-likable-as-a-woman-researchers-wanted-to-find-out/

He may have some bigger problems coming along
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/sally-yates-attorney-general-white-house-warn-michael-flynn-russia-links-congress-a7714656.html

Sally Yates: Former acting attorney general to testify she warned White House about Michael Flynn's Russia links

Hearing could contradict how administration characterised her counsel

Well what ever it is, it's not English.

He speaks like a lot of New Yorkers do. It's a sort of short hand where they don't finish their sentences. (Because they know you'll want to agree with them anyway, so y'know...right?)

He speaks like a lot of New Yorkers do. It's a sort of short hand where they don't finish their sentences.

I think your spot on with this....

Hes the idea puppet president though, wheel him out and let him do his thang. (Be interesting see whos pulling the strings thou.)

I don't stand by anything. I just-- you can take it the way you want. I think our side's been proven very strongly.

In the 21st century you got to be so dumb (not you but generally speaking) to think someone can control information circulating on the interweb. The information basically cancels each other out so they are good read

He speaks like a lot of New Yorkers do.

It's interesting that so many of his voters (based on vox pop interviews etc) describe Trump as [i]"straight talking"[/i] or a [i]"plain speaker"[/i].

Like him or loathe him, Obama was a brilliant eloquent and articulate speaker.

But perhaps for some people that just reinforces the whole "liberal elite" meme?

Maybe they perceive someone using [i]"them fancy book words"[/i] as being untrustworthy?

Perhaps future presidential candidates should consider:
https://blog.xkcd.com/2015/09/22/a-thing-explainer-word-checker/

But perhaps for some people that just reinforces the whole "liberal elite" meme?

It's part of the whole "we don't need experts" thing. Anyone who comes across as being eloquent and intelligent is immediately labelled as being "part of the ruling elite".

I've often wondered if the whole upward inflection at the end of sentences thing is similar: It makes you sound more approachable and less of a smart-a**e.

It's interesting that so many of his voters (based on vox pop interviews etc) describe Trump as "straight talking" or a "plain speaker".

Like him or loathe him, Obama was a brilliant eloquent and articulate speaker.

But perhaps for some people that just reinforces the whole "liberal elite" meme?

Go back to that video where they swap sexes above - there's far more to communication than the words that come out of someone's mouth.

there's far more to communication than the words that come out of someone's mouth.

there was something similar seen a few years back with an interesting experiment with a Reagan speech. Oliver Sachs got together two groups of people with brain damage; essentially one group couldn't understand words well, but read emotion very very well, the other group were the other way around, bad with emotion, just listened to words and were acutely sensitive to sentence construction and so on.

Two groups alternated between laughing and anger and frustration on hearing Reagan for the same reason expressed by both groups. his words (tuned to align with his body language) largely made no sense, and his body language (driven by the script he was performing) was largely contrived.(and lets remember Reagan was an actor, so he had a better than average "expertise" than most politicians)

same experiment as swapping the sexes.

It's a shame really that in most forms of communication he is mostly unintelligible and unable to convey policy or intent (or deliver on them)
The latest round of press interviews are another example of somebody who can't cope well with being asked questions or having to explain themselves.
His communication style is to dictate and deliver, lacking the ability to listen which will cost him bigly.

At least he has a press secretary that will stand up and eloquently answer questions, wait a minute where'd he go. What do you mean he's not coming back.

I listened to an interesting radio show the other day

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08mb1gb ]Trump at Studio 54[/url]

talks about his earlu life, father's and lawyers influence, and his style. Very enlightening

What do you mean he's not coming back.

He's back! Currently explaining to the press that a fence is actually "a wall"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/03/sean-spicer-border-wall-fence

Which is kinda laughable given:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

at least it is beautiful and Mexico are paying

The Berlin Wall was made up of a 66 mile concrete section, with a further 41 miles of barbed wire fencing

Was that not a wall either?.

Not really worth arguing about as he's not going to get funding approved for it anyway. It exists only in his mind and there's precious little space in there to begin with.

Was that not a wall either?.

I imagine the wall bits were a wall, and the fence bits were a fence.

Fun fact...[i]At strategic points, the Wall was constructed to a somewhat weaker standard, so that East German and Soviet armored vehicles could easily break through in the event of war.[/i] from wiki

I did not know that

New health care reform bill treats rape as a present existing condition. Come on then let's see someone try and defend that. Pure evil.

I imagine the wall bits were a wall, and the fence bits were a fence.

Ok, brilliant - but do we generally refer to it as:

a) The Berlin Wall
b) The Berlin Fence
c) The collected sections of wall and fence that surrounded West Berlin

I challenge you that most people referred to it, then and now, as the Berlin Wall, even though that was technically incorrect because significant portions of it were actually fence.

So, the recent is that the fact that something isn't actually technically all wall, is still called a wall, because large portions of it in key places are, is entirely on Trumps side, isn't it?

no one cares?

(apart from you to try to prove a point, obvs)

Is that right..? I'm right aren't I?

ah, a hissy fit once you become hoist on your own petard, how very predictable...

what? a hissy fit? really? 😆 you're rubbish at this, aren't you?

And the Berlin Fence, as i shall now refer to it, remind me how successful that was again?

Human nature ensures that the higher you build your [s]wall[/s] [i]fence[/i] the more effort people will put into successfully climbing it......