Cancel Order for New Airforce One!?

[D-ECHO]

I have to agree with Kl-666 here, saying that a discussion gets uninteresting for me here.
But just some thing.... Trump wasn't caught blatantly lying about anything yet. Nothing more to say. Actually says everything about your view on the things.

[Lydiot]

I agree with you, and with your agreement.

[jwocky]

Well, so D-ECHO just repeats his claims without bringing up a real case ... while he elegantly skips Hilary's email affair ... I guess, that proves my point sufficiently.

And Lydiot elegantly skips who was actually in control of Fanny & Freddy, the root of the real estate market crash. He just follows the party line of "it was all Bush's fault". Then, he talks about a "derivative", but he fails to recognize, that he actually means a "tendency". Different thing. See, a derivative can be actually calculated for every point of a graph, a tendency is over a time line. So, at this point I am not sure, whether ha is just math inept and tries to bluff with words, he heard somewhere or whether he prepares for an intentional number scam. And .-- hey Lydiot, you master of all wisdom, did you figure out what there is to find in the balances of Sprint and T-Online? Or are you still just bubbling party lines without knowing what the problem is?

[D-ECHO]

JWOCKY, let's sort this topic first. To me it really seems you are trying to move around the base now, but there is a serious thing in it. You said (wrote):

Trump wasn't caught blatantly lying about anything yet. That is only an invention of the Hilary campaign

That's a fact. And another fact is that this is obviously wrong. And it's really hard for me to believe you're really thinking Trump's lying was invented by Clinton's campaign (btw, I've always wondered why they mostly call Hilary (not Clinton) but Trump (not Donald), does anyone know that?). If you want to have a read, here are three pages full of Trump lying (or do you want to complaign now that Clinton hacked Trump's twitter account etc?
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://trumplies.com
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/usel ... hings.html

[KL-666]

Well, i may only hope that Trump lied a lot during the campaign, else the world is in dire straits now.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

Isn't lying just what politicians do?

[Lydiot]

Isn't lying just what politicians do?

When a politician says something and reality then turns out to be different it can be for different reasons. With Trump the reason for reality being different is one of the worse kinds of reasons.

[IAHM-COL]

With Trump the reason for reality being different is one of the worse kinds of reasons.

That being that you don't like him?

[Lydiot]

Well, so D-ECHO just repeats his claims without bringing up a real case ... while he elegantly skips Hilary's email affair ... I guess, that proves my point sufficiently.

It actually only proves one thing: You continuously like to make assertions without proving them. Anyone can do that of course, and so the above is pretty typical for your kind of person. You make an assertion, don't back it up with any evidence, then when someone else makes an assertion complain that they didn't prove it.

Because making a claim is so easy the m.o. should always be that the onus is on the person making the claim. Since you made yours first, you should be the one proving your case first.

As for Trump's lies; all you have to do is listen to the debate in which he denied saying that climate change was a hoax created by the Chinese, and then read his tweets where he says climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese. Or, if you prefer, you can listen to him saying on Howard Stern that the US should probably invade Iraq, only to then hear him say that he was against the Iraq invasion at the time.

And Lydiot elegantly skips who was actually in control of Fanny & Freddy, the root of the real estate market crash. He just follows the party line of "it was all Bush's fault".

I'm just using YOUR logic here: If something happens when a president is in office, it is his fault, regardless of who is in control of what.

The better answer is of course:

Then, he talks about a "derivative", but he fails to recognize, that he actually means a "tendency". Different thing. See, a derivative can be actually calculated for every point of a graph, a tendency is over a time line. So, at this point I am not sure, whether ha is just math inept and tries to bluff with words, he heard somewhere or whether he prepares for an intentional number scam.

You're right, I did mean tendency. So now that you've corrected me, what was the tendency at the time? Will you answer that question? Probably not.

[Lydiot]

With Trump the reason for reality being different is one of the worse kinds of reasons.

That being that you don't like him?

No, I really don't like Hillary either. But whereas Hillary uses her intelligence to mislead people by omitting information or misleading people, she's far less prone to straight up lie, meaning she's less likely to knowingly state something she knows is untrue or doesn't know the truth of with the purpose of leading people to some conclusion. Trump simply doesn't care about the truth, and never will. To him any "fact" or "truth" is only relevant if it serves the purpose of furthering his goals, and since that's the case he can ignore truth and facts completely. He'll just say whatever he wants and not care about whether it's true or not. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, he just doesn't care.

Look at the recent Carrier issue where he said he saved 1,100 jobs. Turned out to be about 750-800. When that was pointed out by a union boss, because it really does make a difference to people who thought their jobs were then safe, rather than correct himself he just lashed out at this person and at the union. Why? Because the truth is not important to him. To Trump, Trump is important.

So he's completely unpredictable in that sense, and completely unreliable, and most certainly unsuitable as a leader of the US. Hillary, while I don't like the politics should have chosen would at least have been predictable and her statements understandable for some one with an IQ above room temperature.