Trump: Californians rioting over sanctuary cities

[Jhhnn]

Truth isn't truth in Trumplandia-

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-sanctuary-cities_us_5bcbf8f9e4b0d38b5878f3a8

 

[IronWing]

What's he or McConnell up to that he doesn't want us to notice? Are we supposed to forget about his providing shade to the Sauds?

 

[shortylickens]

What's he or McConnell up to that he doesn't want us to notice? Are we supposed to forget about his providing shade to the Sauds?

Probably. Every time he says something retarded he's trying to distract America from something much more serious.

He says something retarded 10 times a day.

 

[HomerJS]

Some here think this is a President for whom the country can be proud.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

It's bombastic language, sure, but on the trumpometer it clearly registers as hyperbole meant to illustrate Californians are unhappy with sanctuary cities. Not suggesting there is truth in what he's saying, but it makes the "outrage" over the statement come off as a bit overwrought.

If there are some clarifying quotes that show he is speaking literally about these things, then I'd welcome them.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's bombastic language, sure, but on the trumpometer it clearly registers as hyperbole meant to illustrate Californians are unhappy with sanctuary cities. Not suggesting there is truth in what he's saying, but it makes the "outrage" over the statement come off as a bit overwrought.

If there are some clarifying quotes that show he is speaking literally about these things, then I'd welcome them.

That's the "not intended to be a factual statement" defense, right?

Do you have some kind of decoder ring to figure out when he is speaking literally?

 

[soulcougher73]

It's bombastic language, sure, but on the trumpometer it clearly registers as hyperbole meant to illustrate Californians are unhappy with sanctuary cities. Not suggesting there is truth in what he's saying, but it makes the "outrage" over the statement come off as a bit overwrought.

If there are some clarifying quotes that show he is speaking literally about these things, then I'd welcome them.

So a snake oil salesman who uses the "best words"?

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's the "not intended to be a factual statement" defense, right?

Do you have some kind of decoder ring to figure out when he is speaking literally?

Most objective people would interpret this as a typical exagerrated Trumpian reference to the loose coalition of CA cities that are in opposition to Sacramento on sanctuary city policies.

 

[ecogen]

Most objective people would interpret this as a typical exagerrated Trumpian reference to the loose coalition of CA cities that are in opposition to Sacramento on sanctuary city policies.

Most objective people wouldn't give him a pass for lying. He should just say what he wants to say.

There are enough idiots out there that take his words as the truth and he knows it, that's why he uses this kind of speech. It covers his ass with "moderates" like your dumb ass who just go "oh, you know what he meant" and it riles up his base that's full of fucktards that take his word as gospel.

 

[Engineer]

Most objective people would interpret this as a typical exagerrated Trumpian reference to the loose coalition of CA cities that are in opposition to Sacramento on sanctuary city policies.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....and you think there were objective people at the rally? I've got a couple of bridges to see you if that's the case....really cheap too.

Just another cheeto supporter giving him the 'all clear pass' to lie.

I can bet that my inlaws, if asked, would state that the state of California is utter chaos and riots over the sanctuary cities. They hang on his every word as do most cheeto supporters.

Edit: @ecogen, above, said it better than I did.

 

[fskimospy]

Most objective people would interpret this as a typical exagerrated Trumpian reference to the loose coalition of CA cities that are in opposition to Sacramento on sanctuary city policies.

It is Trump’s responsibility to say true things, it is not our responsibility to attempt to parse which are intended to be lies as opposed to which are merely incidentally false.

For example his claim that he saw thousands of American Muslims celebrating 9/11 could have been easily dismissed by ‘objective’ people as Trumpian exaggeration but later he came out repeatedly and said he intended the statement to be factual.

This is part of a larger war on truth and objective reality and we need to stop making excuses for a degenerate liar based on the fact that it wouldn’t be ‘objective’ to expect him to be truthful.

 

[Pohemi]

Most objective people would interpret this as a typical exagerrated Trumpian reference to the loose coalition of CA cities that are in opposition to Sacramento on sanctuary city policies.

That's a swell rationalization. You and I both know, however, that his followers are not the 'objective thinking' type.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Most objective people wouldn't give him a pass for lying. He should just say what he wants to say.

There are enough idiots out there that take his words as the truth and he knows it, that's why he uses this kind of speech. It covers his ass with "moderates" like your dumb ass who just go "oh, you know what he meant" and it riles up his base that's full of fucktards that take his word as gospel.

His base doesn’t care what you think. He uses these kinds of words because it resonates with his base, all the more so because it so easily triggers people like you.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It is Trump’s responsibility to say true things, it is not our responsibility to attempt to parse which are intended to be lies as opposed to which are merely incidentally false.

For example his claim that he saw thousands of American Muslims celebrating 9/11 could have been easily dismissed by ‘objective’ people as Trumpian exaggeration but later he came out repeatedly and said he intended the statement to be factual.

This is part of a larger war on truth and objective reality and we need to stop making excuses for a degenerate liar based on the fact that it wouldn’t be ‘objective’ to expect him to be truthful.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, we have a reality star running the country. Truth is the least of his considerations. It is all about controlling the narrative and the news cycles. Calling something for what it is does not excuse the behavior.

 

[ecogen]

His base doesn’t care what you think. He uses these kinds of words because it resonates with his base, all the more so because it so easily triggers people like you.

So, what you're saying is that I'm right? Thanks, I guess, but I knew that already.

 

[feralkid]

Calling something for what it is does not excuse the behavior.

Cuales tamales?

 

[fskimospy]

If you haven’t figured it out yet, we have a reality star running the country. Truth is the least of his considerations. It is all about controlling the narrative and the news cycles. Calling something for what it is does not excuse the behavior.

It seems like objective people should call a dishonest statement a dishonest statement on its own merits and not based on who said it, no?

If Obama had said an identical thing people would have said it was dishonest, not that it was 'normal Obama hyperbole'.

 

[Vic]

All this outrage from "States rights conservatives" over policies designed to keep federal law enforcement agencies from commandeering local law enforcement resources in order to enforce federal law.

 

[feralkid]

All this outrage from "States rights conservatives" over policies designed to keep federal law enforcement agencies from commandeering local law enforcement resources in order to enforce federal law.

It's almost as if those principles, which they so fervently tout, only matter when they work in favor of their current agenda.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So, what you're saying is that I'm right? Thanks, I guess, but I knew that already.

I wouldn’t say that at all, but I understand how your confirmation bias and fragile ego might lead you to that conclusion.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Cuales tamales?

Que?

 

[Starbuck1975]

It seems like objective people should call a dishonest statement a dishonest statement on its own merits and not based on who said it, no?

If Obama had said an identical thing people would have said it was dishonest, not that it was 'normal Obama hyperbole'.

Objective people have been saying this about Trump since day one, and yet he seems impervious to things that would otherwise sink other politicians. I don’t even think other Republicans could successfully mimic him.

Trump was a pied piper candidate, and part of his appeal is his complete disregard for norms, traditions and what most would consider acceptable behavior from a head of state. He is the manifestation of our media obsessed culture and short attention spans.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

That's the "not intended to be a factual statement" defense, right?

Do you have some kind of decoder ring to figure out when he is speaking literally?

- I don't, but really only Trump can Trump and its painful watching people that disagree (and I am someone that disagrees with a lot of what Trump says and does) try to mimic his style of faux outrage and over-the-top statements and deliberate obtuseness.

It just makes people unhappy with Trump appear as stupid as Trump himself, and in a manner, that's a win for Trump because at the end of the day it just feeds back into a narrative he can feed the "forever trumper" red cap base.

 

[HomerJS]

I remember when I was naïve enough to start this thread. Had no idea how much of a psychopath he is and I couldn't keep up
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ead-version-31-4-updated-in-memorium.2493251/

 

[Jhhnn]

It seems like objective people should call a dishonest statement a dishonest statement on its own merits and not based on who said it, no?

If Obama had said an identical thing people would have said it was dishonest, not that it was 'normal Obama hyperbole'.

The buy-in is remarkable, huh?