Unofficial Trump joint session speech thread

[Fanatical Meat]

Only if one considers Obama's lying to be OK.

I'm choosing to live in the Present by your response I'll assume you are comfortable with Trump lying because Obama lied and that's fine with me they are your opinions.

 

[chucky2]

So we are going to lower corporate tax rate bigly, lower middle class taxes by really amazing amounts, and increase spending on almost every topic by billions or trillions, and lower the debt? Who is going to pay for all this?

The entire time he was going through all this, that's exactly what I kept thinking...

 

[mect]

He didn't say "out of work"...he said "out of the labor force" and this statement is true, although I agree that it could be considered to be misleading if one assumes he was talking solely about the unemployment rate which he wasn't.

It isn't just about assuming that he is talking about unemployment, its about presenting it as a negative thing. That is why we have an unemployment metric. Unemployment is a bad thing. Being out of the labor force isn't necessarily, unless people really think that retirement and stay at home parents are bad things. I would expect that at a point in time where a lot of the baby boomers are starting to retire that the number of people out of the work force would be increasing.

 

[fskimospy]

Correct, he's just more open about it and not as crafty because he's not a polished politician (professional liar).

Wow, that's an impressive level of self-delusion right there. It's frankly amazing to me that anyone could be so far into the conservative media bubble that they would actually view other politicians as equally dishonest as Trump. I guess that explains a lot about what you post though.

I already explained why it's irrelevant either way. It doesn't matter if you think Trump's a serial liar or not. You have basically nothing for him to lie about other than "sources say". In this particular case even more so, because in the event that there was actual valuable intel that came out of the mission, nobody could disclose it anyway. So "sources say" is completely worthless.

Of course we have something for him to lie about. We either got valuable intelligence out of it or we didn't. Since you can't trust anything that comes out of Trump's mouth, him saying that his defense secretary said something carries no weight. Trump has repeatedly lied about things that anonymous sources have been proven correct on, meaning that these sources have been far more credible than the president. If they are a worthless source, then Trump is somehow less than a worthless source..

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm choosing to live in the Present by your response I'll assume you are comfortable with Trump lying because Obama lied and that's fine with me they are your opinions.

If you're looking for hypocrisy here, you might start with a good look in the mirror.

 

[momeNt]

All the media is saying that he became presidential last night, and that he took a huge step in the right direction, and that if he keeps doing this, we'll have him for 8 more years.

Is this true? Or has all the major media outlets been infiltrated by Breitbart / Bannon? I did not watch so I cannot personally confirm if he really stepped into the role or not.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If you're looking for hypocrisy here, you might start with a good look in the mirror.

No the question was as you posted, Obama lied in your opinion so I asked does that justify Trump lying? You responded with an Obama lying reference.

From last night's speech I'm going to hold Trump to essentially a tax cut for all, more Military spending and a large infrastructure bill, plus no cuts in social security or Medicare. We'll see what his budget & deficits look like.

 

[Vic]

He didn't say "out of work"...he said "out of the labor force" and this statement is true, although I agree that it could be considered to be misleading if one assumes he was talking solely about the unemployment rate which he wasn't.

It's incredibly misleading when you consider that at least half of that number are retired, and most of the rest are disabled, students, or stay-at-home parents.
And that, unless he's going to be forcing people like my 84 year old parents back into the labor force, this number is only going to continue to go up during his Presidency.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It isn't just about assuming that he is talking about unemployment, its about presenting it as a negative thing. That is why we have an unemployment metric. Unemployment is a bad thing. Being out of the labor force isn't necessarily, unless people really think that retirement and stay at home parents are bad things. I would expect that at a point in time where a lot of the baby boomers are starting to retire that the number of people out of the work force would be increasing.

You can't be serious...it's clearly a negative as it relates to our economy. Yes, there are some legitimate reasons for the declining participation rate and employment-to-population ratio...but there are many underlying aspects as well that can be addressed to effectively mitigate this problem

http://equitablegrowth.org/research...pation-rate-causes-consequences-path-forward/

 

[Moonbeam]

Obama was far from a competent POTUS in my opinion. On the contrary, he was a total disaster.
But this is about Trump, which is an entirely different disaster.

EEK, see my next post. I didn't notice this got posted without content.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No the question was as you posted, Obama lied in your opinion so I asked does that justify Trump lying? You responded with an Obama lying reference.

From last night's speech I'm going to hold Trump to essentially a tax cut for all, more Military spending and a large infrastructure bill, plus no cuts in social security or Medicare. We'll see what his budget & deficits look like.

I gave you a clear answer to your question...don't come crying to me if you don't like it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I gave you a clear answer to your question...don't come crying to me if you don't like it.

So that means you're alright with Trump lying because Obama lied, seems like that is your opinion.

Clear answers are usually defined by yes or no responses.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

All the media is saying that he became presidential last night, and that he took a huge step in the right direction, and that if he keeps doing this, we'll have him for 8 more years.

Is this true? Or has all the major media outlets been infiltrated by Breitbart / Bannon? I did not watch so I cannot personally confirm if he really stepped into the role or not.

Seriously Trump did well last night, not perfect and I'll admit the bar was set pretty low but he still did well.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So that means you're alright with Trump lying because Obama lied, seems like that is your opinion.

Clear answers are usually defined by yes or no responses.

I'm sorry that you can't see where I'm coming from here and was hoping that I didn't have to explain the painfully obvious. That being we both don't appreciate lies from either Trump of Obama. But, if you're still hellbent on looking for hypocrisy here, you best take a good look at yourself before pointing fingers. Projection is a harsh mistress.

 

[Sea Ray]

If you think someone calling Hillary Clinton a lesbian is equivalent to what we're talking about here I simply don't know what to tell you as you're too far gone.

It's just as ridiculous as Trump getting golden showers in Russia

 

[Moonbeam]

Obama was far from a competent POTUS in my opinion. On the contrary, he was a total disaster.
But this is about Trump, which is an entirely different disaster.

I have a problem with your post. On the surface, just casually reading it I feel some kind of agreement. Obama was a huge disappointment to me. He ran, in my opinion, as a progressive and turned out to be a centrist lying traitor. That was a disaster, and a big one for me, but a centrist democrat isn't the worst disaster that can happen and that's where I have trouble with what you might mean. It could be that what you mean by a total disaster isn't one according to me and I have a bad habit of preferring to think along the lines of words used according to MY definition.

This raises for me a certain sense of suspicion like what if your sense of disaster is off. That could mean that what I call the best of Obama you call a total disaster and what you call a different kind of disaster might be paradise on earth or at least some hypothetical and as yet unrevealed portion of Trump's thinking that is actually right.

So anyway and furthermore, there is one additional point that is giving me trouble. How could there be a set of | different disaster | that would not be contained in the set of | total disaster | ?

In shout unless you tell me what the Trump disaster is in your opinion, and what you think was wrong with Obama, I can't really use your words as saying anything and that is something most people, I think, would not want to intend.

 

[PokerGuy]

Wow, that's an impressive level of self-delusion right there. It's frankly amazing to me that anyone could be so far into the conservative media bubble that they would actually view other politicians as equally dishonest as Trump. I guess that explains a lot about what you post though.

As I frequently tell you, take a long look in the mirror. If you're honest with yourself you'd see exactly what you're projecting onto me. You inhabit the lefty delusion bubble and yet accuse others of living tin the conservative media bubble. At least I'm aware of where my biases are -- a little self awareness would serve you well.

Of course we have something for him to lie about. We either got valuable intelligence out of it or we didn't. Since you can't trust anything that comes out of Trump's mouth, him saying that his defense secretary said something carries no weight. Trump has repeatedly lied about things that anonymous sources have been proven correct on, meaning that these sources have been far more credible than the president. If they are a worthless source, then Trump is somehow less than a worthless source..

And yet you still have nothing. "Sources said" is not a source. You can't evaluate the trustworthiness of "sources said", it could be some dunce by the water cooler for all we know or someone who just made crap up. If and when something gets verified or corroborated, then you have a source. Until then, you're choosing to put stock in "sources", while simply casting aside anything Trump says as an automatic lie. So basically, there's absolutely nothing that you can't justify accusing him of then, because "sources said so" and anything he says is a lie anyway. Speaking of self delusions.......

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm sorry that you can't see where I'm coming from here and was hoping that I didn't have to explain the painfully obvious. That being we both don't appreciate lies from either Trump of Obama. But, if you're still hellbent on looking for hypocrisy here, you best take a good look at yourself before pointing fingers. Projection is a harsh mistress.

Thank you for a concise answer. No push back from me.

 

[PokerGuy]

It's incredibly misleading when you consider that at least half of that number are retired, and most of the rest are disabled, students, or stay-at-home parents.
And that, unless he's going to be forcing people like my 84 year old parents back into the labor force, this number is only going to continue to up during his Presidency.

There's nothing misleading about it. What he said is factually accurate, and the lower the participation number is a bad thing for the country. We can't do much about the participation number going down because of demographics (aging population), but that doesn't mean a lower participation number is a good thing. It's a bad thing, just one we can't easily change.

 

[agent00f]

It's just as ridiculous as Trump getting golden showers in Russia

Why's that ridiculous? Is it in any way not in keeping with character? Or similarly in keeping with the character of conservatives to pretend they're not degenerates backing one of their own?

 

[fskimospy]

As I frequently tell you, take a long look in the mirror. If you're honest with yourself you'd see exactly what you're projecting onto me. You inhabit the lefty delusion bubble and yet accuse others of living tin the conservative media bubble. At least I'm aware of where my biases are -- a little self awareness would serve you well.

I agree that you're well aware of your bias, the odd thing is that you also very consciously do nothing about it. I mean we both know the reason why you refuse to state what sources you will accept for media bias studies is that you don't want to get cornered and have to admit you were wrong. In order to do that you have to know that you're protecting a biased worldview.

As far as my bias goes, I'm well aware that I'm a liberal guy. I'm also well aware that in objective reality Trump is an exceptionally dishonest person, even by presidential standards. To pretend that he's somehow no more dishonest than anyone else is a preposterous claim and any objective person would admit it. The fact that you're trying to pass that sort of nonsense off and then blame other people for their bias again indicates you know what you're doing.

And yet you still have nothing. "Sources said" is not a source. You can't evaluate the trustworthiness of "sources said", it could be some dunce by the water cooler for all we know or someone who just made crap up. If and when something gets verified or corroborated, then you have a source. Until then, you're choosing to put stock in "sources", while simply casting aside anything Trump says as an automatic lie. So basically, there's absolutely nothing that you can't justify accusing him of then, because "sources said so" and anything he says is a lie anyway. Speaking of self delusions.......

Of course you can evaluate the trustworthiness of the paper providing the anonymously sourced material, and published material from these anonymous sources has outed Trump as a liar numerous times already. This is just common sense.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Yeah that's what concerns me as well. Most of the dishonesty in this speech was of the sort that the CNN fact check piece referred to as "true. but misleading." Like 96 million people out of work. Technically, it's true. In reality, it gives an entirely false impression. Unlike past Trump lies which can easily be sussed out in 10 seconds with the aid of Google, these lies are more sophisticated. He's getting better at it.

Yep...

"True but misleading" is the bread and butter of our elected politicians. Heck, taking something true and spinning it so that you can claim it supports your point is almost an everyday thing in politics and business and even personal relationships.

For instance, yes, the murder rate had its highest relative increase... from 4.5/100,000 to 4.9/100,000 , so it's a 10% increase but NOT an increase of ten percentage points, it puts us at the levels if the late 50s/early 60s and it's still half what it was in 1991 (9.8) and less than half the 1980 peak(10.2). So people on one side will argue it's just a blip and shows overall crime remains low except for some bad hotspots... and those on the other side will say if those hotspots are so bad they're moving the overall average then you gotta crack down.

The problem with him is that he wildly overstates when he does not need to overstate, he seems organically incapable of the subtle misdirection. Which often makes mere spin and baldfaced fabrication indistinguishable, coming from him.

Here is where sticking to the script helps - so there were no "Sweden last night" random blurt-outs for no reason, but he did "massage" the facts or grabbed them by balls when it was useful to push the agenda, as slimy politicans will do. Good to see you fitting right in the swamp, Donnie Boy!.

 

[Sea Ray]

I agree that you're well aware of your bias, the odd thing is that you also very consciously do nothing about it. I mean we both know the reason why you refuse to state what sources you will accept for media bias studies is that you don't want to get cornered and have to admit you were wrong. In order to do that you have to know that you're protecting a biased worldview.

As far as my bias goes, I'm well aware that I'm a liberal guy. I'm also well aware that in objective reality Trump is an exceptionally dishonest person, even by presidential standards. To pretend that he's somehow no more dishonest than anyone else is a preposterous claim and any objective person would admit it. The fact that you're trying to pass that sort of nonsense off and then blame other people for their bias again indicates you know what you're doing.



Of course you can evaluate the trustworthiness of the paper providing the anonymously sourced material, and published material from these anonymous sources has outed Trump as a liar numerous times already. This is just common sense.

Even liberal guys can praise people they disagree with but you seem incapable of doing that. Van Jones is certainly not a fan of Trump but I gotta hand it to him that he managed to praise our President last night:

Donald Trump "became president of the United States" when he recognized the widow of slain Navy SEAL William "Ryan" Owens, CNN commentator Van Jones said Tuesday.

"He became president of the United States in that moment," Jones told Wolf Blitzer on CNN. "Period.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/cnn-van-jones-trump-william-ryan-owens/2017/02/28/id/776185/

I respect him for putting aside his partisan feelings to make that comment. I must say I'm not seeing much of this from the liberals around here

 

[agent00f]

As I frequently tell you, take a long look in the mirror. If you're honest with yourself you'd see exactly what you're projecting onto me. You inhabit the lefty delusion bubble and yet accuse others of living tin the conservative media bubble. At least I'm aware of where my biases are -- a little self awareness would serve you well.



And yet you still have nothing. "Sources said" is not a source. You can't evaluate the trustworthiness of "sources said", it could be some dunce by the water cooler for all we know or someone who just made crap up. If and when something gets verified or corroborated, then you have a source. Until then, you're choosing to put stock in "sources", while simply casting aside anything Trump says as an automatic lie. So basically, there's absolutely nothing that you can't justify accusing him of then, because "sources said so" and anything he says is a lie anyway. Speaking of self delusions.......

How does it feel when the guy who thinks the klan is too soft agrees with you?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Why's that ridiculous? Is it in any way not in keeping with character? Or similarly in keeping with the character of conservatives to pretend they're not degenerates backing one of their own?

Yeah...fuck having credible evidence. That said, I'm thinking that latter...yeah that's it...that's the ticket!