Post Election Stress Disorder

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No it is trying to determine exactly what someone means when they say something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, if you don't accept someone's explanation of exactly what he meant, how do you have confidence that he meant anything else . . . or anything at all? Oh . . . that's right . . . Trump is a liar . . . so his explanation must be a lie. But, then, in that case, how can you have confidence that he even meant exactly what he said in the first place when he said what he said?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, if you don't accept someone's explanation of exactly what he meant, how do you have confidence that he meant anything else . . . or anything at all? Oh . . . that's right . . . Trump is a liar . . . so his explanation must be a lie. But, then, in that case, how can you have confidence that he even meant exactly what he said in the first place when he said what he said?

Just out of curiosity, are you defending Trump's statements here or just picking apart Paul's?

Because I'll let you guys duke it out if we can all agree that he is an idiot and shouldn't have lumped in a Fox News story while talking about refugee related violence.

Otherwise, I think we need to stop giving this clown a break for being ambiguous on such serious topics.

On one hand, politicians are famous for being general in their responses and full of crap, but typically they skillfully dodge questions or just give remarks that neither incriminate or say anything (see Devos's confirmation hearings.)

What Trump is doing is combining a lingering distrust of the media with lies and inciting false fear.

Let's be clear: his statement which included the reference to Sweden was covering violence and attacks by immigrants, he wasn't mincing words. To say that he innocently injected an op-ed from a Fox News story mentioning the fact that Sweden has a bunch of refugees is preposterous...

He either:
a) Knew what he was doing and was following the pattern of false references to attacks by his cabinet. (Which by the way is only working because the public has gotten so used to attacks now that when someone say "Sweden, can you believe it) half of us just assume someone attacked Sweden. A point the Trump administration is simultaneously using to their advantage and berating the media for...)

Or b) He didn't know that the Fox News story wasn't about an attack, and was only half paying attention... and as a citizen of this country I hope to effing god it was the former, because if this one is true, it means that not only does he not prepare for anything, but he also draws his own quick assumptions on topics he is ill informed about in a very power hungry way. And that's not a guy I want orchestrating American foreign policy.

He's already the laughing stock of the world... "From this point forward, it will be only America first"

"We stand behind Japan 100%"

"NATO, you have our 100% commitment"

World leaders know he doesn't know what he's doing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

Just out of curiosity, are you defending Trump's statements here or just picking apart Paul's?

Explaining his statement. I don't see that as defending it. Don't think it needs to be defended. If it does, then I'm defending it. (see my post just before yours here).

Because I'll let you guys duke it out if we can all agree that he is an idiot and shouldn't have lumped in a Fox News story while talking about refugee related violence.

I don't think he is an idiot. And I think the Fox news story is relevant to refugee related violence, and pointedly so in Sweden. (see my post just before yours here).

Otherwise, I think we need to stop giving this clown a break for being ambiguous on such serious topics.

I don't think he is a clown. I agree that he could do much better in how he speaks. But, his unpolished, sometimes unclear (not so much ambiguous) speechifying may be part of his charm to his base, most of whom are probably disillusioned with truly evasive politicians and prefer a get it done manager to a mesmerizing smooth talker. (I don't think Trump is that evasive, that's why he gets into so much trouble about what he says.)

On one hand, politicians are famous for being general in their responses and full of crap, but typically they skillfully dodge questions or just give remarks that neither incriminate or say anything (see Devos's confirmation hearings.)

What Trump is doing is combining a lingering distrust of the media with lies and inciting false fear.

I don't think he tries to incite fear, false or real, so much as bluntly pointing out what he sees as dangerous, wrong, or incompetent. And I think there is a lot of incitement of false fear about Trump.

Let's be clear: his statement which included the reference to Sweden was covering violence and attacks by immigrants, he wasn't mincing words. To say that he innocently injected an op-ed from a Fox News story mentioning the fact that Sweden has a bunch of refugees is preposterous...

Actually, it was not preposterous. It was on point. (See my post just before yours here, and the ones before that.)

He either:
a) Knew what he was doing and was following the pattern of false references to attacks by his cabinet. (Which by the way is only working because the public has gotten so used to attacks now that when someone say "Sweden, can you believe it) half of us just assume someone attacked Sweden. A point the Trump administration is simultaneously using to their advantage and berating the media for...)

I don't know that the Fox interview was a false reference. There has been a lot of falseness in trying to deny what has been happening in Sweden and Europe re the immigrants. (See my post just before yours here.)

Or b) He didn't know that the Fox News story wasn't about an attack, and was only half paying attention... and as a citizen of this country I hope to effing god it was the former, because if this one is true, it means that not only does he not prepare for anything, but he also draws his own quick assumptions on topics he is ill informed about in a very power hungry way. And that's not a guy I want orchestrating American foreign policy.

He didn't say it was about an attack. Paul said he meant that it was about an attack. (See my post just before yours here)

He's already the laughing stock of the world...

That was also said about Obama. And about Bush. And about several other Presidents. Seems to be standard fare for opponents to say.

"From this point forward, it will be only America first"

"We stand behind Japan 100%"

"NATO, you have our 100% commitment"

World leaders know he doesn't know what he's doing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What on earth makes you think that "world leaders" know what they're doing? Is the world, politically in that great a shape? Some of us are tired of caring so much about the world that we short shrift ourselves. Heck, most of OUR politicians think more of themselves than us.

And do please see my post just before yours here.