If it's what Trump says, one can be quite sure the exact opposite is what is true

[usmbguest5318]

I don't know why, but for some reason time and time again, when Trump says "such and such" is happening, the opposite is what's really happening (or happened).

Just today, Trump tweeted that the Trump base is "bigger and stronger than ever before." The reality is that there isn't any credible evidence to support his claim. Indeed, the evidence indicates exactly the opposite of "bigger and stronger" is what's happening to the trump base.

Quite simply, along with his character being all about "the race to the bottom," it appears his popularity is primed to plumb ever more unprecedented nadirs. Given Trump's great love of superlatives, one must wonder whether he's willfully trying to obtain, respectively, the lowest and highest possible approval and disapproval ratings.

 

[Dim Bulb]

I don't know why, but for some reason time and time again, when Trump says "such and such" is happening, the opposite is what's really happening (or happened).

Just today, Trump tweeted that the Trump base is "bigger and stronger than ever before." The reality is that there isn't any credible evidence to support his claim. Indeed, the evidence indicates exactly the opposite of "bigger and stronger" is what's happening to the trump base.

Quite simply, along with his character being all about "the race to the bottom," it appears his popularity is primed to plumb ever more unprecedented nadirs. Given Trump's great love of superlatives, one must wonder whether he's willfully trying to obtain, respectively, the lowest and highest possible approval and disapproval ratings.

When he talks about policy, he tends to be more accurate. When it is stuff having to do with his own personal ego issues, I agree with you completely.

 

[007]

"President Trumps support falling"... blah, blah, blah... ho hum... more fake news.

 

[Norman]

Are you sure you aren't projecting?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't know why, but for some reason time and time again, when Trump says "such and such" is happening, the opposite is what's really happening (or happened).

Just today, Trump tweeted that the Trump base is "bigger and stronger than ever before." The reality is that there isn't any credible evidence to support his claim. Indeed, the evidence indicates exactly the opposite of "bigger and stronger" is what's happening to the trump base.

Quite simply, along with his character being all about "the race to the bottom," it appears his popularity is primed to plumb ever more unprecedented nadirs. Given Trump's great love of superlatives, one must wonder whether he's willfully trying to obtain, respectively, the lowest and highest possible approval and disapproval ratings.

When he talks about policy, he tends to be more accurate. When it is stuff having to do with his own personal ego issues, I agree with you completely.

he talks about policy, he tends to be more accurate.

He is "more accurate," but that's still a far cry from "accurate," and the only reasons he's "more accurate" on policy are:

• because very few policy matters have objectively incontrovertible "answers," thereby making one's, most especially Trump's, "proclamations" about policy more a matter of his expressing an opinion than his making a case for the preponderant plausibility of a conclusion.
• because most of the claims he makes about himself and the state of things pertaining to himself land his presidency often can be evaluated objectively and binarily.

 

[cnelsen]

I don't know why, but for some reason time and time again, when Trump says "such and such" is happening, the opposite is what's really happening (or happened).

Just today, Trump tweeted that the Trump base is "bigger and stronger than ever before." The reality is that there isn't any credible evidence to support his claim. Indeed, the evidence indicates exactly the opposite of "bigger and stronger" is what's happening to the trump base.

Quite simply, along with his character being all about "the race to the bottom," it appears his popularity is primed to plumb ever more unprecedented nadirs. Given Trump's great love of superlatives, one must wonder whether he's willfully trying to obtain, respectively, the lowest and highest possible approval and disapproval ratings.

That the Trump presidency is bedeviled is undeniable.

As President Donald Trump flew off for August at his Jersey club, there came word that Special Counsel Robert Mueller III had impaneled a grand jury and subpoenas were going out to Trump family and campaign associates.

The jurors will be drawn from a pool of citizens in a city Hillary Clinton swept with 91 percent of the vote. Trump got 4 percent.

Whatever indictments Mueller wants, Mueller gets.

Thanks to a media that savages him ceaselessly, Trump is down to 33 percent approval in a Quinnipiac University poll and below 40 percent in most of the rest.

Before Trump departed D.C., The Washington Post ran transcripts of his phone conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Australia.

Even Obama administration veterans were stunned.

So, it is time to ask: If this city brings Trump down, will the rest of America rejoice?

What will be the reaction out there in fly-over country, that land where the “deplorables” dwell who produce the soldiers to fight our wars? Will they toast the “free press” that brought down the president they elected, and in whom they had placed so much hope?

My guess: The reaction will be one of bitterness, cynicism, despair, a sense that the fix is in, that no matter what we do, they will not let us win. If Trump is brought down, American democracy will take a pasting. It will be seen as a fraud. And the backlash will poison our politics to where only an attack from abroad, like 9/11, will reunite us.

Our media preen and posture as the defenders of democracy, devoted to truth, who provide us round-the-clock protection from tyranny. But half the nation already sees the media as a propaganda arm of a liberal establishment that the people have rejected time and again.

Consider the Post‘s publication of the transcripts of Trump’s calls with Mexico’s president and Australia’s prime minister.

When reporter Greg Miller got these transcripts, his editors, knowing they would damage Trump, plastered them on Page 1.

The Post was letting itself be used by a leaker engaged in disloyal and possibly criminal misconduct. Yet the Post agreed to provide confidentiality and to hide the Trump-hater’s identity.

This is what we do, says the Post. People have a right to know if President Trump says one thing at rallies about Mexico paying for the wall and another to the president of Mexico. This is a story.

But there is a far larger story here, of which this Post piece is but an exhibit. It is the story of a concerted campaign, in which the anti-Trump media publish leaks, even criminal leaks, out of the FBI, CIA, NSA and NSC, to bring down a president whom the Beltway media and their deep-state collaborators both despise and wish to destroy.

Did Trump collude with Putin to defeat Clinton, the Beltway media demand to know, even as they daily collude with deep-state criminals to bring down the president of the United States.

And if there is an unfolding silent coup by the regime Americans repudiated in 2016–to use security leaks and the lethal weapon of a special counsel to overturn the election results–is that not a story worth covering as much as what Trump said to Pena Nieto?

Do the people not have a right know who are the snakes collaborating with the Never-Trump press to bring down their head of state? Is not discovering the identities of deep-state felons a story that investigative reporters should be all over?

If Greg Miller is obligated to protect his source, fine. But why are other journalists not exposing his identity?

The answer suggests itself. This is a collaborative enterprise, where everyone protects everyone else’s sources, because all have the same goal: the dumping of Trump. If that requires collusion with criminals, so be it.

The Justice Department is now running down the leaks, and the ACLU‘s Ben Wizner is apoplectic: “Every American should be concerned about the Trump administration’s threat to step up its efforts against whistleblowers and journalists. A crackdown on leaks is a crackdown on the free press and on democracy.”

That’s one way to put it. Another is that some of these “whistleblowers” are political criminals who reject the verdict of the American electorate in 2016 and are out to overturn it. And the aforementioned “journalists” are their enablers and collaborators.

And if, as Wizner’s asserts, protecting secrets is tantamount to a “crackdown on the free press and democracy,” no wonder the free press and democracy are falling into disrepute all over the world.

By colluding, the mainstream media, deep state, and the special prosecutor’s button men, with a license to roam, may bring down yet another president. So doing, they will validate John Adams’s insight:

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

 

[cnelsen]

I don't know why, but for some reason time and time again, when Trump says "such and such" is happening, the opposite is what's really happening (or happened).

Just today, Trump tweeted that the Trump base is "bigger and stronger than ever before." The reality is that there isn't any credible evidence to support his claim. Indeed, the evidence indicates exactly the opposite of "bigger and stronger" is what's happening to the trump base.

Quite simply, along with his character being all about "the race to the bottom," it appears his popularity is primed to plumb ever more unprecedented nadirs. Given Trump's great love of superlatives, one must wonder whether he's willfully trying to obtain, respectively, the lowest and highest possible approval and disapproval ratings.

One doesn't "plumb" a "nadir".

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't know why, but for some reason time and time again, when Trump says "such and such" is happening, the opposite is what's really happening (or happened).

Just today, Trump tweeted that the Trump base is "bigger and stronger than ever before." The reality is that there isn't any credible evidence to support his claim. Indeed, the evidence indicates exactly the opposite of "bigger and stronger" is what's happening to the trump base.

Quite simply, along with his character being all about "the race to the bottom," it appears his popularity is primed to plumb ever more unprecedented nadirs. Given Trump's great love of superlatives, one must wonder whether he's willfully trying to obtain, respectively, the lowest and highest possible approval and disapproval ratings.

That the Trump presidency is bedeviled is undeniable.

As President Donald Trump flew off for August at his Jersey club, there came word that Special Counsel Robert Mueller III had impaneled a grand jury and subpoenas were going out to Trump family and campaign associates.

The jurors will be drawn from a pool of citizens in a city Hillary Clinton swept with 91 percent of the vote. Trump got 4 percent.

Whatever indictments Mueller wants, Mueller gets.

Thanks to a media that savages him ceaselessly, Trump is down to 33 percent approval in a Quinnipiac University poll and below 40 percent in most of the rest.

Before Trump departed D.C., The Washington Post ran transcripts of his phone conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Australia.

Even Obama administration veterans were stunned.

So, it is time to ask: If this city brings Trump down, will the rest of America rejoice?

What will be the reaction out there in fly-over country, that land where the “deplorables” dwell who produce the soldiers to fight our wars? Will they toast the “free press” that brought down the president they elected, and in whom they had placed so much hope?

My guess: The reaction will be one of bitterness, cynicism, despair, a sense that the fix is in, that no matter what we do, they will not let us win. If Trump is brought down, American democracy will take a pasting. It will be seen as a fraud. And the backlash will poison our politics to where only an attack from abroad, like 9/11, will reunite us.

Our media preen and posture as the defenders of democracy, devoted to truth, who provide us round-the-clock protection from tyranny. But half the nation already sees the media as a propaganda arm of a liberal establishment that the people have rejected time and again.

Consider the Post‘s publication of the transcripts of Trump’s calls with Mexico’s president and Australia’s prime minister.

When reporter Greg Miller got these transcripts, his editors, knowing they would damage Trump, plastered them on Page 1.

The Post was letting itself be used by a leaker engaged in disloyal and possibly criminal misconduct. Yet the Post agreed to provide confidentiality and to hide the Trump-hater’s identity.

This is what we do, says the Post. People have a right to know if President Trump says one thing at rallies about Mexico paying for the wall and another to the president of Mexico. This is a story.

But there is a far larger story here, of which this Post piece is but an exhibit. It is the story of a concerted campaign, in which the anti-Trump media publish leaks, even criminal leaks, out of the FBI, CIA, NSA and NSC, to bring down a president whom the Beltway media and their deep-state collaborators both despise and wish to destroy.

Did Trump collude with Putin to defeat Clinton, the Beltway media demand to know, even as they daily collude with deep-state criminals to bring down the president of the United States.

And if there is an unfolding silent coup by the regime Americans repudiated in 2016–to use security leaks and the lethal weapon of a special counsel to overturn the election results–is that not a story worth covering as much as what Trump said to Pena Nieto?

Do the people not have a right know who are the snakes collaborating with the Never-Trump press to bring down their head of state? Is not discovering the identities of deep-state felons a story that investigative reporters should be all over?

If Greg Miller is obligated to protect his source, fine. But why are other journalists not exposing his identity?

The answer suggests itself. This is a collaborative enterprise, where everyone protects everyone else’s sources, because all have the same goal: the dumping of Trump. If that requires collusion with criminals, so be it.

The Justice Department is now running down the leaks, and the ACLU‘s Ben Wizner is apoplectic: “Every American should be concerned about the Trump administration’s threat to step up its efforts against whistleblowers and journalists. A crackdown on leaks is a crackdown on the free press and on democracy.”

That’s one way to put it. Another is that some of these “whistleblowers” are political criminals who reject the verdict of the American electorate in 2016 and are out to overturn it. And the aforementioned “journalists” are their enablers and collaborators.

And if, as Wizner’s asserts, protecting secrets is tantamount to a “crackdown on the free press and democracy,” no wonder the free press and democracy are falling into disrepute all over the world.

By colluding, the mainstream media, deep state, and the special prosecutor’s button men, with a license to roam, may bring down yet another president. So doing, they will validate John Adams’s insight:

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

I appreciate that you made the effort to post something more thoughtful than most members do. For all the pathos dripping from your remarks, however, none of them address the central theme of the OP or Trump's most recent instance of prevarication cited in the OP. As goes the thread theme, the fact is that nobody holds Trump "at gunpoint" and forces him to say things that aren't true or that he hasn't confirmed are true. Thus, Trump is the cause of at least the credibility aspect of multiplicity of things which bedevil his presidency.

The jurors will be drawn from a pool of citizens in a city Hillary Clinton swept with 91 percent of the vote. Trump got 4 percent.

Whatever indictments Mueller wants, Mueller gets.

If a prosecutor cannot get an indictment from whatever grand jury to which s/he presents a case, s/he should probably seek a different line of work. That is so regardless of the political composition of the area from which jurors are drawn. As Sol Wachtler intimated, a prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich."

People have a right to know if President Trump says one thing at rallies about Mexico paying for the wall and another to the president of Mexico.

Indeed they do, but what they deserve even more is a President who doesn't say "one thing at rallies about Mexico paying for the wall and another to the president of Mexico." The surest and simplest way for Trump to notably reduce the incidence of news stories about his talking out of two sides of his mouth is to stop talking out of two sides of his mouth. Insofar as Trump is 70+, one would think he'd have figured that out by now, but clearly he has not, or if he has, he hasn't figured out how to "be Nike about it."

media publish leaks, even criminal leaks, out of the FBI, CIA, NSA and NSC, to bring down a president

Did Trump collude with Putin to defeat Clinton, the Beltway media demand to know

Whether he did remains to be seen. That is why Mueller and others are conducting investigations. Were Trump not a pathological/inveterate liar, one might hazard believing his attestation that he did not. But he is a pathological/inveterate liar about matters great and small.

Do the people not have a right know who are the snakes collaborating with the Never-Trump press to bring down their head of state?

Launch a criminal, Congressional, or other governmental investigation....let's find out if there is any "there" there.

Is not discovering the identities of [...] felons a story that investigative reporters should be all over?

I cannot credibly answer normative questions about investigative reporters cover or don't. I can say that as long as investigative reporters follow a highly rational methodology in uncovering whatever they do, they're doing what they do as they should do it.

If Greg Miller is obligated to protect his source, fine. But why are other journalists not exposing his identity?

Because it's Greg's source and not those other reporters' source, most likely because they don't know who is Greg's source. That's easily the most straightforward reason and it is a reason that's wholly consistent with the notion and deeds involved in Greg protecting his source.

“Every American should be concerned about the Trump administration’s threat to step up its efforts against whistleblowers and journalists. A crackdown on leaks is a crackdown on the free press and on democracy.”

I agree...

some of these “whistleblowers” are political criminals who reject the verdict of the American electorate in 2016 and are out to overturn it.

The two traits -- being a whistleblower and "[rejecting] the verdict of the American electorate in 2016 and [being] out to overturn it" -- are neither mutually exclusive nor immutably and causally associated. Accordingly, one must in either a deductively or inductively sound way establish that the causal relationship you've posited is extant for each individual whistleblower about whom one cares to make the assertion you have.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]