why it does not bother trump to lie like a rug

[JimBowie1958]

Trump is not held accountable for his frequent fibs

CNN and NYTimes point them out. Then Trumpsters call it fake news and Trump throws tantrums over them. There's not much else to be done, though, is there? We have to wait for 2020.

The New York Times and CNN are not objective when it comes to Trump, so I do not take them seriously when they claim Trump lies. They have an incentive to spin what he says as lies, as do members of the Democratic Party who prefer to refer to Trumps lies in the aggregate rather than specific statements for a reason, all as part of their political spin for 2020, which makes them all liars too.

 

[jknowgood]

will trump go down and the most notorious liar in us history?

I did not have sex with that woman, miss lewinski.
.NOBODY cares about your new found "morals."

The agenda is, roll back Obama's "fundamental transformation of America."

And he was called on that, wasn't he? He was held responsible for that, wasn't he?

Now the GOP accepts and embraces lies......lots more lies...obviously proven lies.....instead of holding someone responsible, you celebrate them.

He was held responsible for lying under oath. The blow job part, you liberals celebrated that part. Even though he used a young woman as a cum catcher.

Again....accountability

Trump is not held accountable for his frequent fibs

CNN and NYTimes point them out. Then Trumpsters call it fake news and Trump throws tantrums over them. There's not much else to be done, though, is there? We have to wait for 2020.

You mean 2024? The way liberals are acting now. There is no way a liberal will become president.

 

[OldLady]

Trump said his inaugural audience was the largest in history.
Yes, indeed he did. He also said that just from looking out at the crowd, it looked like about a million people.

Yeah, kind of like when I climbed a ladder on a parking lot light at a baseball stadium, I was only half way up but looking down, it looked like about a mile to the ground.

Was I lying to say that? Seriously?

You put your finger on part of the problem though. If Trump meant to say that his inaugural audience, including television and live streaming viewers, was the largest in history, that is what he should have said. He does this all the time, talking sloppy, making someone else "interpret" for him.

Yeah, I think he would rather have his opponents griping about things that they can easily answer for themselves if they were honest for a moment rather than having them talking about his policies and proposals, things actually important.

The leader of the free world ought to have better communication skills than that. Why should the American people need an interpreter to know what in hell he meant?

But he is not a professional politician, he is a realtor. The shortfall of that is that he is not coached/trained on the use of nuance, the advantage is that he actually has kept more of his promises once in office than either Bush or Ford.

That goes for his crafty dog whistle statements, too.

For example?

Sometimes I swear his tricky little twisted "facts" that can be explained away in further analysis are completely thought out and intentional.

I agree for the reason cited above. It is also free air time.

↑
That goes for his crafty dog whistle statements, too.
For example?
"Asked if he would publicly reject the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said, 'I just don’t know anything about him.' "

• Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”
• In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”

Trump's David Duke Amnesia - FactCheck.org

I think in this case, Jim, it is clear that Trump was sidestepping the issue, knowing that a good number of his supporters were racists.

 

[JimBowie1958]

↑
That goes for his crafty dog whistle statements, too.
For example?
"Asked if he would publicly reject the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said, 'I just don’t know anything about him.' "

• Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”
• In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”

Trump's David Duke Amnesia - FactCheck.org

I think in this case, Jim, it is clear that Trump was sidestepping the issue, knowing that a good number of his supporters were racists.

Yeah, I agree that Trump sidestepped it, but I disagree that he intended that as a 'dog whistle', but simply wanted to keep the narrative moving along in a direction he prefered; building his base and making liberals go ape-shit.

This whole notion of a dog whistle statement is completely indefensible. As one cannot hear a dog whistle, were a person accusing someone of making a dog whistle without a device, the accused person cannot defend themselves from such an accusation. "You dont know how to do that?" "Suuurrreeee you dont, but the dogs are cominig, you fascist!"

Did it ever dance across anyone's mind that for David Duke to claim he supports Trump and Trump to then deny it is to give David Duke more air time? And if Trump doesnt want to do that because he does not want to help David Duke, he tries to avoid the topic instead, but that is a dog whistle to Duke supporters?.

That is not a dog whistle, that is intelligently media manipulation.

 

[jknowgood]

Trump said his inaugural audience was the largest in history.
Yes, indeed he did. He also said that just from looking out at the crowd, it looked like about a million people.

Yeah, kind of like when I climbed a ladder on a parking lot light at a baseball stadium, I was only half way up but looking down, it looked like about a mile to the ground.

Was I lying to say that? Seriously?

You put your finger on part of the problem though. If Trump meant to say that his inaugural audience, including television and live streaming viewers, was the largest in history, that is what he should have said. He does this all the time, talking sloppy, making someone else "interpret" for him.

Yeah, I think he would rather have his opponents griping about things that they can easily answer for themselves if they were honest for a moment rather than having them talking about his policies and proposals, things actually important.

The leader of the free world ought to have better communication skills than that. Why should the American people need an interpreter to know what in hell he meant?

But he is not a professional politician, he is a realtor. The shortfall of that is that he is not coached/trained on the use of nuance, the advantage is that he actually has kept more of his promises once in office than either Bush or Ford.

That goes for his crafty dog whistle statements, too.

For example?

Sometimes I swear his tricky little twisted "facts" that can be explained away in further analysis are completely thought out and intentional.

I agree for the reason cited above. It is also free air time.

↑
That goes for his crafty dog whistle statements, too.
For example?
"Asked if he would publicly reject the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said, 'I just don’t know anything about him.' "

• Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”
• In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”

Trump's David Duke Amnesia - FactCheck.org

I think in this case, Jim, it is clear that Trump was sidestepping the issue, knowing that a good number of his supporters were racists.

Obama went to Wright's church for twenty plus years. During which he gave some controversy sermons. When Obama was asked about it, he claims he wasn't a church during those sermons.

 

[BS Filter]

will trump go down and the most notorious liar in us history?

Trump said his inaugural audience was the largest in history.
Yes, indeed he did. He also said that just from looking out at the crowd, it looked like about a million people.

Yeah, kind of like when I climbed a ladder on a parking lot light at a baseball stadium, I was only half way up but looking down, it looked like about a mile to the ground.

Was I lying to say that? Seriously?

You put your finger on part of the problem though. If Trump meant to say that his inaugural audience, including television and live streaming viewers, was the largest in history, that is what he should have said. He does this all the time, talking sloppy, making someone else "interpret" for him.

Yeah, I think he would rather have his opponents griping about things that they can easily answer for themselves if they were honest for a moment rather than having them talking about his policies and proposals, things actually important.

The leader of the free world ought to have better communication skills than that. Why should the American people need an interpreter to know what in hell he meant?

But he is not a professional politician, he is a realtor. The shortfall of that is that he is not coached/trained on the use of nuance, the advantage is that he actually has kept more of his promises once in office than either Bush or Ford.

That goes for his crafty dog whistle statements, too.

For example?

Sometimes I swear his tricky little twisted "facts" that can be explained away in further analysis are completely thought out and intentional.

I agree for the reason cited above. It is also free air time.

↑
That goes for his crafty dog whistle statements, too.
For example?
"Asked if he would publicly reject the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said, 'I just don’t know anything about him.' "

• Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”
• In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”

Trump's David Duke Amnesia - FactCheck.org

I think in this case, Jim, it is clear that Trump was sidestepping the issue, knowing that a good number of his supporters were racists.

Obama went to Wright's church for twenty plus years. During which he gave some controversy sermons. When Obama was asked about it, he claims he wasn't a church during those sermons.

Yep, and when Wright was brought up during the campaign Obama defended him as "family". Then when Wright became a political liability, Obama disowned him.

 

[OldLady]

↑
That goes for his crafty dog whistle statements, too.
For example?
"Asked if he would publicly reject the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said, 'I just don’t know anything about him.' "

• Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”
• In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”

Trump's David Duke Amnesia - FactCheck.org

I think in this case, Jim, it is clear that Trump was sidestepping the issue, knowing that a good number of his supporters were racists.

Yeah, I agree that Trump sidestepped it, but I disagree that he intended that as a 'dog whistle', but simply wanted to keep the narrative moving along in a direction he prefered; building his base and making liberals go ape-shit.

This whole notion of a dog whistle statement is completely indefensible. As one cannot hear a dog whistle, were a person accusing someone of making a dog whistle without a device, the accused person cannot defend themselves from such an accusation. "You dont know how to do that?" "Suuurrreeee you dont, but the dogs are cominig, you fascist!"

Did it ever dance across anyone's mind that for David Duke to claim he supports Trump and Trump to then deny it is to give David Duke more air time? And if Trump doesnt want to do that because he does not want to help David Duke, he tries to avoid the topic instead, but that is a dog whistle to Duke supporters?.

That is not a dog whistle, that is intelligently media manipulation.

You win my prize for Biggest Stretch to Defend Trump. Unbelievable.
It was a quiet nod to his racist constituents that he would not let them down. As he did not let them down when he talked about the many fine people on BOTH sides of the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville.

 

[BS Filter]

↑
That goes for his crafty dog whistle statements, too.
For example?
"Asked if he would publicly reject the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said, 'I just don’t know anything about him.' "

• Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”
• In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”

Trump's David Duke Amnesia - FactCheck.org

I think in this case, Jim, it is clear that Trump was sidestepping the issue, knowing that a good number of his supporters were racists.

Yeah, I agree that Trump sidestepped it, but I disagree that he intended that as a 'dog whistle', but simply wanted to keep the narrative moving along in a direction he prefered; building his base and making liberals go ape-shit.

This whole notion of a dog whistle statement is completely indefensible. As one cannot hear a dog whistle, were a person accusing someone of making a dog whistle without a device, the accused person cannot defend themselves from such an accusation. "You dont know how to do that?" "Suuurrreeee you dont, but the dogs are cominig, you fascist!"

Did it ever dance across anyone's mind that for David Duke to claim he supports Trump and Trump to then deny it is to give David Duke more air time? And if Trump doesnt want to do that because he does not want to help David Duke, he tries to avoid the topic instead, but that is a dog whistle to Duke supporters?.

That is not a dog whistle, that is intelligently media manipulation.

You win my prize for Biggest Stretch to Defend Trump. Unbelievable.
It was a quiet nod to his racist constituents that he would not let them down. As he did not let them down when he talked about the many fine people on BOTH sides of the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville.

Yeah, everyone that supports Trump is a racist. You keep going with that and democrats will keep losing ground every election.

 

[OldLady]

↑
That goes for his crafty dog whistle statements, too.
For example?
"Asked if he would publicly reject the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said, 'I just don’t know anything about him.' "

• Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”
• In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”

Trump's David Duke Amnesia - FactCheck.org

I think in this case, Jim, it is clear that Trump was sidestepping the issue, knowing that a good number of his supporters were racists.

Yeah, I agree that Trump sidestepped it, but I disagree that he intended that as a 'dog whistle', but simply wanted to keep the narrative moving along in a direction he prefered; building his base and making liberals go ape-shit.

This whole notion of a dog whistle statement is completely indefensible. As one cannot hear a dog whistle, were a person accusing someone of making a dog whistle without a device, the accused person cannot defend themselves from such an accusation. "You dont know how to do that?" "Suuurrreeee you dont, but the dogs are cominig, you fascist!"

Did it ever dance across anyone's mind that for David Duke to claim he supports Trump and Trump to then deny it is to give David Duke more air time? And if Trump doesnt want to do that because he does not want to help David Duke, he tries to avoid the topic instead, but that is a dog whistle to Duke supporters?.

That is not a dog whistle, that is intelligently media manipulation.

You win my prize for Biggest Stretch to Defend Trump. Unbelievable.
It was a quiet nod to his racist constituents that he would not let them down. As he did not let them down when he talked about the many fine people on BOTH sides of the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville.

Yeah, everyone that supports Trump is a racist. You keep going with that and democrats will keep losing ground every election.

Here we go. Quote where I ever said that ALL of his supporters are racist. You're not getting away with that shit today. I've had it with that crap.

 

[Crepitus]

Trump is the "never told a lie" George Washington of modern America. ...

How much does Putin pay for your unwavering support?

 

[Crepitus]

The picture becomes more alarming when we consider that individuals adapt not only to their own dishonesty but also to that of others. Research Harvard professors Francesca Gino and Max Bazerman shows that people are less likely to criticize the unethical actions of others when such behavior increases gradually over time. Politically speaking, this suggests that voters (and perhaps even the president’s own advisors) may desensitize to the president’s falsehoods in the same way that they do to overused perfume, making them less likely to act to correct this pattern of behavior. The absence of sanctions could in turn be interpreted as a “green light” by the president.


so its basically trump is so unethical that lies dont bother him...it should bother the voters
and dont start with obama lied .....deal with the current president the liar in chief

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-lying-seems-be-getting-worse-psychology-suggests-there

Just because someone says things you don't like to hear or agree with, doesn't mean they are lying.

That may be the dumbest thing I have read this morning.

What makes the things he says lies is that they aren't true, not that we disagree with them.

 

[Crepitus]

Remember this one? Even the Swedish Embassy called to find out what happened to them last night

That wasn't a lie, senile old lady. Another example of twisting FACTS to validate a leftists point.

Okay. It wasn't a lie. It was an ignorant statement of something that did not happen. Does that sound better?

In other words, a lie.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You win my prize for Biggest Stretch to Defend Trump. Unbelievable.

Was that a dog whistle to commies like Antifa? roflmao

It was a quiet nod to his racist constituents that he would not let them down.

In your opinion which is not based on any apparent fact.

As he did not let them down when he talked about the many fine people on BOTH sides of the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville.

So the Oath Keepers are racist nazis? Lol, they have minority members and do not allow people with even a history of association in racist groups to join. David Duke could not join.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans? They are against the removal of the Lee statue for obvious reasons and were the largest single group there, but all you libs can see are pics of the same guy with a Nazi flag and he was probably a Strzok clone infiltrator/informant.

Trump was EXACTLY right and the communist Antifa that started all the violence as they do EVERY TIME, for libtards and the libtard media, you all give them a complete pass.

Dog whistle anyone?

What Trump Got Right About Charlottesville

The allegation that the mainstream media disseminates “fake news” about the Trump administration often can seem overwrought, even a kind of caricature. Yet the nearly universal media response to President Trump’s news conference at which he addressed the Charlottesville violence can only reinforce it. One day this response may make a rich subject for future historians analyzing it as earlier historians probed witch-burnings, pogroms, and other outbreaks of mass hysteria. They likely will focus on the spectacle of sophisticated, experienced, well credentialed people—Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper, Joe Scarborough, to name three of dozens—responding to Trump’s comments on the tragic weekend as if they were, say, undergraduate social justice warriors at Middlebury College.

First, the transmission of facts, which might be the essential point of journalism. Trump approached the Trump Tower podium Tuesday afternoon hoping to talk about infrastructure. The media wanted to talk about Charlottesville (ignoring, not surprisingly, Chicago, where nine people were murdered over the weekend).

The meat of Trump’s answer can be broken down into parts. First, he praised the young woman who was murdered, called the driver who ran her over a disgrace to his country, wasn’t certain of the semantics whether he should be accused of terrorism or murder.

Second, he asked a reporter for a definition of the alt-right, a term probably as imprecise as “socialist”—and perhaps a reasonable way of expressing uncertainty about the actual center of gravity of a seemingly elastic group that includes such disparate ideological figures as Trump’s own American nationalist aide Steve Bannon, the white nationalist Richard Spencer, and the neo-Nazis Spencer has invited into his tent. Third, he reaffirmed the statement he made on Saturday, condemning in the strongest possible terms bigotry and violence.

Then he fatefully threw out the red meat, denouncing what he called the “alt left,” or “Antifa,” which showed up in Charlottesville, without a permit, intending, as was evident to anyone paying attention to the group’s past actions, on physically attacking those attending the alt-right demonstration. He reiterated his previous statement that there was “blame on both sides.” He repeated his disdain for “neo-Nazis and white nationalists,” saying they should be “condemned totally.” Then he noted that some people had come simply to protest the taking down of the Robert E. Lee statue, erected over a hundred years ago.

So how did the media report this message, in which he singled out for condemnation white nationalists and neo-Nazis, lamented the violence on both sides, and posited that many people involved were “fine people” demonstrating for relatively normal things—that is, for the maintenance of a statue, or protesting against the alt-right’s bigotry?

It was hard to miss. Headline after headline streaming on the news chyrons on CNN and MSNBC asserted that Trump had defended Nazis, while the transcript (and a video) shows plainly and unambiguously he had done nothing of the sort. Commentators on the two major cable channels were hysterical, some guests labeling Trump a white supremacist, wondering why Jared and Ivanka or the minority members of his administration had not abandoned him. A New York Times story records the “chills” experienced by Chuck Todd upon hearing Trump, the shock of Jake Tapper.​

 

[Crepitus]

I already said I wonder if many of Trump's lies are actually stupid comments made by someone ill informed. What more do you want from me? The shit that comes out of his mouth is not true a lot of times. Call it what you want, including "Alternate Facts," if that's what floats your boat. As you can see from the book, some people would call it ..... lies.

Well lets take an example.

Trump said his inaugural audience was the largest in history.

Libtards jumped on it as meaning people actually at the inaugural, which Trump never said.

The fact is that if you include the estimated online viewers and include the stream counts there is no contest.

Was it due to Trumps popularity?

I dont know, I think it was due more to the continued growth in access to online streaming services, but still there was an element of Truth to what Trump said and I think it is only fair to take it in that light.

But the constant refrain of libtard Talking Heads that Trump lied about how many saw his inaugural was just asinine.

And the pattern continues to this day, and most liberals do not even question the accuracy of these ludicrous claims.

Lol, dude! You just came up with a brand new spin on the first lie tRump told as *president*!

You kids just never quit coving for him.

 

[BS Filter]

↑
That goes for his crafty dog whistle statements, too.
For example?
"Asked if he would publicly reject the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said, 'I just don’t know anything about him.' "

• Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”
• In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”

Trump's David Duke Amnesia - FactCheck.org

I think in this case, Jim, it is clear that Trump was sidestepping the issue, knowing that a good number of his supporters were racists.

Yeah, I agree that Trump sidestepped it, but I disagree that he intended that as a 'dog whistle', but simply wanted to keep the narrative moving along in a direction he prefered; building his base and making liberals go ape-shit.

This whole notion of a dog whistle statement is completely indefensible. As one cannot hear a dog whistle, were a person accusing someone of making a dog whistle without a device, the accused person cannot defend themselves from such an accusation. "You dont know how to do that?" "Suuurrreeee you dont, but the dogs are cominig, you fascist!"

Did it ever dance across anyone's mind that for David Duke to claim he supports Trump and Trump to then deny it is to give David Duke more air time? And if Trump doesnt want to do that because he does not want to help David Duke, he tries to avoid the topic instead, but that is a dog whistle to Duke supporters?.

That is not a dog whistle, that is intelligently media manipulation.

You win my prize for Biggest Stretch to Defend Trump. Unbelievable.
It was a quiet nod to his racist constituents that he would not let them down. As he did not let them down when he talked about the many fine people on BOTH sides of the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville.

Yeah, everyone that supports Trump is a racist. You keep going with that and democrats will keep losing ground every election.

Here we go. Quote where I ever said that ALL of his supporters are racist. You're not getting away with that shit today. I've had it with that crap.

You really think Trump speaks to his "racist constituents"? Now you want to insult the American people, while denying you are insulting the American people. Hillary did that and it cost her the Presidency.

 

[danielpalos]

The picture becomes more alarming when we consider that individuals adapt not only to their own dishonesty but also to that of others. Research Harvard professors Francesca Gino and Max Bazerman shows that people are less likely to criticize the unethical actions of others when such behavior increases gradually over time. Politically speaking, this suggests that voters (and perhaps even the president’s own advisors) may desensitize to the president’s falsehoods in the same way that they do to overused perfume, making them less likely to act to correct this pattern of behavior. The absence of sanctions could in turn be interpreted as a “green light” by the president.


so its basically trump is so unethical that lies dont bother him...it should bother the voters
and dont start with obama lied .....deal with the current president the liar in chief

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-lying-seems-be-getting-worse-psychology-suggests-there

Good thing he is not a right wing Baker claiming morals.

 

[BS Filter]

The picture becomes more alarming when we consider that individuals adapt not only to their own dishonesty but also to that of others. Research Harvard professors Francesca Gino and Max Bazerman shows that people are less likely to criticize the unethical actions of others when such behavior increases gradually over time. Politically speaking, this suggests that voters (and perhaps even the president’s own advisors) may desensitize to the president’s falsehoods in the same way that they do to overused perfume, making them less likely to act to correct this pattern of behavior. The absence of sanctions could in turn be interpreted as a “green light” by the president.


so its basically trump is so unethical that lies dont bother him...it should bother the voters
and dont start with obama lied .....deal with the current president the liar in chief

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-lying-seems-be-getting-worse-psychology-suggests-there

Good thing he is not a right wing Baker claiming morals.

The case wasn't about morals. The case was about submission to oppressive government.

 

[OldLady]

Remember this one? Even the Swedish Embassy called to find out what happened to them last night

That wasn't a lie, senile old lady. Another example of twisting FACTS to validate a leftists point.

Okay. It wasn't a lie. It was an ignorant statement of something that did not happen. Does that sound better?

In other words, a lie.

A lie includes intentional deception. He watched Fox News the night before with half an ear on another channel and he got confused. Cited something he heard wrong. Or so they say.

 

[OldLady]

↑
That goes for his crafty dog whistle statements, too.
For example?
"Asked if he would publicly reject the support of former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said, 'I just don’t know anything about him.' "

• Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”
• In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.”

Trump's David Duke Amnesia - FactCheck.org

I think in this case, Jim, it is clear that Trump was sidestepping the issue, knowing that a good number of his supporters were racists.

Yeah, I agree that Trump sidestepped it, but I disagree that he intended that as a 'dog whistle', but simply wanted to keep the narrative moving along in a direction he prefered; building his base and making liberals go ape-shit.

This whole notion of a dog whistle statement is completely indefensible. As one cannot hear a dog whistle, were a person accusing someone of making a dog whistle without a device, the accused person cannot defend themselves from such an accusation. "You dont know how to do that?" "Suuurrreeee you dont, but the dogs are cominig, you fascist!"

Did it ever dance across anyone's mind that for David Duke to claim he supports Trump and Trump to then deny it is to give David Duke more air time? And if Trump doesnt want to do that because he does not want to help David Duke, he tries to avoid the topic instead, but that is a dog whistle to Duke supporters?.

That is not a dog whistle, that is intelligently media manipulation.

You win my prize for Biggest Stretch to Defend Trump. Unbelievable.
It was a quiet nod to his racist constituents that he would not let them down. As he did not let them down when he talked about the many fine people on BOTH sides of the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville.

Yeah, everyone that supports Trump is a racist. You keep going with that and democrats will keep losing ground every election.

Here we go. Quote where I ever said that ALL of his supporters are racist. You're not getting away with that shit today. I've had it with that crap.

You really think Trump speaks to his "racist constituents"? Now you want to insult the American people, while denying you are insulting the American people. Hillary did that and it cost her the Presidency.

Yes, I KNOW he has a racist constituency because they've come out and openly said they support him. He also has an Evangelical constituency. He also has a blue collar constituency of disaffected workers who have lost their livelihoods due to changes in the global economy. You get it now?
I'm still waiting for any actual point from you. I'm not holding my breath, either.

 

[danielpalos]

The picture becomes more alarming when we consider that individuals adapt not only to their own dishonesty but also to that of others. Research Harvard professors Francesca Gino and Max Bazerman shows that people are less likely to criticize the unethical actions of others when such behavior increases gradually over time. Politically speaking, this suggests that voters (and perhaps even the president’s own advisors) may desensitize to the president’s falsehoods in the same way that they do to overused perfume, making them less likely to act to correct this pattern of behavior. The absence of sanctions could in turn be interpreted as a “green light” by the president.


so its basically trump is so unethical that lies dont bother him...it should bother the voters
and dont start with obama lied .....deal with the current president the liar in chief

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-lying-seems-be-getting-worse-psychology-suggests-there

Good thing he is not a right wing Baker claiming morals.

The case wasn't about morals. The case was about submission to oppressive government.

Bearing false witness is a moral turpitude.