Trump Claims to Push for and Not Push for Immigration Bill

[velcro]

HOUSE REPUBLICANS SHOULD PASS THE STRONG BUT FAIR IMMIGRATION BILL, KNOWN AS GOODLATTE II, IN THEIR AFTERNOON VOTE TODAY, EVEN THOUGH THE DEMS WON’T LET IT PASS IN THE SENATE.

Donald Trump, June 27 (Caps in original)

I never pushed the Republicans in the House to vote for the Immigration Bill, either GOODLATTE 1 or 2, because it could never have gotten enough Democrats as long as there is the 60 vote threshold.

Donald Trump, June 30

I see a few options:
1.  He doesn't know what he is talking about
2.  He doesn't pay attention to what he says from day to day
3.  He says whatever is best for him at the moment regardless of what he said before

Option1 means he is mentally incompetent, Option 2 means he is incompetent as any sort of administrator or leader, and Option 3 means he is perfectly comfortable flat out lying about important national issues, on what has been determined to be official government channels.

Did I miss anything?

Would any CEO of any public company still be working if they did this on a regular basis?

[Crunch]

I think the first one was an appeal to the citizens of the nation, pointing out the obstructionism of Democrats.

In the second, Trump is saying he never personally pushed for its passage.

It’s two different things being talked about but Twitter’s limited format and willful misinterpretations can make it seem like it’s contradictory.

But hey, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

[velcro]

So let me get this straight:  "House Republicans should" is an appeal to citizens of the nation, and explicitly not to House Republicans themselves.

And publicly saying someone should do something, knowing full well they listen to your input, and will hear your input, is not in the slightest bit the same as saying you "pushed for" it.

 And Twitter would not have allowed Trump to say "Call your representatives to tell them to vote for the immigration bill", since that was his actual intent.

And the best way to get "citizens of the nation" to act on this bill is to tweet about it the day of the vote.  (in their afternoon vote today)?

You know, you won't be struck by lightning if you refrain from defending Trump when it is painfully obvious that he did something stupid.

If you simply say, "Yeah, that was stupid, but it has nothing to do with actual policies", we can have a discussion about whether that is true.  If you insist on pretending that the words he wrote are not contradictory, then we can't have a discussion, because when people pick their own meanings for words to suit their preconceptions, communication is impossible.

[D.W.]

3

It's always 3.

[TheDrake]

I can't imagine how it was working for him as a developer.

"I think the lobby should have Italian marble"

"I never said I wanted marble, I want quartz"

And yes, lots of politicians reverse themselves, "I was for it before I was against it." comes to mind. But it usually takes more than 72 hours....

[yossarian22c]

I can't imagine how it was working for him as a developer.

"I think the lobby should have Italian marble"

"I never said I wanted marble, I want quartz"

It worked fine. "I said I wanted quartz I'm not paying you for the marble, just leave it we have a schedule to keep." There is a reason banks quit lending to him and reputable contractors quit working for him.

[velcro]

"I was for it before I was against it." comes to mind.

Just for the record, Kerry voted for a bill when it was paid for by tax increases on the wealthy.  He voted against it when that provision was removed.  And even if you view it as a flip-flop, that can happen honestly.  Taking a position and then lying about the position, as Trump did, is not a flip-flop.  It is a lie.

[TheDrake]

It is only a lie if you actually remember what you said and deliberately contract it. Trump isn't as much a liar as a magic 8 ball. think about it.

"Better not tell you now"
"Signs point to yes"
"My reply is no"
"Reply hazy, ask again later"

[Seriati]

Like wow, could this be anymore underwhelming.

Nevermind that you ignore the distinction between a tweet telling the house Republicans to pass something and the idea of lobbying for it and putting weight behind it.  Who cares? 

There's no way to pass legislation with a Senate that requires 60 votes, that's just a fact.  The only point of moving it through the house is to demonstrate that the Democrats don't want a solution, they want an "electoral issue". 

The other reality is that there's a chunk of Republicans who want an extreme hardline policy, which means the only way to get a reasonable law is to work together.  With the media having its favorite political party (lol) the chance that the message is going to be "Dems fail to work with Republicans to make historic reform to broken immigration system" instead of "Republicans too hard line to save the children" is literally zero.

So, like many many times in recent years, instead of getting a reasonable majority compromise that this President would sign we'll get nothing as each side plays for political points on the backs of children.  Isn't democracy grand?

[velcro]

There's no way to pass legislation with a Senate that requires 60 votes, that's just a fact.

If by "that's just a fact" you mean "that's my general opinion on controversial legislation, given the current political climate", sure, that's just a fact.

If you mean it's actually a fact, then no, it isn't, and you know it isn't.

You see, words have meanings, and when you state your opinion and claim it is a fact, the word "fact" starts to lose its meaning.  Then people who want you believe them instead of your own lying eyes have you halfway there already.  When there are no facts, lying clowns look just as trustworthy as anyone.  People can say one thing, then three days later deny they ever said it, and people believe them.  Or they think that the lies don't matter, because everyone does it.  Thats what they are told, anyway.

[Crunch]

  If you insist on pretending that the words he wrote are not contradictory, then we can't have a discussion, because when people pick their own meanings for words to suit their preconceptions, communication is impossible.

That’s funny, I was gonna say the exact same thing. 

[Seriati]

There's no way to pass legislation with a Senate that requires 60 votes, that's just a fact.

If by "that's just a fact" you mean "that's my general opinion on controversial legislation, given the current political climate", sure, that's just a fact.

If you mean it's actually a fact, then no, it isn't, and you know it isn't.

Wow, you "got" me.  No one could have possible understood that comment wasn't literal, and now I must be totally covered in shame.  lol.  Congratulations on winning the internet.

And in the mean time, I note, that you missed making a substantive point in favor of writing that.

[rightleft22]

It’s 3 based on 2 –  he it fully aware of what he said in the past it just doesn’t’ matter, no one is going to hold him accountable and he knows it.  (His life story is one in which he has never been held accountable.)  It’s a verbal equivalent of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks that day. Facts don’t matter, truth does not matter, if it sticks it a truth that suits the moment, until it falls, but then there’s so much spaghetti on the wall…
 
He’s not an idiot or a joke and people have to stop underestimating him.

If History is a guide, things will continue to go Trump way (unexplainably his way) for next year or two and then go horribly bad…

[velcro]

And in the mean time, I note, that you missed making a substantive point in favor of writing that.

Yup, I was distracted by the blatant falsehood that was "not intended to be a factual statement".  Can you put it in italics or something so I don't get confused?

But you certainly have a point, that I missed initially.

instead of getting a reasonable majority compromise that this President would sign we'll get nothing as each side plays for political points on the backs of children.

Yup, the party that has complete control of everything that is brought up for a vote is powerless to bring to the floor a bill that would get a majority.

But if somehow they magically overcame the overwhelming Democratic minority opposing bringing any compromise bill to the floor, can you tell me, explicitly, what compromises the President would approve of?  It should be easy, because he has been very clear on this.