Misleading or False Claims by Trump

[rightleft22]

As in many discussions today we are at an impasse. I can’t debate character or integrity without having to defend past leader’s actions that failed to live up to their ideals and so showed poor character. Philosophically I’m not sure that’s a valid argument though Politically maybe it is. Perhaps that’s where we differ?

It feels to me that dialog with regards to integrity and character is dead. Unless we have a saint that never faulted that we can all agree  as an acceptable base line we can use anyone failure as an excuse for the character of another. And whatever you say it’s an excuse we create so that we can live as we want/are and not as we could be.  What comes first? A failure to hold ourselves to a standard of integrity or failing to hold our leaders to a standard. I suspect both failures are intertwined eventually become an excuse for both.

For me Character shows it self not by our failures to live up to our ideals but by being accountable and striving to do better.  I think we all know what we are doing when we support leaders with the values of a Trump. We can dress it of as politically necessity or whatever. But when we say yes to a man of Trump’s integrity and transactional perspective we know what we are saying Yes to. We might not like to believe that it reflects our personal values… and that the stink won’t touch us but… at some level we know  it's a lie we are telling ourselves.

[TheDrake]

If he did lie about Obamacare impact, he had CBO backing him up along with a lot of other independent assessments, as well as many who were saying he understated it. There's also a lot of factors that could cause legitimate underestimates. Estimates aren't facts yet, so the only way such things are lies is if there's a little more of a smoking gun. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt when error is a reasonable explanation, which is why I never got on the "Bush lied" bandwagon about WMD.

Your second point is kind of what I said in the last post - there are lies, fact checks, and other kinds of deception. It's common practice to not tell people certain things and let them mislead the public - press secretaries in particular.

I'm just saying I'm in favor of subtle lies and manipulation rather than Trump's blatant misstatements followed by doubling down.

Washington post (as a 'friendly' source) calls some out, like “We signed into law the biggest middle-class tax cut in history”, which is uncharacteristically able to be pinned down. This friendly source that supposedly gives Obama passes rated it out as four pinocchios on their scale, and beat him up pretty good on it. I'm sure we could generate another thread for him, and I'd agree with some and reject others.

[Seriati]

As in many discussions today we are at an impasse. I can’t debate character or integrity without having to defend past leader’s actions that failed to live up to their ideals and so showed poor character. Philosophically I’m not sure that’s a valid argument though Politically maybe it is. Perhaps that’s where we differ?

Maybe I'm coming off too strongly on this.  Morality is important but the question can only be considered in the context in which it presented itself.  If you go back an look, you can see that I've been stating for years (I think even before the last Presidential election) that in the election of Trump vs. Clinton a voter who was primarily concerned with morality had no candidate.  But morality is still only part of an equation.  Voters still needed to decide which of the two candidates would be better and worse for the country.  Saying Trump is immoral is not decisive when he was running against Clinton.

But I think too the idea that morality is the only important trait is also false.  Voting for a moral person who would lead the country into war or ruin doesn't make sense, even if your other choice is an immoral person.

I do object to raising morality as a tactic, which is how if feels when it's raised out of context.   If the Dems nominate a clearer more moral person (like, as far as I can tell, Bernie Sanders) that's a point in their favor, but his policies, would in my mind be such a disaster that I still couldn't vote for him.  If they were to nominate someone like an Avenatti (who seems to be similar to Trump on the morality scale) then they'd lose that point.

I'm also cognizant that the media goes out of its way to pretend that every Republican nominated is evil incarnate.  They did it to Dole, to both Bushes, to Trump (notwithstanding they loved him when the exact same guy was a media figure and Democrat), heck they even did it to Romney.  Similarly they bury the facts on Democrats, they pretended Obama was a blank slate despite a history of extremely questionable associations (the kind they would have played over and over if they were associated with the other side), they not only hid, they went out of their way to try and discredit evidence of B. Clinton's infidelities and even potentially of assaults, they buried as much as they could H. Clinton's role in slut shaming those women (and almost completely buried the affairs she's purported to have had).

For me Character shows it self not by our failures to live up to our ideals but by being accountable and striving to do better.  I think we all know what we are doing when we support leaders with the values of a Trump. We can dress it of as politically necessity or whatever. But when we say yes to a man of Trump’s integrity and transactional perspective we know what we are saying Yes to.

Well I think this criticism is just as fair if you replace Trump with Clinton.  That's what's galling about it.  Effectively everyone in the two party system supported one of the two as a leader, which literally means this applies to everyone.  Why do you think it's an effective  hammer if you were as guilty as those you oppose?  It's seems far easier, and requires less moral courage, to call out the other side than to demand your own side admit the fault and make changes.

I'm also aware that focusing on Trump when Congress is full of equally as scummy people is a misfocus.  Trump's drain the swamp slogan was powerful for a reason.

[rightleft22]

Well I think this criticism is just as fair if you replace Trump with Clinton

The reliance on the argument that b is worse then a, or just as bad, so you can’t criticize or hold anyone accountable. The debate is deflected and degenerates to who did what and what is worse. (It’s a very effective if lazy method to derail a debate). Worse the argument excuses our choosing to support leaders that are not worthy of our support. And we do so thinking that what we support with regards to character (and you and I are not taking about the same thing) does not reflect back onto our values and the values we want to model for our children.

I get it, you win, the debate is over, we are all hypocrites, so we can’t demand better of our leaders or ourselves. 

[Fenring]

Well I think this criticism is just as fair if you replace Trump with Clinton

The reliance on the argument that b is worse then a, or just as bad, so you can’t criticize or hold anyone accountable.

I think you're missing the point on this particular issue. If you want to criticize Trump for various reasons, what's your goal? Just to vent? To make people impotently angry? In general it seems to me that when people argue what's wrong with Trump the general tenor of the argument rests on "how could you elect him?" And if that is the goal of the criticism then it's 100% relevant to bring in what the alternative would have been, because if the other person was equally bad then it's just blowing smoke to ask how could we elect this guy. If Bernie had won the nomination and people had elected Trump over him then I would agree there would be a real argument there, since voting for Trump would definitively mean they had picked a shifty guy over a decent guy. But as that was not the case, I would certainly ask what the intent of the criticism is, if not to point out what could have been done better. I'm not saying this applies to you, necessarily, but I think Seriati's point is entirely fair for anyone basically arguing that better choices could have been made in the general election.

[Seriati]

I agree with Fenring's summation of what I was saying, but I'd like to add that I find it hard to parse good intentions from bad when you are criticizing the other side for conduct of which both sides are guilty.

If the point was to decry a lack of morality, then the case made against one's own side is stronger as it removes the partisan criticism that infuses the message.  If, however, you can only make it against the other side, then it comes off to me at least as just partisan noise.

[TheDrake]

If I were to declare a goal, it would be vote in the damned primaries so I never again have to deal with a choice between two morally bankrupt individuals. Reminding people to pick a Sanders or literally any of the other 37 Republican candidates.

As for me, I had no trouble picking Johnson. You have to take an existentialist view of your vote, it ain't gonna get decided by your single vote. This frees you to stop voting for jackasses because you're trying to solve some Gordian Knot of policy vs integrity.

As for many Trump supporters (not any I've met here on Ornery), they didn't hold their nose to vote for him. They embraced his lack of integrity, just because it made other people so flipping angry. They put his most vile phrases on T-shirts and wallowed in the muck. That's something I didn't see from Obama supporters, doubling down on his "you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan" promises. It's something I didn't see from Bush supporters about WMD. It's something I didn't see from Clinton supporters about Monica.

My participation in this entire thread may just be cursing the darkness, but I'd like to think that this conversation and others like it that I've had in person might cause someone to pause and reflect. That somebody might at least acknowledge that Trump can't make an accurate statement to save his life, and that this is, all things being equal, A Bad Thing.

And that maybe, just maybe, a challenger or challengers can arise for 2020 that can defeat Trump, even if they support all the same policies as Trump. Because all things being equal, that would be A Good Thing.

[Fenring]

If I were to declare a goal, it would be vote in the damned primaries so I never again have to deal with a choice between two morally bankrupt individuals. Reminding people to pick a Sanders or literally any of the other 37 Republican candidates.

As for me, I had no trouble picking Johnson. You have to take an existentialist view of your vote, it ain't gonna get decided by your single vote. This frees you to stop voting for jackasses because you're trying to solve some Gordian Knot of policy vs integrity.

Do you think it's possible that the problem here is systemic, rather than being down to individuals making bad choices? If it's systemic then why not be upset at the system rather than at voters? Examples of "systemic" so I can clarify:

-Congressional lobbying, causing a conflict of interest in the representatives of the people.
-Both parties themselves being beholden to money interests.
-The banking system which governs the national economy largely being overseen by people who don't have a short-term interest in the well-being of average Americans.
-Private media companies whose goals don't necessarily include spreading truth and helping people.

I mean, if these problems could be at the bottom of present conditions when why rail against how voters vote anyhow? That's the last stage of derailment if anything, certainly not the first. Regarding your comment about people embracing Trump to give a middle finger to the system, maybe we should be considering why people are in the position where they want to give a middle finger to the system. Surely that should be blamed on previous leaders, not current ones?

[Seriati]

As for many Trump supporters (not any I've met here on Ornery), they didn't hold their nose to vote for him. They embraced his lack of integrity, just because it made other people so flipping angry. They put his most vile phrases on T-shirts and wallowed in the muck.

Over 60 million people voted for each of Trump and Clinton.  That's a lot more people than just the "morality" first voters.

I'm curious though what are the "most vile phrases" you saw on his supporters t-shirts.  The ones I recall, "make America great again," "drain the swamp," "build the wall," don't qualify as "most vile" in any way I can think of.  It was his enemies that wore "grab them by the p" shirts not his supporters.  The only one I can think of that could be close is "lock her up" and that's hardly vile.

That's something I didn't see from Obama supporters, doubling down on his "you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan" promises.

Obama ran and won on pure hype and excitement.  A real cult of his personal charisma, he was never really about the slogan resonating.

It's something I didn't see from Bush supporters about WMD.

No, but we did see Bush's opponents turn a mistake into a claim of a lie by repeating it over and over again.  We saw plenty of shirts with Bush's face with a Hilter mustache or the slogan Bush lied, people died.

It's something I didn't see from Clinton supporters about Monica.

I'm finding it really hard to parse what t-shirts you actually saw that would be equivalent to this.  I agree I didn't see the vile slogans that the Clinton's produced like Bimbo eruptions, or nuts and sluts on their supporters t-shirts, heck not even "blue dress."  Hard to see how their supporters would have used those.

That somebody might at least acknowledge that Trump can't make an accurate statement to save his life, and that this is, all things being equal, A Bad Thing.

Well again, the vast majority of what he says is accurate.  Of that which is inaccurate, again the vast majority is largely accurate with the disputes being quibbles.

Then of course there is the balance, where he got something wrong and won't back down, whether it's because he's deliberately lying (as many assume) or an arrogant guy (which is just a fact that he is), I can't parse.

And that maybe, just maybe, a challenger or challengers can arise for 2020 that can defeat Trump, even if they support all the same policies as Trump. Because all things being equal, that would be A Good Thing.

It would be a good thing if they became President.  It wouldn't be a good thing if they lost a winnable election.

Of course, at this point, it seems far more likely than not, that it will not be a winnable election (the Dems are still free to lose it of course).

[rightleft22]

If you want to criticize Trump for various reasons, what's your goal? Just to vent?

I’m not debating sides or policies or politics. My concern is with the man and “Character” in the classical Greek philosophical understanding of the importance of Character and Virtue.

Before Trump was President I regarded him as a man of having questionable morale virtue and Character. He was not a man I would do business with or want to emulate or like my children to emulate. (nor would I do business with Bill Clinton). What Trump values, which I acknowledge is a subjective judgment on my part based on what I know of his business practices and view on relationships, charity, compassion...) are the values America said yes to when he was elected. We become what we eat, or the wolf you feed wins, whatever metaphor works for you.   

I know it’s a difficult choice to have to chose between two leaders that one considers both of having low moral Character. (Might that be a false choice?) I understand reasoning behind making such a choice, however it is the failure to acknowledge that by making the choice you have said yes to those values and not demanding better that I find troubling.

[Wayward Son]

Well I think this criticism is just as fair if you replace Trump with Clinton

The reliance on the argument that b is worse then a, or just as bad, so you can’t criticize or hold anyone accountable.

I think you're missing the point on this particular issue. If you want to criticize Trump for various reasons, what's your goal? Just to vent? To make people impotently angry? In general it seems to me that when people argue what's wrong with Trump the general tenor of the argument rests on "how could you elect him?" And if that is the goal of the criticism then it's 100% relevant to bring in what the alternative would have been, because if the other person was equally bad then it's just blowing smoke to ask how could we elect this guy. If Bernie had won the nomination and people had elected Trump over him then I would agree there would be a real argument there, since voting for Trump would definitively mean they had picked a shifty guy over a decent guy. But as that was not the case, I would certainly ask what the intent of the criticism is, if not to point out what could have been done better. I'm not saying this applies to you, necessarily, but I think Seriati's point is entirely fair for anyone basically arguing that better choices could have been made in the general election.

First, you have to remember that Trump is not like any previous Republican President (or Democrat, for that matter).  I've seen enough Republican Presidents who I vehemently disagreed with over policy (Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush, and Ford and Nixon, although I didn't pay too much attention to those two at the time) to see that Trump is a different animal.  It appears to me that he hold everyone else in contempt--his opponents (obviously) and even his supporters (why else does he speak to them as if they were fourth-graders? ).  And while every other President has lied, Trump does it so often, so easily, on matters both trivial and vital, that he obviously doesn't care if what he says is true or not.  He never corrects himself, that I recall.  He just denies he ever lied in the first place, and calls anyone who tries to correct him a liar!    This is behavior we wouldn't tolerate from a ten-year-old child.

Second, you must remember that his lies aren't harmless, because people believe him.  Certainly not all people, perhaps not even most.  But a significant number, perhaps a quarter of the population.  I had an emotional argument with a coworker about Trump separating immigrants from their children.  He argued vehemently that Trump was only following the law, that he had no choice in the matter, a lie that Trump made at the time.  And he believed Trump.  He believed that the only legal remedy to the situation would be legislation--an obvious lie.*  If a majority had believed him, it would still be going on.

Now while all of this was fairly obvious before the election, it should be painfully obvious by now, after two years of Trump continually lying to everyone at almost every opportunity and calling everyone else a liar.  Even Seriati, trying to say that the media reports his lies more than other Presidents, admits that he does lie.  We all realize it, especially those who resort to "whataboutism."  (After all, the premise of every "whataboutism" is that the charge is true, it is only the level of responsibility or punishment that is called for that is in dispute.  Otherwise, the person would be disputing the validity of the charge instead.)

Whether a better choice could have been made in the last Presidential election is debatable.  But now that he is President, why are people still tolerating him?  Why aren't people angry at him about lying to them?  Conservatives think it was a terrible crime that Obama and Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a videotape, even when they corrected themselves a week later.  Why is it no big deal when Trump says he can end birthright citizenship, even when it is spelled out in the Constitution that he can't? 

It's one thing to believe that the alternative candidate would have been just as bad, if not worse.  But then you have to admit that the current President is bad, and act accordingly.  You have to get angry at his lies, denounce them, or if nothing else, roll your eyes and say, "well, there he goes again..." You have to question every statement from the President and his spokespeople.  You have to hold them responsible for lying.  You have to admit when the President is lying, agree with those who point out the lies, admit that Trump is not trustworthy. You have say, repeatedly, that this is not right, that this is not normal, that Reagan and the Bushes were more trustworthy than him.  And commit to making sure our next President has more integrity and love of facts and the truth than Trump.

And if you don't, that simply means that his policies and "achievements" are worth more to you than facts and truth.  That you'd rather stand firm with a well-known liar than to admit to reality.  And then you'd better never criticize a Democrat or Liberal for not being factual or truthful ever again.  And keep quiet when we call you and yours out on being liars.  Because then that will be the truth.

*Anyone who believes that Trump was only following the law when separating immigrants from their children, doesn't that mean he is breaking the law now that he stopped it?  Why haven't I heard you loudly complaining about that??

[TheDrake]

I'm finding it really hard to parse what t-shirts you actually saw that would be equivalent to this.  I agree I didn't see the vile slogans that the Clinton's produced like Bimbo eruptions, or nuts and sluts on their supporters t-shirts, heck not even "blue dress."  Hard to see how their supporters would have used those.

Grab em by the.... 

Well again, the vast majority of what he says is accurate.  Of that which is inaccurate, again the vast majority is largely accurate with the disputes being quibbles.

Numbers are not open for debate. Thousands vs millions, surplus vs deficit, 5% vs 3%, bigger vs smaller, and so on. That's just for starters.


Then of course there is the balance, where he got something wrong and won't back down, whether it's because he's deliberately lying (as many assume) or an arrogant guy (which is just a fact that he is), I can't parse.

[Seriati]

Are you then claiming that Trump supporters were wearing that slogan in numbers?  The only people I'm aware of that used that slogan were his opponents.

[TheDrake]

I never claimed there were droves of Trump supporters wearing them. It wasn't like a MAGA hat. But, they existed. People were interviewed wearing them. Many more verbally expressed their delight. Even more were dismissive of it. That is only one example of them not only not caring about his behavior, but celebrating it.

Go ahead and google it, you'll find them readily enough.

[Seriati]

And while every other President has lied, Trump does it so often, so easily, on matters both trivial and vital, that he obviously doesn't care if what he says is true or not.

I think he tends to say things he believes are true, which implies he does care.  Certainly, nothing that would lead me to conclude that he's following a specific strategy to repeat a lie so often that it comes to be believed.  You would think an egomaniac would care a bit more about saying things that can be easily demonstrated as incorrect.

Still, most of the "lies" are quibbles, and many are just antagonistic interpretation.  I mean it's getting rare that people even try to cite to the lies themselves, they just cite to the meme "Trump lies."

He never corrects himself, that I recall.  He just denies he ever lied in the first place, and calls anyone who tries to correct him a liar!    This is behavior we wouldn't tolerate from a ten-year-old child.

I agree with this in part.  I think those who "correct" him rarely do so in good faith, and often include their own false interpretation in the correction, with which no one need agree.

I had an emotional argument with a coworker about Trump separating immigrants from their children.  He argued vehemently that Trump was only following the law, that he had no choice in the matter, a lie that Trump made at the time.

There's a reasonable basis for that claim.  If you start with a change in policy, that those seized illegally crossing will no longer be released into the US on their own recognizance, it leads to the necessary conclusion - by law - given our current holding facilities that their children have to be separated.  How could it not be when the Flores decree limits the time they could be held?  The law literally requires the separation, if you refuse to release the parent (as the law also permits).

In fact, if we were enforcing our laws, we'd deporting far more people.

And he believed Trump.  He believed that the only legal remedy to the situation would be legislation--an obvious lie.*  If a majority had believed him, it would still be going on.

Well, there were always other legal remedies.  The idea that the only workable solution is to continue to ignore the actual law and release people into the country who never show up again is also an "obvious lie."

Even Seriati, trying to say that the media reports his lies more than other Presidents, admits that he does lie.

True he does lie.  I think what the media focus does is actual overstate the rate and the impact of his lies.  It also converts every mistatement into a "lie."  The media then creates the choice for Trump of admitting the "lie" and letting the media crucify him for lying while selling their own lie about the truth, or acting like, well, Trump.

I'd love, if just for a week, if the media flipped their 90/10 treatment on Democrats and Republicans.  I honestly believe it would give some of you some much needed perspective.

I'm going to act as if these questions are in good faith:

Whether a better choice could have been made in the last Presidential election is debatable.  But now that he is President, why are people still tolerating him?

Because his actions in office have generally been favorable ones, and his most egregious errors (separation of children) were backed off and have actually done more to move the needle on resolving issues that voters have wanted resolved for decades than other Presidents. 

Why aren't people angry at him about lying to them?

Because I've been watching the left lie for decades and his lies don't seem remotely to that level or in as bad faith.  Because he's carried through on his campaign promises, including the big ones, at a rate to me that other politicians never do.  Our politicians say things all the time, and then never do them.

It was in both parties plank to move the Embassy to Jerusulem for forever.

The Republicans put forward Obamacare repeal after repeal when they knew it wouldn't be signed.

Democrats were against open borders before they got a sense of the electoral impact.

Every vote should count, while every politician runs a campaign designed to encourage the other side not to vote.

Conservatives think it was a terrible crime that Obama and Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a videotape, even when they corrected themselves a week later.

They lied to your face and knew it was a lie for nothing but their own gain.  How does citing to this not prove that your "outrage" is false?

Why is it no big deal when Trump says he can end birthright citizenship, even when it is spelled out in the Constitution that he can't? 

This isn't a lie.

There's a reasonable legal case that Birthright Citizenship is not required by the language of the Constitution.  In fact, birth tourism is almost certainly not a constitutional requirement.  Even illegal aliens are almost certainly subject to the jurisdiction of another country - or do you believe they are not entitled to consular help if arrested? - which makes the case colorable.

The real issue is that the President acting alone is not the one that should decide that.

It's one thing to believe that the alternative candidate would have been just as bad, if not worse.  But then you have to admit that the current President is bad, and act accordingly.  You have to get angry at his lies, denounce them, or if nothing else, roll your eyes and say, "well, there he goes again..."

No.  I don't "have to do this."  The primary motive in what you are demanding is to undermine the policies that Trump supports, and those policies are not ones that should be undermined.  They generally are better for the country than the policies of the prior administration and those that the left apparently desires to restore.

I no more have to act against my interests than the voters of NJ had to do the "right" thing and replace Menendez, you know how the voters in Alabama did with Moore.

You have to question every statement from the President and his spokespeople.  You have to hold them responsible for lying.

Well I don't think it's reasonable to parse every sentence and statement against the standard of whether there is any possible quibble, which is what is happening.  Accordingly I don't feel a need to, or that it's appropriate to, question every statement.  I haven't found his "lies" to be material to the extent you seem to want to imply.

Meanwhile, I've found almost no interest on the left is considering whether those who are examining him are pushing their own "lies," which they frequently are.

You have to admit when the President is lying, agree with those who point out the lies, admit that Trump is not trustworthy.

It's not irrational to think Trump is trustworthy, if you believe that he has the country's best interests at heart.  I would not however ever use him as a source for the proof of a fact.

You have say, repeatedly, that this is not right, that this is not normal, that Reagan and the Bushes were more trustworthy than him.  And commit to making sure our next President has more integrity and love of facts and the truth than Trump.

You really are harping a lot on what I must do.  Even though I don't have to do any of it.  I don't have to refuse to normalize someone, who for the most part is normal.

I also don't remotely believe that you'll hold yourself or your side to the same standard, so I'm at a  loss as to why I "must" do it.

And if you don't, that simply means that his policies and "achievements" are worth more to you than facts and truth.

Well, it depends on the goals.  Do you recall the responses that people had on this board when Obama declared that he did not support gay marriage?  People openly acknowledged it was a lie that had to be told to not alienate certain voters.  Is that the standard that still applies?

Long and short, I think the "lies" are less material than you do, in fact, far less material.  I have no presumption that they are made in bad faith.  I have verified to my own satisfaction that many are only lies in the bad faith estimation of his opponents.

That you'd rather stand firm with a well-known liar than to admit to reality.  And then you'd better never criticize a Democrat or Liberal for not being factual or truthful ever again.  And keep quiet when we call you and yours out on being liars.  Because then that will be the truth.

Nonsense.  You can't possible be on a high horse from the open and notorious position of the professional liars on the left.  At worst, Trump is an average representative of the left.  I suspect that if he were a Democratic President, he'd hardly be considered a liar at all.

When his lies hurt the country for his own benefit, come back to me.

*Anyone who believes that Trump was only following the law when separating immigrants from their children, doesn't that mean he is breaking the law now that he stopped it?  Why haven't I heard you loudly complaining about that??

As I suggested above, he can be following the law in both cases.  Once a discretionary judgment is made the legal consequences follow as a matter of law.

[Fenring]

I know it’s a difficult choice to have to chose between two leaders that one considers both of having low moral Character. (Might that be a false choice?) I understand reasoning behind making such a choice, however it is the failure to acknowledge that by making the choice you have said yes to those values and not demanding better that I find troubling.

I'm still not quite sure you understood my question. I meant, literally, what goal do you have for making the complaints about what is obvious (that Trump isn't that desirable a President)? Is the goal "get him impeached"? Is it to cause those who voted for him to regret it? I'm not asking what your problem with him is, that's clear.

From the quote I included in my reply it sounds like you have a problem with voting a "yes" for something not commendable. If so then we're actually in full agreement. Do you, as I do, hold to the position that not voting at all is preferable to voting for one of two choices when you like neither?

[Fenring]

Second, you must remember that his lies aren't harmless, because people believe him.

I don't really believe that any lie is harmless, so I'm with you there.

We all realize it, especially those who resort to "whataboutism."  (After all, the premise of every "whataboutism" is that the charge is true, it is only the level of responsibility or punishment that is called for that is in dispute.  Otherwise, the person would be disputing the validity of the charge instead.)

You are right that whataboutism and deflection are not good in and of themselves in addressing an ill. But I do think they're useful in establishing whether discourse is being done in good faith. So while they don't shed light on the subject, they do shed light on the speakers. It's not conducive to getting to the bottom of things if one side (or both) are using a double standard in language or values. It basically makes true communication and agreement impossible. So from that standpoint I do think they're useful insofar as establishing a common language is far more important than establishing "agreement" between two people who are speaking past each other.

Whether a better choice could have been made in the last Presidential election is debatable.  But now that he is President, why are people still tolerating him?

What do you mean by "tolerating him"? I can only assume you mean impeachment, right? Because as far as I know there's no other way to un-tolerate a President. Maybe you can protest in D.C. or something, I guess. Well I would ask to this whether you'd be have been as receiving of calls to impeachment if Hillary had won, for reasons that, to the other side, were equally as compelling as yours are to you.

You have to get angry at his lies, denounce them, or if nothing else, roll your eyes and say, "well, there he goes again..." You have to question every statement from the President and his spokespeople.

I agree with you. But what if it's the case that I've been doing that nonstop for years already? What's new on that front? This isn't a deflection; it means that assuming one agrees with you that it sucks to have to second-guess every public statement made, my question is "so what else is new?" And this isn't a brush-off, I really do care about it. But it's not a new concern, is my point. And frankly it's nothing compared to what went on during Bush 43's Presidency.

[rightleft22]

what goal do you have for making the complaints about what is obvious

Its the not asking for better that bothers me...
my goal is I'd like to see both sides start asking for better and not using "whataboutism" arguments to deflect responsibility of doing so. 
I'd also like each person to be aware that not asking for better is creating a new acceptable normal with regards to morels values and that this failure reflects their own values whether they will or can admit it or not. If you’re not asking for better your implying its ok.

I was particularly disappointed in the Evangelist Christian early support of Trump. Without it Trump may not have made it past the primaries. (any Republican was going to beat Clinton so there was a different choice being made in saying yes to Trump)
I really feel that the Christian Church needs to take a good hard look at what their values really are and the foundation on which they are building. As Trump likes to warn you shouldn’t be surprised or even angry when you invite a snake into your home and you get bit. (By the way if his snake story wasn't the 'shadow' unconsciously revealing itself...  people are going to look back and like the woman in the story say how did this happen and it was right there he told them exactly what he was.)

[D.W.]

(any Republican was going to beat Clinton so there was a different choice being made in saying yes to Trump)

To be fair to the Trump supporters, I think he was, as crazy as it sounds, the only one on the field capable of beating her.  An amazing thing really as she was, IMO, the candidate the Democrats could select to be most likely to lose. 

When you believe deeply in smaller government, flipping the bird to the whole system and throwing a wrench in the gears sounds quite appealing.  Why wouldn't they support Trump?  It's not like they want someone who embodies what they claim to be their values.  They want someone who dislikes/hates what they hate.  Government interference in both business and culture. 

I would say they actually want preferential treatment for their religion/culture, but that's not accurate.  They have that now.  They want to stop it from changing. 

Trump makes sense if you felt that even moderate Republicans were not restraining the fearsome beast of progress.

[rightleft22]

what they claim to be their values

that's the key for me. when the values we claim are not the values we support. When you make that type of choice you have to be very careful and be prepared to ask yourself some hard questions about what you really value.

[Fenring]

what they claim to be their values

that's the key for me. when the values we claim are not the values we support. When you make that type of choice you have to be very careful and be prepared to ask yourself some hard questions about what you really value.

Brainwashing is too strong. Even the best cannot avoid it completely. Eventually you're ready to fight for what they tell you you believe. Separating "my values" from "the group's values" from "fashionable values" and even more categories than this is nearly insurmountable.

[Seriati]

So if the values we claim are not the ones we support its time to rethink?

So if the left claims to support free speech, yet supports campus speech codes and the suppression of speech they find discomforting, isn't it time to rethink?

If they claim to support civil rights, but have no problems with people being terminated from jobs for taking unpopular positions (unless of course they are teacher, then they can never be terminated no matter what they say - even if's racist - unless it's right wing, then of course they should be fired).

I know that's the infamous "whataboutism."  But the charge here is ridiculous.  You're not speaking from a position of knowledge.  Neither Clinton nor Trump was excessively moral.  But Christians come in a million varieties and only for a tiny subset would either of them be considered irredeeamable.  In fact for nearly all of them repentance and foregiveness are there for either Clinton or Trump simple as a matter of honestly asking for it.  Your problem isn't that Christians are not honoring their values, it's that they don't seem to believe exactly what you demand they believe.

[rightleft22]

So if the left claims to support free speech, yet supports campus speech codes and the suppression of speech they find discomforting, isn't it time to rethink

Always love engaging in whataboutism arguments

Yes the left should rethink their claims of free speech when they try to use government to force their values of what counts as free speech on others. IMO they are making the same error of those they oppose.

I become uncomfortable when groups left or right want to use government to enforce values.  Not that it isn't sometimes necessary to insure everyone is treated equally however we should be very careful.

Anyway we are definitely not talking about the something with regards to 'character' however I'm to poor of a communicator to explain why I think that

[Wayward Son]

I think he tends to say things he believes are true, which implies he does care.

You are equating two different things, belief and care.

I'm sure he believes the things he says at the time he says them.  But he doesn't care if they are true or not.  He doesn't even care if everyone believes him.  He knows enough people will believe him to make it immaterial whether everyone believes him, or if it is factually true.

After all, if push comes to shove, he has lawyers to prove that anything he said was true.

I had an emotional argument with a coworker about Trump separating immigrants from their children.  He argued vehemently that Trump was only following the law, that he had no choice in the matter, a lie that Trump made at the time.

There's a reasonable basis for that claim.  If you start with a change in policy, that those seized illegally crossing will no longer be released into the US on their own recognizance, it leads to the necessary conclusion - by law - given our current holding facilities that their children have to be separated.  How could it not be when the Flores decree limits the time they could be held?  The law literally requires the separation, if you refuse to release the parent (as the law also permits).

I see.  So by choosing a policy that happens to require you to separate the children from their parents, it is the law that is at fault, not your policy.

What a weaselly, stupid excuse.

I suppose you would say it would be the law's fault for separating children from their parents if some local sheriff decided to arrest every moving violator in front of a school, instead of giving them a ticket.  After all, if the law wasn't there, he could keep the children locked up with their parents for as long as it was necessary, right?  If you don't like it, change the law. It's not the policy's fault! 

The idea that the only workable solution is to continue to ignore the actual law and release people into the country who never show up again is also an "obvious lie."

There is no "actual law" that says you have to lock up people for a misdemeanor, even this misdemeanor.  That was Trump's policy.

And do some research.  What percentage of people released show up for their hearings?  It might surprise you.

Conservatives think it was a terrible crime that Obama and Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a videotape, even when they corrected themselves a week later.

They lied to your face and knew it was a lie for nothing but their own gain.  How does citing to this not prove that your "outrage" is false?

We're not talking about my outrage.  I can assure you, it is real.  We're talking about Trump's supporters lack of outrage.

And remember, Obama and Hillary lied for exactly the same reasons that G.W. Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.  So why weren't there million-dollar hearings about that?  Why aren't Conservatives still outraged about that?

Why is it no big deal when Trump says he can end birthright citizenship, even when it is spelled out in the Constitution that he can't? 

This isn't a lie.

There's a reasonable legal case that Birthright Citizenship is not required by the language of the Constitution.  In fact, birth tourism is almost certainly not a constitutional requirement.  Even illegal aliens are almost certainly subject to the jurisdiction of another country - or do you believe they are not entitled to consular help if arrested? - which makes the case colorable.

Wow, you'd make a great Democrat (as Republicans say they are).  In spite of the plain language in the Constitution, and at least one Supreme Court ruling, you still think there is a "reasonable case" that it "is not required."

I would love to have you argue that the Second Amendment is not absolute in regards to personal firearms.  The militia clause should be sufficient to make it "colorable."  Not to mention the various jurisdictions that have banned guns over the history of our country.

And "birth tourism" is not the reason for Trump's assertion, and you know it.  If it were only birth tourism, I would probably support it.  No, it is to take away the citizenship of people born in this country and have lived here all their lives.  The ones who are "taking away jobs" from "real" Americans.  Birth tourism may sound good, but if it were limited to that, it would never get support from the Republicans.

It's one thing to believe that the alternative candidate would have been just as bad, if not worse.  But then you have to admit that the current President is bad, and act accordingly.  You have to get angry at his lies, denounce them, or if nothing else, roll your eyes and say, "well, there he goes again..."

No.  I don't "have to do this."  The primary motive in what you are demanding is to undermine the policies that Trump supports, and those policies are not ones that should be undermined.  They generally are better for the country than the policies of the prior administration and those that the left apparently desires to restore.

No it's not.  My primary motivation is that Trump is undermining the principles and unwritten rules of American government and democracy.  Lying about being able to ignore the Constitution; lying about the reasons he separates children from their parents; lying about what he says and the power that he has; these are the things that break democracies.  People no longer will have faith in our government and institutions.  And into the vacuum will come fascism and tyranny.  The rule of law is at stake.  Because without facts, there can be no law.  Without our government officials being held to their words, there cannot be rule of law.  Because those in charge can then make the rules say whatever they want to at the time.

You can't tell me that when you perceived Democrats doing these things you weren't up in arms.  That when Obama lied, you weren't angry.  That when Obama seemed to ignore the Constitution, you weren't ready to impeach him.  But now when Trump is doing these things, the anger is gone.  And while your perception of Obama may have been wrong, I think what Trump is doing is real.  And that frightens me to the bone.

Yes, I don't like Trump's policies.  I didn't like Reagans, or the Bushes.  I lived with them.  But Trump is different.  He is attacking our American institutions with his lies.  He is undermining our faith in our government, our system of government, and democracy itself with his lies.  And if enough people keep believing his lies, and defending his lies, he will bring this country down.

My primary motivation is not policies.  It is the nation itself.  And it should be your primary motivation, too.

[rightleft22]

The primary motive in what you are demanding is to undermine the policies that Trump supports.

Actually, for me anyway, that’s not true. I’m not a fan of Trump economic and foreign “gut” policies however that’s a difference of opinion that in a democracy I accept. In a democracy I don’t expect to like every decision my government makes. In most cases all decisions will/should involve compromise so never make everyone happy.  If your happy about everything it might not be democracy

I think this is where we differ. Your arguing that questioning Trumps character and method of leadership is the same as undermining his policies? Your concern is policy not the character or values of the leader or how that reflects on the country or yourself? Or in other words the ends justify the means? (which is a personal value statement)

If so fair enough – however this is implying that values of leadership don’t matter… and historically that doesn’t end well.   And philosophically a view that goes against the classical understanding of good leadership.   

Democracy requires a leader capable of compromise and looking at the big picture and sometimes that might require personal sacrifice, making decisions that might cost them. I don’t believe Trump is capable of of sacrifice or seeing the big picture.  His idea of what makes America Great, which I’m not sure he can articulate, but based on his method is becoming clearer should be troubling for everyone. Make America Great Again is a value statement so asking better from Trump with regards to his character/method is saying yes to his values and views on that Makes America Great.  Its not policy that made America Great however we might disagree on that. 

To avoid any counter ‘Whataboutism’ argument. I’m a hypocrite, I fail to live up to my values. I have supported leaders that I was not comfortable with, with regards to character. However, it did make me question my own values and I won’t do it again. At least I hope not

[Seriati]

What a weaselly, stupid excuse.

I suppose you would say it would be the law's fault for separating children from their parents if some local sheriff decided to arrest every moving violator in front of a school, instead of giving them a ticket.  After all, if the law wasn't there, he could keep the children locked up with their parents for as long as it was necessary, right?  If you don't like it, change the law. It's not the policy's fault! 

Not sure why you'd use that example.  Kids are removed from their US parent's custody all the time when that person is placed in jail.  Often they have other parents or responsible adults that can take them, but when they don't they go into foster care.

In what way are the children of illegal immigrants being treated differently than the children of US citizens held in jail?  Answer, they aren't.

One could just as easily choose to release all US citizen parents accused of a crime on their own recognizance so that they could retain custody of their children.  It's only a "weaselly" choice that we elect not to do so, right?

The idea that the only workable solution is to continue to ignore the actual law and release people into the country who never show up again is also an "obvious lie."

There is no "actual law" that says you have to lock up people for a misdemeanor, even this misdemeanor.  That was Trump's policy.

And there is an actual law that makes it illegal to cross our borders.  I find it offensive that you find enforcing the law more problematic than breaking it.  Fix the law.  In the meantime, it's blatant hypocrasy to call out Trump for doing his constitutional duty to enforce the laws as written, while simultaneously calling him out for perceived unConstitutional and autocratic acts.

And do some research.  What percentage of people released show up for their hearings?  It might surprise you.

Here's the most in depth analysis I've seen, and it didn't surprise me.  It may surprise you.  https://cis.org/Report/Courting-Disaster  The actual failure to appear rate could be anywhere from 25% to over 50% of those released on their own recognizance.  It's the US court with the worst rate of appearance (it even beats the court that processes traffic tickets).  For something this significant that is truly horrendous.

Conservatives think it was a terrible crime that Obama and Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a videotape, even when they corrected themselves a week later.

They lied to your face and knew it was a lie for nothing but their own gain.  How does citing to this not prove that your "outrage" is false?

We're not talking about my outrage.  I can assure you, it is real.  We're talking about Trump's supporters lack of outrage.

You weren't, and still aren't, outraged that Obama and Hillary lied about Benghazi.  As far as I could tell from the thread you still didn't believe it even after the emails showing came to light.

And remember, Obama and Hillary lied for exactly the same reasons that G.W. Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.

I don't recall G.W. Bush lieing about WMD in Iraq, let alone because he was at risk of loosing an election to Mitt Romney and needed to appear to not be a failure.

So why weren't there million-dollar hearings about that?  Why aren't Conservatives still outraged about that?

I think there were not even more hearings on WMD in the Bush admin than there were because, unlike you, members of Congress saw the same intelligence that the Bush admin did.  They are fully aware that the case you're making is false and that the actual records of what Bush knew don't support the Bush lied meme.  No more than they support the "Senate lied" meme when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of action against Iraq.

What should Conservatives be outraged about?  Oh yeah, I'm still outraged that the left used the Big Lie propaganda to sell a false narrative that a mistake was a lie.  I'm still outraged about that, and I'm still opposing rewriting history to sell it.

There's a reasonable legal case that Birthright Citizenship is not required by the language of the Constitution.  In fact, birth tourism is almost certainly not a constitutional requirement.  Even illegal aliens are almost certainly subject to the jurisdiction of another country - or do you believe they are not entitled to consular help if arrested? - which makes the case colorable.

Wow, you'd make a great Democrat (as Republicans say they are).  In spite of the plain language in the Constitution, and at least one Supreme Court ruling, you still think there is a "reasonable case" that it "is not required."

"[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

It's really just an interpretation of what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.  You could actually read up on the debate instead of just being snarky.  I mean honestly, using quotes to pretend words are not reasonable? 

We already know that children of non-US diplomats born in the US are not US citizens.  They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (notwithstanding that in some cases they be subject in reality).  The traditional interpretation of meaning on that clause would have been that the person in question was not subject to the jurisdiction of another sovereign (they were mostly concerned about divided loyalty).

There's literally no reasonable basis for believing that a birth tourist is not subject to the jurisdiction of another soveriegn (though they are subject to US jurisdiction, their sovereign has specific rights over them and on their behalf as well).  The children they bear will absolutely have conflicted loyalties. This is the kind of abuse that should be "clear" but has not because of the bigger picture way we've interpretted the clause to provide for birth right citizenship.

Illigal immigrants are in the grey area as well.  They can be deported and are entitled to their sovereigns protections.  They can't legally be drafted, or made to comply with the burdens of citizenship (other than tax, but that's true for non-illegal immigrants and temporary residents as well).  Could you legally prevent them from returning to their own country? 

I would love to have you argue that the Second Amendment is not absolute in regards to personal firearms.

The right to bear arms predates the Constitution.  There's no basis for that argument.

The militia clause should be sufficient to make it "colorable."

The arguments are textual.  The 2nd amendment text doesn't support your interpretation.  It would actually be contrary to the way those phrases are interpretted in other places in the Constitution to read it that way, and contrary both to the common and legal understanding.

I guess interpretation is going by the wayside, this is the same country where some are interpretating  the right to free speech as permitting one person to ban another person's speech they find hateful. 

Not to mention the various jurisdictions that have banned guns over the history of our country.

Mostly a mishmosh of poorly understood case law.  I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in our history that legally criminalized the ownership of a firearm.  This is mostly a bed time story the left tells itself to justify lying about the actual history.

And "birth tourism" is not the reason for Trump's assertion, and you know it.  If it were only birth tourism, I would probably support it.  No, it is to take away the citizenship of people born in this country and have lived here all their lives.  The ones who are "taking away jobs" from "real" Americans.  Birth tourism may sound good, but if it were limited to that, it would never get support from the Republicans.

Again, I didn't say it was a good idea, and specifically said I don't think it's up to a President to decide.  That changes nothing about whether the Constitution requires it, which I don't believe it does.  No matter what though the interpretation of the Constitution that it is required is very long standing and not something that would be lightly overturned.

I think the case  is very strong for birth tourism.  Far less strong for legal or illegal immigrants that intend to stay.  Migrant workers?  Pretty strong there too.

Substantively, why should we give citizenship to persons whose primary loyalty is to another country? 

No it's not.  My primary motivation is that Trump is undermining the principles and unwritten rules of American government and democracy.

The anti-Trump movement is doing far far more to undermine the principles of American government and democracy than Trump.  Whether it be pretending an elections was stolen (it wasn't), undermining executive authority (which has been ongoing on multiple fronts), demanding district judges overrule legitimate executive actions (ongoing and wide spread), using the Justice Department and state AGs to pursue charges based in partisanship rather than fact, leaking constantly, it all adds up to a polity whose strongest message seems to be "it's only Democracy if our side wins."

Lying about being able to ignore the Constitution;...

Doesn't even make sense.  He never said anything matching that literally, and most everytime you've tried to demonstrate a failure to follow the Constitution it's been you that hasn't succeeded.

...lying about the reasons he separates children from their parents;....

Give you a maybe on this one.  Though the complaint is normally about lying about the justification not the reasons.  He didn't lie on the first, but I'm reasonably convinced he did lie about the second (it seems obvious that separation was intended to be a punitive discouragement).

...lying about what he says and the power that he has;....

Pretty vague, and mostly overstatement.

...these are the things that break democracies.

On what basis do you make this conclusion?  Pretty sure that corruption is what breaks Democracies, and the left is engaging in that wholesale so long as they think the target is Trump.  Pretty sure demonizing your opponents and trying to delegitimize elections in which you lose, is what break Democracies, and again the left's engaging in that wholesale.

Pretty sure they end when you elect a Dictator, for which all the whining on the left Trump has not been.  He hasn't failed to listen to the courts, even when the courts were grossly exceeding their authority.  I'm not happy that he's increasingly used executive orders to implement things, but that was something that you literally cheered for when it was Obama.  So yes, our Democracy is threatened, but it's not me or mine that are making the threats.  It's not the conservatives who are the thought police suppressing contrary opinions, its not the Conservatives that are the brown shirts using violence to shut down speech.

You can't tell me that when you perceived Democrats doing these things you weren't up in arms.

The Democrats are literally doing these things.  Everyday and constantly.  Your anger is misdirected.

That when Obama lied, you weren't angry.

Offended, not angry.  Mostly disappointed in the unthinking support he received.

That when Obama seemed to ignore the Constitution, you weren't ready to impeach him.  But now when Trump is doing these things, the anger is gone.

Trump is skirting an executive authority border that Obama trampled.  That's the difference to me.

As in all things in this country, those on the right face far more restrictions on actions.  Trump has a special prosecutor (literally a witch hunter for all the justification that's been provided) looking at him, state AG's trying to find evidence of crimes (which flips due process on its head), and a media that digs into every single word he says.  Even in Congress he's not well loved because he's a dramatic break from their culture of corruption.

Obama?  Absolutely controlled his DOJ, faced no serious investigation of partisan attacks fomented through the IRS, EPA, the FBI and the DOJ.  Congress, no brakes on him at all.  Media?  Actively excused his conduct.

And while your perception of Obama may have been wrong, I think what Trump is doing is real.  And that frightens me to the bone.

All I can recommend is taking a step back.  Take a break from the hype and the media analysis and look at what's actually getting done.  A heck of a lot of it is positive, most of it risks no long term harm.

Even on the most dangerous stuff it's not things that Trump gets to decide unilaterally and it is things that have been open sores for decades because other politicians refuse to address them.

My primary motivation is not policies.  It is the nation itself.  And it should be your primary motivation, too.

It is, Trump is doing much good, and I weigh his actual harms as less than those of Obama.

[rightleft22]

It is, Trump is doing much good, and I weigh his actual harms as less than those of Obama.

I think your going to find yourself on the wrong side of history on that one and that the Simpson's prediction on Trumps Presidency is a very possible outcome.
Hoping your right and I'm wrong

Its a interesting tension your holding though. Trumps policies verses the damage many people think he's doing to the office and democracy itself. I know you don't agree that his character can have such a impact and again I hope your right - but don't think so. 

[Seriati]

The primary motive in what you are demanding is to undermine the policies that Trump supports.

Actually, for me anyway, that’s not true. I’m not a fan of Trump economic and foreign “gut” policies however that’s a difference of opinion that in a democracy I accept. In a democracy I don’t expect to like every decision my government makes.

This one is interesting  While I think Trump's turned out to be right on some of his foreign trade stances, I'd like to go on record and say that NO President should have the unilateral authority to create tariffs and completely upend foreign trade that he has demonstrated.  The level of power the President has exercised here is stunning to me and something I honestly didn't realize a President could do.  This is an area where we might consider doing something.

Of course I'm just as concerned about the unilateral power of the Fed and the CFPB neither of which is remotely accountable to the electorate.

In most cases all decisions will/should involve compromise so never make everyone happy.  If your happy about everything it might not be democracy

Our best legislation is compromise.  You can't get it when either, or even both, sides are nothing but hardcore extremists.

I think this is where we differ. Your arguing that questioning Trumps character and method of leadership is the same as undermining his policies?

No, I'm just of the view that the call to condemn him is really about trying to get people to oppose him.  Opposition is all about the policies, otherwise it would be a nonsensical call to do "the wrong thing" just because a bad guy is doing the right thing.

Or in other words the ends justify the means? (which is a personal value statement)

No.  The ends doesn't not justify the means.  Trump's character is not a means. 

Trump is not violating the law with his actions, at least so far, he's been more within the wheelhouse of legitimate executive authority than his predecessor. 

Most of his character defects are not the means by which policy is implemented.

Democracy requires a leader capable of compromise and looking at the big picture and sometimes that might require personal sacrifice, making decisions that might cost them. I don’t believe Trump is capable of of sacrifice or seeing the big picture.

I find this troubling.  The objective evidence is that Trump is not only interested in compromises but actually seeks them out.  He wants to close deals and evidence is that he moves off of his positions in the compromise (of course he then claims that was his position all along to save face).  This stands in stark contrast to President Obama, who thought a compromise is meeting himself halfway to a position he once held.  I don't see any objective way to look at Trump and Obama and come out where you did on this.

To avoid any counter ‘Whataboutism’ argument. I’m a hypocrite, I fail to live up to my values. I have supported leaders that I was not comfortable with, with regards to character. However, it did make me question my own values and I won’t do it again. At least I hope not

Too much is being made of "whataboutism."  Comparisons are usefull specifically because the inconsistencies they expose show that our underlying principals may not in fact have been what we believed.  In fact, I think the recent criticism of whataboutism largely exists because people are finding it uncomfortable to reconcile what they've always said they believed about justice and the rule of law with the way they feel justified in ignoring those principals so long as they are "getting" Trump, cause "everyone knows he's guilty."

[Seriati]

Its a interesting tension your holding though. Trumps policies verses the damage many people think he's doing to the office and democracy itself. I know you don't agree that his character can have such a impact and again I hope your right - but don't think so.

We may just be of different generations.  I still remember my grandmother in tears because she couldn't reconcile her respect for the office of the Presidency with the character of Bill Clinton in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal. 

I'm cognizant that the people in office are people.  I'm also very aware, as everyone should be in the #MeToo ere, that a significant chunk of our political, economic and entertainment leaders are men that have abused their power for decades.  I mean you see Trump as an outlier, when Clinton was an ally to Weinstein, woo'ed Trump as a donor and assisted her husband in turning women into laughingstocks.  Congress has a program to settle sexual harrasment claims paid by the government with the records sealed.  We had people win elections with credible accounts of domestic abuse, with a history of fraud and corruption and with allegations of soliciting underage prostitutes.

Yet somehow it's all Trump and his supporters?   

[Wayward Son]

Not sure why you'd use that example.  Kids are removed from their US parent's custody all the time when that person is placed in jail.  Often they have other parents or responsible adults that can take them, but when they don't they go into foster care.

I used it since it seemed to be a fairly equivalent crime.

Both are misdemeanors.  Both usually haven't required the accused to the held in custody until trial in the past (although they can be if there are good reasons, like the parent is a danger to the child).  Both usually are sentenced with a fine and/or time served, and the person immediately released after trial.  Admittedly, people usually aren't deported for speeding, but I'm not saying they are exactly the same crime.

Also, a person can be arrested for both crimes, but usually are not.

Of course, my knowledge of crimes is limited.  Perhaps you could suggest a better comparison, one that fulfills my two criteria?

And there is an actual law that makes it illegal to cross our borders.  I find it offensive that you find enforcing the law more problematic than breaking it.  Fix the law.  In the meantime, it's blatant hypocrisy to call out Trump for doing his constitutional duty to enforce the laws as written, while simultaneously calling him out for perceived unConstitutional and autocratic acts.

When the person in charge says he is required to take someone into custody when the law only stipulates that he has the option, and the person blames the law for requiring him to do so, that is my definition of "weaselly."  There is a difference between enforcing the law and using enforcement as punishment in lieu of the actual sentence.  Which is what Trump is doing.

One of the basic principles of the law is minimization of punishment, AKA "let the punishment fit the crime."  We don't shoot jaywalkers for jaywalking.  We shouldn't separate children from their parents unless there is a very good reason for it.  Committing a misdemeanor doesn't fit that bill.

I would also remind you that Trump separates children from immigrants who lawfully present themselves to the authorities and ask for asylum, not just "illegal immigrants."  So those who haven't even committed a crime are punished.

And do some research.  What percentage of people released show up for their hearings?  It might surprise you.

Here's the most in depth analysis I've seen, and it didn't surprise me.  It may surprise you.  https://cis.org/Report/Courting-Disaster  The actual failure to appear rate could be anywhere from 25% to over 50% of those released on their own recognizance.

You misread your own source.  It says:

Over the last 20 years, 37 percent of all aliens free pending trial failed to appear for their hearings.

That means 63 percent appeared.  Per Politifact:

According to Justice Department data from the last five available years, around 60 to 75 percent of non-detained migrants have attended their immigration court proceedings.

You weren't, and still aren't, outraged that Obama and Hillary lied about Benghazi.  As far as I could tell from the thread you still didn't believe it even after the emails showing came to light.

Of course not.  It was a) based on information they got from the CIA, b) was corrected in about a week after the initial utterance, and c) had no bearing on attack in Benghazi or the response.  While they took the easy route, it wasn't that important.

I don't recall G.W. Bush lying about WMD in Iraq, let alone because he was at risk of loosing an election to Mitt Romney and needed to appear to not be a failure.

The Bush Administration lied about there being WMD in Iraq because the CIA told them there were and because it suited his agenda, just like Obama and Hillary lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack because the CIA told them it was one of the reasons and because it suited their agenda.

Again, I didn't say it was a good idea, and specifically said I don't think it's up to a President to decide.  That changes nothing about whether the Constitution requires it, which I don't believe it does.  No matter what though the interpretation of the Constitution that it is required is very long standing and not something that would be lightly overturned.

Fine.  We can both agree that the President lied when he said he could take away birth citizenship.

The anti-Trump movement is doing far far more to undermine the principles of American government and democracy than Trump.  Whether it be pretending an elections was stolen (it wasn't)...

Trump repeatedly states that there were 5 million illegal votes in his Presidential election without proof, throwing the whole election into doubt.  And you're worried about a few Democrats bemoaning that the Electoral College may be out-of-date?

...undermining executive authority (which has been ongoing on multiple fronts)...

Something that has been going on for years on both sides of the aisle.  Meanwhile, Trump routinely tries to extend executive authority...

...demanding district judges overrule legitimate executive actions (ongoing and wide spread)...

When you challenge an action, you usually start at a district judge, don't you?  Or do you think that no one should ever challenge an executive action?

...using the Justice Department and state AGs to pursue charges based in partisanship rather than fact...

IIRC, the Justice Department is under the White House control.  If he can't keep his own Justice Department honest, what good is he?

And the courts get to decide whether the charges have merit.  You belief that they are only based on partisanship is simply an opinion.

...leaking constantly...

There are more leaks from the White House itself than from any anti-Trump forces.  Unless, of course, you think the President, who surrounds himself with "the best people," has surrounded himself with anti-Trump forces.  Of course, it may be that the two are connected...

it all adds up to a polity whose strongest message seems to be "it's only Democracy if our side wins."

Challenging policy we disagree with and what is perceived illegal actions is hardly "only if...our side wins."  Calling anyone who does so a liar, traitor and "enemy of the people" is far more harmful to democracy.

Trump has a special prosecutor (literally a witch hunter for all the justification that's been provided) looking at him...

In your opinion.  There was enough contact with Russia and questions to justify looking into it for me.

...state AG's trying to find evidence of crimes (which flips due process on its head)...

Mainly because the President has stated he can pardon himself.  And why can't states investigate crimes again?

and a media that digs into every single word he says.

Which President didn't have this?

Obama?  Clinton? For a second opinion, you should ask them.

Even in Congress he's not well loved because he's a dramatic break from their culture of corruption.

Working on a new culture of corruption.  Or haven't you noticed how many members of his Administration have been charged, or resigned in disgrace?  His Administration makes Obama's look like it was filled with angels. 

[Seriati]

Not sure why you'd use that example.  Kids are removed from their US parent's custody all the time when that person is placed in jail.  Often they have other parents or responsible adults that can take them, but when they don't they go into foster care.

I used it since it seemed to be a fairly equivalent crime.

You think a moving violation is "fairly equivalent" to illegal border crossing?  You understand the later carries, for a first offense up to 6 months in prison, and the person in question is also subject to deportation as they have no entitlement to be here (that's not a consequence of the illegal act, that's a consequence of their presence).

Both are misdemeanors.

Most moving violations are not misdemeanors, it would depend on the state.  Silly to claim that all misdemeanors are the same.

Of course, my knowledge of crimes is limited.  Perhaps you could suggest a better comparison, one that fulfills my two criteria?

To what end?  No matter the crime, whether misdemeanor or not, if a US citizen is held in jail their children will be separated.  Do you not have any explanation for why this is okay, while separating an illegal immigrants children is not?

When the person in charge says he is required to take someone into custody when the law only stipulates that he has the option, and the person blames the law for requiring him to do so, that is my definition of "weaselly."

Goal post move?  The law required the children could not be held, the law permits the adult to be held.  There's no legitimate reason to act as if the default is to release people who committed a crime.

There is a difference between enforcing the law and using enforcement as punishment in lieu of the actual sentence.  Which is what Trump is doing.

Give them the option of being released into their country of transit or origin.  Deportation is the law not a punishment.  No one is required to stay in custody, well unless they apply the penalty for the illegal crossing and imprison them for 6 months.

One of the basic principles of the law is minimization of punishment, AKA "let the punishment fit the crime."

That's not remotely a principal of law.  I think you're misconstruing proportionality, which is not minimization.  But even proportionality is only part of the measurement, as it's often weighed against the probability of being caught - that's why fines are often grossly out of line with the offense that generates them.

We don't shoot jaywalkers for jaywalking.

True, we also haven't been shooting people for illegal immigration.  We are however, entitled to detain and deport (which again is not a punishment) those who come illegally.

We shouldn't separate children from their parents unless there is a very good reason for it.  Committing a misdemeanor doesn't fit that bill.

Lol.  There's a very good reason to detain those that have no right to be here.  Again, happy to let them be released out of the country at their own election.

But it's a false statement to claim that the children are being separated because their parents committed a misdemeanor.  The children are released because it is illegal to detain them, and specifically legal and proper to detain their parents.

I would also remind you that Trump separates children from immigrants who lawfully present themselves to the authorities and ask for asylum, not just "illegal immigrants."  So those who haven't even committed a crime are punished.

Detention isn't legally punishment in this context.

You misread your own source.  It says:

Over the last 20 years, 37 percent of all aliens free pending trial failed to appear for their hearings.

No I actually read my source, which is why you seem to have found it confusing.  Take a closer look and you'd have seen it pegs the actual rate of no shows - by year - at between 25 and I believe 59%. 

That means 63 percent appeared.  Per Politifact:

Well it depends on which source you use.  What I cited to, showed why the official record was misleading (specifically it counted as "shows" people that were being detained and accordingly had no ability to abscond).

But more significantly, 63 percent is an absolutely *censored*ing terrible show rate.  Acting like that is demonstrating a good fact is completely ridiculous.

Of course not.  It was a) based on information they got from the CIA, b) was corrected in about a week after the initial utterance, and c) had no bearing on attack in Benghazi or the response.  While they took the easy route, it wasn't that important.

The emails proved they - Hillary at least - knew the same day the attack was planned and not a reaction to a video.  The drafts proved that they knew the story was a lie way before they sent Rice out to spread it.  They didn't "correct" their story they flat out got caught with a lie that fell apart.

They lied.  Period end of story.  They literally got caught it in with their own emails.

I don't recall G.W. Bush lying about WMD in Iraq, let alone because he was at risk of loosing an election to Mitt Romney and needed to appear to not be a failure.

The Bush Administration lied about there being WMD in Iraq because the CIA told them there were and because it suited his agenda, just like Obama and Hillary lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack because the CIA told them it was one of the reasons and because it suited their agenda.

I see now.  You wanted to line it up so you draw the false equivalence.  My answer is no.  There is no legitimate parallel.  It's patently obvious that the Bush admin believed they would find WMD.  Heck, even the 20/20 analysis only disputes nuclear WMDs, there's no dispute that I'm aware of about chemical and biological WMDs which even the doubters expected to find.  Your lying to yourself if you think these were the same things.

Again, I didn't say it was a good idea, and specifically said I don't think it's up to a President to decide.  That changes nothing about whether the Constitution requires it, which I don't believe it does.  No matter what though the interpretation of the Constitution that it is required is very long standing and not something that would be lightly overturned.

Fine.  We can both agree that the President lied when he said he could take away birth citizenship.

No.  I said I don't think he can do it.  That doesn't make him thinking he can do it a lie.

Why the desperate need to make things into what they aren't?

Trump repeatedly states that there were 5 million illegal votes in his Presidential election without proof, throwing the whole election into doubt.  And you're worried about a few Democrats bemoaning that the Electoral College may be out-of-date?

Lol, cause its so much better to throw the election into doubt by claiming that Russian FB messages read by tiny fraction of the voting public "stole" the election.  sarcasm off.

This is no moral high ground for democrats on this issue.  There is no way in our system to vet out the number of illegal votes cast, and the Dems actively work to prevent any efforts - no matter how reasonable or safe - to ensure that votes are legally cast.

...undermining executive authority (which has been ongoing on multiple fronts)...

Something that has been going on for years on both sides of the aisle.  Meanwhile, Trump routinely tries to extend executive authority...

You think I'm talking about Congress?  Those useless fools are the biggest accomplises in increasing executive authority as they dump more and more of their power into the executive branch. 

The bureaucracy is the real underminer as they leak, slow walk, obstruct and generally do everything they can to increase their own power.

90% of claims that Trump tries to extend executive authority are bunk.

...demanding district judges overrule legitimate executive actions (ongoing and wide spread)...

When you challenge an action, you usually start at a district judge, don't you?  Or do you think that no one should ever challenge an executive action?

And?  The power of the courts was constitutionally limited to deciding the matter with respect to the parties in front of it.  Not to the whole country.  Not to a national injunction.  Talk about Constitutionality, it's not remotely clear that a national injunction is legal let alone Constitutional.  There's certainly no basis for a judge to overrule express executive authority provided in the Constitution.

But this is one of those topics where results oriented minds grossly fail to see the risks of this trend.  I'll just put it out there, much how I did when Obama was grossly expanding executive power, you will not like how this power is used by the other side in the future. 

IIRC, the Justice Department is under the White House control.  If he can't keep his own Justice Department honest, what good is he?

The DOJ is not remotely under White House control.  The DOJ is running itself and protecting its own illegality.  Congress won't let the President get it under control.

And the courts get to decide whether the charges have merit.  You belief that they are only based on partisanship is simply an opinion.

I don't expect the courts to play a big role with Mueller.  He's clearly angling for impeachment, for which there will be no legal protections as the court would apply them.  Merit of the charges won't matter, only whether they sound bad.

Challenging policy we disagree with and what is perceived illegal actions is hardly "only if...our side wins."

I agree with this.  Of course, that's the minority of what's going and hardly the basis for the quote.

Calling anyone who does so a liar, traitor and "enemy of the people" is far more harmful to democracy.

If you believed that you'd have a different tone when you speak of Trump and those who support him.  Or is it only harmful when it's applied to your side?

Trump has a special prosecutor (literally a witch hunter for all the justification that's been provided) looking at him...

In your opinion.  There was enough contact with Russia and questions to justify looking into it for me.

Yes it's my opinion.  Contact with Russia is not illegal.  They haven't presented evidence of criminal activity that justifies the appointment (that is just a fact, they literally haven't shown the cards).  You assume they have it, I'm still waiting to see if they have it.

...state AG's trying to find evidence of crimes (which flips due process on its head)...

Mainly because the President has stated he can pardon himself.  And why can't states investigate crimes again?

There's nothing but partisanship behind the MD and NY AG offices.  I find it troubling that on the one hand you can complain about Trump degrading the Rule of Law, the Constitution and abusing power, and on the other ignore far more clear abuses of power just because they are done by your side of the spectrum.

and a media that digs into every single word he says.

Which President didn't have this?

Obama?  Clinton? For a second opinion, you should ask them.

Obama literally did not.  Second Clinton did not (heck they let her get away with scripting her "interviews" and not talking to them for 9 months).  You literally have to be joking.

Even in Congress he's not well loved because he's a dramatic break from their culture of corruption.

Working on a new culture of corruption.  Or haven't you noticed how many members of his Administration have been charged, or resigned in disgrace?

How many of them exactly have been charged with a crime of corruption?  I think we're up to zero now.  How's that a culture of corruption?

In fact, several of the charges only exist because legal conduct was investigated.  Flynn for example, convicted of lying about something that wasn't illegal, because of what he said in an interview where no one thought he was lying.  Yep, quite the culture of corruption.

His Administration makes Obama's look like it was filled with angels. 

The media will certainly tell you that.

Interestingly, quite of few of those angels have been granted immunity deals, or managed to plead the fifth and walk away, and some of them got caught in lies to Congress (Brennan, for example) and yet for some reason the DOJ doesn't seem interested in putting them in jail and ruining their lives.

Oh yeah, it's the Trump administration that's causing us to fall into corruption.  sarcasm off.

[TheDrake]

The law required the children could not be held, the law permits the adult to be held.  There's no legitimate reason to act as if the default is to release people who committed a crime.

The question is whether his hand was forced. Technically, marijuana is still federally schedule 1. Does the law also require him to dispatch the FDA to the Colorado State House?

Selective enforcement of everything has always been on the table, more or less. Choosing not to prosecute, choosing not to enforce regulations, etc. Pretending that there wasn't any choice is disingenuous.

[DonaldD]

They haven't presented evidence of criminal activity that justifies the appointment (that is just a fact, they literally haven't shown the cards).

This is just silly - by this standard, every single investigation throughout the history of humanity was a witch hunt at the time investigators began investigating, with the possible exception of those investigations that were initiated by the culprit initiating the process by pre-emptively confessing.

Of course, there have already been dozens (hundreds?) of indictments and charges resulting from this supposed witch hunt - including against, what, 27 Russian nationals for the actual interference? One of the defining attributes of "witch hunts" is that witches do not actually exist - 27 people charged in federal court would seem to belie the primary attribute of the witch hunt claim...   

And one has to be willfully ignorant of the recent court filings by the special counsel to believe that there has been no evidence yet provided of "links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."  Also, note that the order appointing the special counsel does not limit the investigation to only "criminal activity" - that seems to be a pretty common and convenient misrepresentation of the scope of the investigation.

So we have
1. Evidence of Russian interference - check
2. Evidence of links between the Russians charged with interference and members of the Trump campaign - check

Is anything proven?  No.  Is there evidence? Unquestionably.  Will that stop people from parroting Trump's "witch hunt" characterization?  Almost certainly not.

[velcro]

Still, most of the "lies" are quibbles, and many are just antagonistic interpretation.  I mean it's getting rare that people even try to cite to the lies themselves, they just cite to the meme "Trump lies."

You do know that this is a thread devoted to citing the false and misleading statements themselves.

You do know that even if most of the "lies" are just quibbles, there are a large number that have significant impact.

For example:
Trump claiming to have evidence that Obama "tapped my phones", but never providing it.
Or claiming to have evidence that 3 million illegal votes were cast, but never providing it.

This is a pet peeve, claiming to have evidence without providing it.  Which brings me to this thread, back around November 11.

Seriati:

Of course, I recommend the original NYT article, in which it is very clear that it's not just "two" occasions.  https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html

...Now that said, it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not, but it certainly sounds possible given the number of times he spoke on the issue, the impression given and his deliberate stories about "when we came back."

As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate [finding only two occasions], or this just a false representation.

Velcro:

If you can find a third case, please show me the source.  As far as I can tell, it is not the New York Times article you posted. 
I know that you are busy, and so if you can provide the source for the third case you insist exists, I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice.  Really.

You must have missed that.  The offer stands for a week.

Am I trolling? Nope.  You made a very explicit claim that I think is false, based on the sources I have found and linked to, and I am asking you to prove it. 

[cherrypoptart]

President retweets false claim that Paris rioters 'want Trump'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-retweets-false-claim-paris-rioters-want-trump-221039307.html

Washington (AFP) - Why have French rioters been battling police in Paris? Because they want to be led by Trump, according to a theory retweeted by the president himself Tuesday and subsequently debunked.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there's another Trump lie right there. He just can't help himself. They don't want Trump. They want to sacrifice their money on the altar of climate change and man made global warming in the form of much higher gas prices. Oh wait, they don't actually. They'd rather burn Paris to the ground than sacrifice a little bit of money to save the planet. The prefer Trump's energy policy instead, apparently. They didn't specifically say they want to be led by Trump so that part is most likely false but their actions are speaking louder than any words.

[DonaldD]

cherrypoptart, you realize the protests initially triggered by the tax increase that negatively affected lower income percentiles, are now being driven primarily by income disparity and a desire for higher wages for the poor, lower taxes for the working classes, better pensions, easier access to university and in many cases the resignation of the president.

Aside from maybe that last point, I don't think these are goals of Trump policy.

[D.W.]

While all that is true DonaldD, it WAS kicked off by a tax hike on fuel.  Something that seems inevitable under policies combating climate change... 

The statement that they "want Trump" (or his policies) is a distortion to be sure, but the people certainly flinched when asked to walk the walk of the international goals and trend setting.

[TheDrake]

While all that is true DonaldD, it WAS kicked off by a tax hike on fuel.  Something that seems inevitable under policies combating climate change... 

Not at all inevitable. There are a lot of policies that can combat climate change that don't involve regressive taxes that impact people directly. This was pretty universally recognized as a very inflammatory way to implement policy. Most nations understand that invisible taxes are the best, ones that don't show up at the register.

Trump suggesting that people in paris were chanting "we want Trump!"

I quite enjoyed a response from Joachim Son-Forget,

Donald le Gâteux, est atteint d’incontinence cérébrale... comme un “gâteux” souffre d’incontinence d’urine voire de matières fécales et “gâte” ses draps. DON’T INSULT MY COUNTRY DOTARD. La 🇫🇷 kisses your ass. 😙 from french parliament “my friend”.

Cerebral incontinence. *chuckle*

[D.W.]

Sure you can bury the cost and hide it from the end consumer... but it's still going to cost.  It's still going to impact the way we live.  Most people want to feel like "WE" are "doing something", but don't want to pay for it out of their pocket or reduce their standard of living.  Heck, most want the standard of living for people to improve overall (including those who are already doing OK).

[TheDrake]

Those guys in France weren't climate change deniers, however. Nor were they demanding that China do their part or it shouldn't happen. Or anything else Trump-like.

But they may be seeing only what they want to see in the protests. The fact is, the yellow-vest demonstrations have never been against Macron’s climate-change policies in general; they have been against the fuel tax in particular, which they see as unfairly targeting lower-income households. “This is not the yellow vests against climate-change policies. It’s the yellow vests against the cost of living, the way politics are done, and how decision makers are doing policy,” says Pierre Cannet, the head of climate and energy at the French offices of the WWF, an environmental nonprofit organization. In other words, in a context of social unrest and economic instability, the Macron government didn’t sell its policy well enough to its citizens.

The policy wasn’t even a proper carbon tax: It was a plan to increase France’s version of the gas tax. Before the effort was suspended this week, France was set to increase the diesel tax by 6.5 Euro cents per liter and the gasoline tax by 3.9 cents per liter. (That’s a hike of 28 cents per gallon and 17 cents per gallon, respectively.) France had already increased its gas and diesel taxes by several cents this year, and the government paid little attention to explaining where these funds were going. That the shift came after years in which France, and Europe, had encouraged the use of diesel fuel as being better for the environment only served to infuriate voters further.

So, they want a broader tax, that's it.

[velcro]

Even President Ronald Reagan tried for 8 years to build a Border Wall, or Fence, and was unable to do so.

Donald Trump

False.

“Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit,”

Ronald Reagan

“There was not any discussion at the senior policy levels during the Reagan administration about fencing or a wall that I can recall,”

Doris Meissner, who was executive associate commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Reagan administration

“I don’t think a border wall as such was discussed at the time. Mainly because it hadn’t quite come to that,” “If there were other things contemplated, they were never really acted on.”

Clark Judge, a speechwriter and aide in the Reagan White House.

“I don’t remember Reagan saying we need a wall,” Simpson said. “Reagan was really sensitive to that stuff.”

Former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming and co-author of the 1986 immigration bill

You could argue that in today's environment Reagan would support a wall.  But that argument would not diminish the falsity of Trump's statement.

You could point out that "there were other things contemplated", which included a wall.  Contemplating is not "trying for 8 years" and being unable to do it.

[rightleft22]

without addressing the immigration laws which seem to be the problem will the Wall make America more secure or is it just a 5 billion dollar illusion.

[DJQuag]

Thing is, walls are two dimensional.

There are absolutely sections of walls at the border that are already there and have been there for a long time. The cartels/coyotes response?

Dig a tunnel under it.

This is really why although I understand and respect border security arguments, this religious devotion to a wall just makes me roll my eyes.

[Crunch]

So the argument is thst it won’t stop 100% of illegal crossings so let’s do nothing. Right.

[cherrypoptart]

Speaking of lies and Reagan we shouldn't forget the biggest lie ever told in our lifetimes which is a two-parter: one that after Reagan's amnesty for illegals our border would get secured and two that it would be the last amnesty ever. I agree that Trump was inaccurate about Reagan ever trying to specifically get a border wall or talking about it in those terms. Just imagine the bad optics of it after Reagan telling Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall." But we were promised border security for a one time amnesty. Did we get border security? Can you really have border security without some sort of physical barriers? I don't know. Maybe, but I highly doubt it. And we do have a lot of fencing that is basically a wall by another name. Although Reagan didn't fight for a wall per se he did promise border security and he never got it. If walls are a necessary and integral part of a comprehensive border security package, and there is a very good argument that they are, then Trump isn't totally wrong here because although a wall was never specifically mentioned by Reagan as far as I know, as a part of border security it is still greatly implied. He just couldn't say it outright because of what he said about the Berlin Wall.

[velcro]

So the argument is thst it won’t stop 100% of illegal crossings so let’s do nothing. Right.

Wrong.  Nobody said do nothing. They said don't do stupid useless expensive things when you can do smart, less expensive, useful things.

Let's enforce the laws against hiring undocumented workers so they have less incentive to come here.
Let's have a guest worker program so we can have a lot of people come in legally, but not stay.
Let's actually have Congress talk about immigration reform.
Let's work on helping other countries solve their problems so people will not come here to save their lives, or the lives of their children.

These are all things that rational people agree on.  Trumps new chief of staff is on record saying the wall is a bad idea.

[velcro]

If walls are a necessary and integral part of a comprehensive border security package, and there is a very good argument that they are, then Trump isn't totally wrong here because although a wall was never specifically mentioned by Reagan as far as I know, as a part of border security it is still greatly implied. He just couldn't say it outright because of what he said about the Berlin Wall.

If you read the quote I provided, it was not "greatly implied".  It was specifically excluded.
Nobody has claimed Reagan tried to build a wall except for Trump.  Major advisors to Reagan on immigration policy are on record saying he never tried to build it.

Your response is in direct contradiction to the facts provided.

Trump's statement is misleading.

[Pete at Home]

 While we are judging presidents, does anybody hear remember what Reagan’s number one promise was during his election in the primary against bush and in the final election?

balancing the budget.

That’s a pretty epic fail if you ask me.

[cherrypoptart]

Well, researching it a bit more in-depth just now I will say that you are entirely right on this one.

Reagan never even promised any real type of border security. He was delusional in thinking the way that he did about an amnesty and changing laws to make it easier for people to come here to work legally and then just go home when they wanted to would reduce illegal immigration instead of encourage it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/21/what-ronald-reagan-actually-said-about-border-security-according-history-not-donald-trump/?utm_term=.7ff494869bf4

“Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit,” he said. “And then while they’re working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back they can go back.”

“Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders,” Reagan said at the time, “and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people — American citizenship.”

With the 1986 immigration bill, the understanding was that amnesty could come in the context of greater border security enforcement, said Judge, who now serves as managing director of the White House Writers Group Inc. But the enforcement part never really followed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, so Trump was wrong about Reagan ever wanting a wall. In fact Trump is wrong about Reagan ever being serious about border security at all. It's actually kind of funny how conservatives look up to Reagan and he's such a hero when his failure to secure the border and his opening of the floodgates to illegals with his amnesty has most likely doomed our country.

[DJQuag]

Doomed?

Really?

Holy hyperbole, Batman!