“It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”

[AirPo]

So saying the truth is considered stupid to you?

Stupid is as stupid does, i.e.Trump. Truth has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, if you cared at all about truth, you'd recognize and acknowledge the stupidity of his comment.

 

[Nithavela]

So saying the truth is considered stupid to you?

For a politician, it can be.

 

[tstor]

Stupid is as stupid does, i.e.Trump. Truth has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, if you cared at all about truth, you'd recognize and acknowledge the stupidity of his comment.

I am not sure that you answered my question.

 

[HawgWyld]

Stupid is as stupid does, i.e.Trump. Truth has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, if you cared at all about truth, you'd recognize and acknowledge the stupidity of his comment.

Wow.

Anyone who is obsessed with "truth" should have voted third-party in the last presidential election...

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Imagine the outcry if a democrat suggested the constitution were bad for the country.

I don't have to imagine it because Democrats don't even have to hint at the idea for Republicans to accuse them of hating the Constitution. That's been one of their go-to plays for years now.

 

[AirPo]

I am not sure that you answered my question.

Sorry my answer wasn't clear. Perhaps I should have just said it can be.

 

[AirPo]

Wow.

Anyone who is obsessed with "truth" should have voted third-party in the last presidential election...

Really not true at all since third party does not equal truth.

 

[HawgWyld]

Really not true at all since third party does not equal truth.

That wasn't my point, and I suspect you know that. Simply put, neither the Republican nor the Democrat nominee had a sparkling reputation for being truthful.

 

[AirPo]

That wasn't my point, and I suspect you know that. Simply put, neither the Republican nor the Democrat nominee had a sparkling reputation for being truthful.

Wasn't sure actually, but it does make me think there really should be a none of the above option.

 

[HawgWyld]

Wasn't sure actually, but it does make me think there really should be a none of the above option.

There's a problem there -- "none of the above" might sweep all federal elections.

Meanwhile, I've always thought it would be a great idea for all of us to insist on truthfulness from our politicians -- to hold them all to a very high standard considering the importance of the job they do. The problem with that, of course, is that how much we insist on truth depends on who happens to be in office, as if being truthful was an issue divided by party lines.

We see my fellow Republicans defending scoundrels when we have one in office and Democrats doing the same when they have a rascal in office. We can't demand excellence from candidates from the "other" party while putting up with almost any awful behavior from one of "our" candidates.

 

[whatbogsends]

What is the "half-truth"? Democrats are obstructing. You can argue with me as to whether or not such obstructionism is provoked/reasonable, but I am not even sure I believe it is unreasonable. Regardless, Trump did not tell a "half-truth."

"Democrats are currently obstructing" would have been a more truthful statement. "The Democrats are obstructionist" is a misleading statement that attempts to create a narrative about the Democratic party that is not bound by the current situation. The Democrats aren't even as obstructionist as the Republicans had been during the preceding administration. Trump's statement was a half-truth. Not quite a lie, but certainly not forthright/honest.

 

[tstor]

"Democrats are currently obstructing" would have been a more truthful statement. "The Democrats are obstructionist" is a misleading statement that attempts to create a narrative about the Democratic party that is not bound by the current situation. The Democrats aren't even as obstructionist as the Republicans had been during the preceding administration. Trump's statement was a half-truth. Not quite a lie, but certainly not forthright/honest.

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when they make a statement in passing.

 

[whatbogsends]

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when they make a statement in passing.

Trump's "statements in passing" include:

- I had the biggest electoral college victory since Reagan. (Demonstrably false)

- I had the largest inauguration audience ever. (Demonstrably false)

- Thousands and thousands of Muslims were cheering in Jersey City when the towers fell. (False). I saw it on TV. (Demonstrably false)

- I have the world's best memory. (If it were true, it would make his lies about his previous statements that much worse)

- I am the biggest and best at the military. (That's not even a thing)

He made one of his "largest crowd ever" claims again recently:

Trump says rally crowd broke records despite empty seats

Trump lies as a matter of habit. Politicians are, in general, dishonest. Trump is extremely dishonest, even compared to other politicians. Had his claim above been an outlier, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Fantine]

He swore on the Bible to uphold the Constitution on January 20.

Why are we surprised that even this oath is just another lie? Maybe in the course of testifying in the thousands of lawsuits in which he was a plaintiff or a defendant he got confused as to what was the truth or what wasn't.

His role models are people like Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. After the controversial referendum that expanded his powers passed, Trump was the only western leader, to my knowledge, who "congratulated" him.

Eventually, after much more hacking away than SHOULD be required, the teflon man will lose some of his veneer, and even his most ardent supporters will begin to come around.

Better it happens because we are warning them than when their children lose their CHIPS health insurance and a hospitalization bankrupts the family...right?

 

[Greg Merrill]

Donald Trump blames constitution for chaos of his first 100 days

In an interview with Fox News to mark the 100-day mark, he declared himself “disappointed” with congressional Republicans, despite his many “great relationships” with them.

He blamed the constitutional checks and balances built in to US governance. “It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”



Finely a president that is not afraid to stand up for what is right! Let’s do away with the archaic piece of ancient history and draft a new and greater set of governance for the American people. One that doesn’t allow criminals to run amok, terrorists and illegals to enter, give money to people for doing nothing but sit at home, and taxes those of us that actually work to pay for all these “free benefits”. A system that supports those who actually work to make this country great and criminalizes those who work against it.


Thank you President Trump.

I would really be afraid of what politicians would come up with to replace the present constitution. Amendments seems to have worked much better than scraping the whole thing.

 

[USincognito]

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when they make a statement in passing.

If only all were so charitable. The Obama "57 states" meme still floats around here like a comet.

 

[KCfromNC]

Trump Nominees Face ‘Unprecedented’ Democrat Delays

Trump hasn't been in office long enough for any delays to be unprecedented.

Not to mention it might be easier if he didn't have to fire some of them for being foreign agents and if others didn't lie during their confirmation hearings. But sure, blame the Democrats for that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Trump Nominees Face ‘Unprecedented’ Democrat Delays

Tell that to Merrick Garland.

 

[HawgWyld]

...the teflon man will lose some of his veneer, and even his most ardent supporters will begin to come around.

Don't bet on it. I used to think the same thing about Bill Clinton when he was governor of my beloved Arkansas. Instead of his supporters "coming around," the man wound up as president of the United States for two terms.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If only Trump could do whatever he wanted by mere fiat. I mean wouldn't it be easier if there was just one guy with all the power who could do anything he wanted by simply saying it?

Search Results
au·to·crat
ˈôdəˌkrat/
noun
noun: autocrat; plural noun: autocrats
a ruler who has absolute power.
synonyms: absolute ruler, dictator, despot, tyrant
"the former autocrat could be banned from traveling abroad while the investigation proceeds"

-CryptoLutheran