Why would any conservative support Donald Trump?

[ClimateSanity]

This idea of "fact checking" is a joke, isn't it? Look at the lies they tell about Trump just because they are so programmed to hear sound bites. Politicians are adept at speaking in sound bites, and Trump speaks like the rest of us. So, they actually hear Trump saying "Mexicans are rapists".....they simply tune out all the words around the three or four they're used to hearing...those minor details like "illegals" and "criminal aliens" and "some".

They have been lying about the illegal alien speech of trump since he gave it. They have now created an alternative reality that is itself giving justification for riots.

 

[rexlunae]

Liberals don't like facts. They operate in a domain where they repeat lies to each other until they convince their selves of them.

Right. And yet, you're the one who's making excuses for Trump's lies. Starting with your next post:

Unless something is objective, it's not a fact. A lot of what passes as fact is subjective.,

There is a record. Have at it:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

There are some real whoppers in there. And most of it is objectively testable.

His speeches are conversational and not intended to be thoroughly researched.

Does that justify them being full of lies? This isn't like the other candidates. He's unusually unconcerned by the facts.

 

[WizardofOz]

There is a record. Have at it:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

There are some real whoppers in there. And most of it is objectively testable.

You're not supposed to analyze what he says to verify truthfulness because....reasons.

 

[rexlunae]

You cannot have an impromptu speech and fact check at the same time.

If he were just making understandable error, I could forgive him for that. But that's not believable to me. I think it's too consistent to be explained that way, and it isn't just limited to impromptu speeches.

What's wrong with not expecting fact checking?

Nothing, if you know your supporters are idiots or don't care about the facts.

We want to know what be thinks and what his attitude is. We are not dumb enough to assume everything he is saying is factually correct.

I mean....

What is there to say?

We know the mainstream media is all too willing to pick his speeches apart. We can then do further research on our to find out just what the truth is. It's what I do. His words are constantly being parsed looking for a gotcha moment. The internet is then full of information from people either defending what he said or attacking it. Trump supporters have a mind of their own and can find the truth themselves without relying on jake tapper etc...

The media is far from perfect as far as getting the facts right goes. But in a contest between Jake Tapper and Donald Drumpf, I'll take Tapper every time.

 

[glorydaz]

Right. And yet, you're the one who's making excuses for Trump's lies. Starting with your next post:



There is a record. Have at it:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

There are some real whoppers in there. And most of it is objectively testable.



Does that justify them being full of lies? This isn't like the other candidates. He's unusually unconcerned by the facts.

Oh, so "I went fishing and caught a fish this big" is a bigger lie than "Donald says all Mexicans are rapists"? :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

They have been lying about the illegal alien speech of trump since he gave it. They have now created an alternative reality that is itself giving justification for riots.

Yep, it's a twisted world out there. They blame Trump for "inciting riots" at his own rallies the same way they blame cops for "inciting riots" in Ferguson. The rabble rousers are now dubbed "peaceful protesters" when they used to be called a lynch mob.

 

[Crucible]

This 'fact checking' thing is redundant, as all politicians lie from time to time. Usually, it's more often during passionate speeches when they get carried away.

Because of this, people who single a person out is just being deceptive. Mind the lies on the person YOU support, and stop being a hypocrite.

The thing about Trump is that, while you can call him out on certain things he said, it's easy for any of his supporters to point YOU out on lies YOU have perpetuated against him from the start.

I can't think of a single thing that HAS NOT been slung at the man, and it did only one thing- it confirmed the outrageous reality of the current Left and their PC shenanigans.

 

[rexlunae]

They blame Trump for "inciting riots" at his own rallies the same way they blame cops for "inciting riots" in Ferguson.

 

[glorydaz]

Which is what most every American out there would say if they weren't so worried about being politically correct. That isn't inciting riots. Free speech allows us to express our opinions. It's the disrupters that want to keep people from expressing their opinion by shutting down their free speech that is inciting riots. The Trump supporters have shown great restraint thus far.

 

[rexlunae]

This 'fact checking' thing is redundant, as all politicians lie from time to time.

...whereas Drumpf flips the script, and tells the truth from time to time, probably by accident.

Usually, it's more often during passionate speeches when they get carried away.

There's a difference between a mistake and a lie. Drumpf doesn't make many mistakes. He lies all the time. And he does it very tactically.

Because of this, people who single a person out is just being deceptive. Mind the lies on the person YOU support, and stop being a hypocrite.

Ah, ok, so the person who is lying is not being deceptive, but the person who points out the lie is, because it's just not fair to notice any particular lie. Tell me the truth, don't you feel a little bit slimy making that argument? Or is this so normal for you that you don't notice?

The thing about Trump is that, while you can call him out on certain things he said, it's easy for any of his supporters to point YOU out on lies YOU have perpetuated against him from the start.

Go for it. What lies have I perpetrated against Drumpf?

I can't think of a single thing that HAS NOT been slung at the man, and it did only one thing- it confirmed the outrageous reality of the current Left and their PC shenanigans.

I think what it confirmed is the blindness of Drumpf's supporters and their willingness to excuse the inexcusable.

 

[Crucible]

Or, liberals have just been a band of cheap, deceptive troublemakers and there's nothing that can really be said of conservatives to balance out that ridiculous lunacy. People have gotten tired of you all's nonsense.

People are starting to not even care about the personal qualities of a candidate, only that they get things done. People are desperate to get YOU ALL the hell away from government before you drive society into the dirt.

 

[rexlunae]

Which is what most every American out there would say if they weren't so worried about being politically correct.

It's not.

That isn't inciting riots.

Inciting a riot has a definition:

Sec. 53a-178. Inciting to riot: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he advocates, urges or organizes six or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to cause public alarm.

That's the Iowa statute, which is the law that would have applied where he was speaking. It seems more or less like what he did. I guess it comes down to how seriously you take him, but it sure seems to meet the definition.

Free speech allows us to express our opinions.

Sure. But it doesn't allow us to tell people to beat people up.

It's the disrupters that want to keep people from expressing their opinion by shutting down their free speech that is inciting riots.

The protesters didn't shut down the rallies, although they did claim credit for it. Drumpf decided to do that himself. Yes, he did so because he feared for the safety of everyone who showed up, but his own irresponsible actions are a big part of the reason his supporters felt entitled to attack protesters. A lot of candidates in this cycle have had protesters. Not all have handled it well, but Drumpf's reaction, of actually telling his supporters to commit violence, has been by far the worst, and it lead directly to the unstable situations that lead him to skip his events.

The Trump supporters have shown great restraint thus far.

If that's what you call restraint, I'd hate to see aggression.

 

[rexlunae]

Or, liberals have just been a band of cheap, deceptive troublemakers and there's nothing that can really be said of conservatives to balance out that ridiculous lunacy.

That's a cheap comment lacking even a scintilla of evidence or truth. I gave you a list.

People have gotten tired of you all's nonsense.

People are starting to not even care about the personal qualities of a candidate, only that they get things done. People are desperate to get YOU ALL the hell away from government before you drive society into the dirt.

I think you're projecting.

 

[Foxfire]

If that's what you call restraint, I'd hate to see aggression.

Trump wants to "read the fine print" before supporting the petition to allow guns into the GOP convention.

What could go wrong? :doh:


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/online-petition-calls-for-guns-to-be-allowed-at-republican-convention/

 

[Arthur Brain]

Or, liberals have just been a band of cheap, deceptive troublemakers and there's nothing that can really be said of conservatives to balance out that ridiculous lunacy. People have gotten tired of you all's nonsense.

People are starting to not even care about the personal qualities of a candidate, only that they get things done. People are desperate to get YOU ALL the hell away from government before you drive society into the dirt.

Melodramatic much?

Go back to playing 'World of Warcraft' or something...

 

[Nihilo]

Surely you jest....

All right.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Brain's Reaction to Donald Trump - CNN

Brain's Reaction to Donald Trump - CNN

Your brain on Donald Trump:

"The focus group participants might have been excited by Trump. Or they might have been repulsed. But one thing was for sure: they weren't bored. This could be a testament to Trump's considerable television performance skills. Or to his provocative nature. Topics like immigration, a staple of Trump's speeches, triggered big surges in neural activity."

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/26/media/donald-trump-brain-waves-study/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom


AMR

 

[Ktoyou]

Trump is a master media manipulator.

 

[glorydaz]

It's not.



Inciting a riot has a definition:

Sec. 53a-178. Inciting to riot: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he advocates, urges or organizes six or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to cause public alarm.

That's the Iowa statute, which is the law that would have applied where he was speaking. It seems more or less like what he did. I guess it comes down to how seriously you take him, but it sure seems to meet the definition.



Sure. But it doesn't allow us to tell people to beat people up.



The protesters didn't shut down the rallies, although they did claim credit for it. Drumpf decided to do that himself. Yes, he did so because he feared for the safety of everyone who showed up, but his own irresponsible actions are a big part of the reason his supporters felt entitled to attack protesters. A lot of candidates in this cycle have had protesters. Not all have handled it well, but Drumpf's reaction, of actually telling his supporters to commit violence, has been by far the worst, and it lead directly to the unstable situations that lead him to skip his events.



If that's what you call restraint, I'd hate to see aggression.

Nope, Trump was not inciting a riot. Move On's paid disrupters were doing all the inciting. Trump was advocating defense of personal space and property. I realize you don't like him, and you'd like him to be politically correct and guard his every word, but he was simply saying what most of us say when we see these disrupters. Someone does need to drag them out by the scruff of the neck. They need to be pepper sprayed and kicked outside in the street where they belong.

Those disrupters were doing all the inciting, and they're just lucky the normal people who attend Trump's rallies aren't the kind of people who "riot".

BTW....the supporters didn't feel entitled to attack the protesters. That's a laugh. When the big mouthed distrupters yanked the Trump signs out of their hands and got in their faces some of the supporters stood up for themselves. That's it. It's amazing how you people "interpret" what someone says. He wasn't urging anyone to commit violence. Like most thinking adults, Trump understands that people have a right to defend themselves and their own property. That you aren't blaming the disrupters speaks volumes.

 

[glorydaz]

That's a cheap comment lacking even a scintilla of evidence or truth. I gave you a list.



I think you're projecting.

Actually, it's you doing the projecting. All the hate and violence I see is coming from the left....but Trump gets blamed. All the hate is being aimed at the millions of Americans who support Trump. Why is that? We're a group of people who are DISGUSTED with what's coming out of Washington. Why aren't you disgusted with Washington instead of projecting your disgust onto us? :think: