TRUMP - and the politics of being wrong

Trotsky

Banned
Banned
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
34,432
Reaction score
15,874
This will inevitably come off as unnecessarily flattering to posters who I enjoy reading, but I think it's a very important topic of discussion.

Some of the posters that I most respect on this forum - @Rod1 and @Quipling come to mind - routinely acknowledge when they are wrong, or spoke off the cuff without properly vetting their words, or need to further consult information, or are speaking about an issue that has veered into territory with which they are unfamiliar.

This is, in no uncertain terms, a mark of intelligence and trustworthiness: being able to admit when you're not immediately the winner. And this also happens to be an area where, I believe, Donald Trump excelled - but in the contrary direction. Despite being factually, inarguably, and verifiably wrong or inaccurate about his claims or beliefs, he would dig in and just resort to insults or obfuscation.

So, when Clinton brings up his comments on Putin? Nope, "wrong." How about when there is video evidence of him supporting the Iraq War? Nope, that's lies. When there are screen shots of him supporting intervention in Libya? Nope, FAKE NEWS. When there is video of him claiming wiretaps? Nope, that never happened.

And this goes on for days (and on much more substantive issues): Trump is shown to not know what the hell he's talking about (NATO, Hezbollah, crime rates, IMF, etc.), but instead of conceding that he was wrong and trying to form a better response, he plows ahead like a retarded bull spearing a red wall.

Would past politicians have been better off if they insisted that they were right and that their gaffes were correct or "fake news"? Could Rick Perry have insisted that his "three agencies of commerce" were actually only two?



Why? Why is stubbornly standing beside a falsehood more admirable than being right?
 
Last edited:
Being wrong is seen as weakness. Lying is not it seems. Better to appear crazy than weak
 
Being wrong is seen as weakness. Lying is not it seems. Better to appear crazy than weak

So introspective persons are able to acknowledge this and (I assume) compensate for the irrationality of it. Is there a way to propagate that very basic logic: that insisting on a falsehood is embarrassing rather than empowering?
 
This will inevitably come off as unnecessarily flattering to posters who I enjoy reading, but I think it's a very important topic of discussion.

Some of the posters that I most respect on this forum - @Rod1 and @Quipling come to mind - routinely acknowledge when they are wrong, or spoke off the cuff without properly vetting their words, or need to further consult information, or are speaking about an issue that has veered into territory with which they are unfamiliar.

This is, in no uncertain terms, a mark of intelligence and trustworthiness: being able to admit when you're not immediately the winner. And this also happens to be an area where, I believe, Donald Trump excelled - but in the contrary direction. Despite being factually, inarguably, and verifiably wrong or inaccurate about his claims or beliefs, he would dig in and just resort to insults or obfuscation.

So, when Clinton brings up his comments on Putin? Nope, "wrong." How about when there is video evidence of him supporting the Iraq War? Nope, that's lies. When there are screen shots of him supporting intervention in Libya? Nope, FAKE NEWS. When there is video of him claiming wiretaps? Nope, that never happened.

And this goes on for days (and on much more substantive issues): Trump is shown to not know what the hell he's talking about (NATO, Hezbollah, crime rates, IMF, etc.), but instead of conceding that he was wrong and trying to form a better response, he plows ahead like a retarded bull spearing a red wall.

Would past politicians have been better off if they insisted that they were right and that their gaffes were correct or "fake news"? Could Rick Perry have insisted that his "three agencies of commerce" were actually only two?



Why? Why is stubbornly standing beside a falsehood more admirable than being right?


I dunno why I’m posting here because in polotics it’s almost impossible to convince anyone of anything.

But two things:

First, you gotta know Trump is one of the most intentionally misquoted and misinterpreted men alive.

Second, Trump often comes across to some people to mean things he didn’t mean.

A lot boils down to definitions.

For instance:

I could say “I think I’m crazy” and “I don’t think I’m crazy” and register perfect honesty on a lie detector test.

All I’d have to do is change what definition I was using.

I am crazy in that I am intense and at times think different than most. I’m also not crazy because I am a sane, responsible adult.

That’s why in law, they establish strict definitions before even arguing about anything.

Trump often says things intentionally ambiguous. That’s different than outright lies.
 
I’ve said this time and time again, a con man can never admit defeat or that they are wrong. If they do so it opens the door to be questioned by your marks.

“Well if he’s wrong here, what else am I missing?”

The slightest bit of losing control or honest to god negative exposure, not this crap they keep spinning themselves out of each time, and it’s game over.

See dude above, he’s playing the “ah Trump says things he doesn’t mean” card which they beautifully craft at the beginning of his Presidecy so that any time in the future he admits to firing someone for a different purpose than what was said 2 hours earlier his communication can spin that into “senile old Trump again, ha ha”.
 
Trump often says things intentionally ambiguous. That’s different than outright lies.

Maybe.

But he also definitely says things that are straight up lies, or just talk about things with a sense if authority when it's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
Newsflash: the president is a narcissist of the highest order.

And though I doubt there's a rational person out there that would refute that, if there is...I urge them to look up the clinical definition and come back to me.
 
Maybe.

But he also definitely says things that are straight up lies, or just talk about things with a sense if authority when it's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about.


I’ll give you the second part.

But many men in power do.

I wish we could go back to a time where men were more responsible for their words, but even when the media lies straight to our face we give them a pass.

We’ve created a system where perception matters greater than honesty.
 
Newsflash: the president is a narcissist of the highest order.

And though I doubt there's a rational person out there that would refute that, if there is...I urge them to look up the clinical definition and come back to me.

I looked up the definition just to make sure we are on the same page.

I don’t see Trump as being as a narcissist.

I think I could prove it logically, but you’d have to be honest in who Trump is and his high level of intelligence.
 
I’ll give you the second part.

But many men in power do.

I wish we could go back to a time where men were more responsible for their words, but even when the media lies straight to our face we give them a pass.

We’ve created a system where perception matters greater than honesty.

First of all, I appreciate you responding to the thread given your (absolutely valid) apprehensions. That takes courage: I avoid conversations and threads all the time because I can't bear the burden.

But I don't think this slack regarding honesty was ever afforded to the media, even the most dishonest such as Fox News. When Fox News reported inaccuracies, they generally amended their reports and sometimes acknowledged their mistakes. This environment of shirking all responsibility for being wrong was never embraced by major media, no matter how slanted toward corporate welfare and nationalism they may be.
 
This will inevitably come off as unnecessarily flattering to posters who I enjoy reading, but I think it's a very important topic of discussion.

Some of the posters that I most respect on this forum - @Rod1 and @Quipling come to mind - routinely acknowledge when they are wrong, or spoke off the cuff without properly vetting their words, or need to further consult information, or are speaking about an issue that has veered into territory with which they are unfamiliar.

This is, in no uncertain terms, a mark of intelligence and trustworthiness: being able to admit when you're not immediately the winner. And this also happens to be an area where, I believe, Donald Trump excelled - but in the contrary direction. Despite being factually, inarguably, and verifiably wrong or inaccurate about his claims or beliefs, he would dig in and just resort to insults or obfuscation.

So, when Clinton brings up his comments on Putin? Nope, "wrong." How about when there is video evidence of him supporting the Iraq War? Nope, that's lies. When there are screen shots of him supporting intervention in Libya? Nope, FAKE NEWS. When there is video of him claiming wiretaps? Nope, that never happened.

And this goes on for days (and on much more substantive issues): Trump is shown to not know what the hell he's talking about (NATO, Hezbollah, crime rates, IMF, etc.), but instead of conceding that he was wrong and trying to form a better response, he plows ahead like a retarded bull spearing a red wall.

Would past politicians have been better off if they insisted that they were right and that their gaffes were correct or "fake news"? Could Rick Perry have insisted that his "three agencies of commerce" were actually only two?



Why? Why is stubbornly standing beside a falsehood more admirable than being right?
McCarthy made it work really well for a while
 
McCarthy made it work really well for a while

But McCarthy's lies were, when exposed, derided. Conservatives and quivering laymen who allowed him his power later condemned him when they found out he was lying. But with Trump his supporters know currently that he's lying and go along with it, refuse to condemn or even acknowledge them.
 
Is there a way to propagate that very basic logic: that insisting on a falsehood is embarrassing rather than empowering?
It's simple psychology. Same reason why police don't argue or question each other in front of suspects. Don't show a chick in the armor
 
It's simple psychology. Same reason why police don't argue or question each other in front of suspects. Don't show a chick in the armor

<[analyzed}>

But the point/question is - acknowledging that simple psychology - is there a counter measure that we can agree upon?
 
But McCarthy's lies were, when exposed, derided. Conservatives and quivering laymen who allowed him his power later condemned him when they found out he was lying. But with Trump his supporters know currently that he's lying and go along with it, refuse to condemn or even acknowledge them.
Eventually, once he pissed off the wrong people. He really ran with the whole "accusations make page 1, retractions make page 12" type thing for quite a while. I'm not saying this is an entirely accurate comparison.
 
First of all, I appreciate you responding to the thread given your (absolutely valid) apprehensions. That takes courage: I avoid conversations and threads all the time because I can't bear the burden.

But I don't think this slack regarding honesty was ever afforded to the media, even the most dishonest such as Fox News. When Fox News reported inaccuracies, they generally amended their reports and sometimes acknowledged their mistakes. This environment of shirking all responsibility for being wrong was never embraced by major media, no matter how slanted toward corporate welfare and nationalism they may be.


I don’t think Fox was the biggest offender.

Fox Appeared to be the biggest offender as they were Heavily monitored by talk show hosts, Hollywood stars, all the “cool” people.

Meanwhile CNN and MSNBC were treated with more respect by those who had louder voices so got away with much worse.

Trump has shown to everyone just how corrupt CNN is. If you look at their numbers they have plummeted since Trump went to war against their “fake news.”

Again, it boils down to definitions. If you want to say Trump does not value honesty as much as he does making his point, i might even agree with you. But I think he does often try to portray accurately what he’s attempting to do.


I think the biggest difference between many American liberals and conservatives is conservatives have seen what a shit show politics has been for some time.

Liberals like to act appalled by Trunp when in deed he’s actuality rather a mild man and many present and past politicians have been much worse.
 
Eventually, once he pissed off the wrong people. He really ran with the whole "accusations make page 1, retractions make page 12" type thing for quite a while. I'm not saying this is an entirely accurate comparison.

I don't think it's comparable at all to be honest: neither personally or in political climate.

This is the age of information: every Trump lie is known to be a lie (and is accessible to almost every American) within a few hours, and there is no overhanging national paranoia to consolidate concern and push it aside like in the Cold War. Any of McCarthy's statements that were unfounded or lies were either (a) trivial to his point or (b) not known until years later. It's not like a person's lack of communist connection could be proven overnight.

Btw, it's funny how I used to distinguish Trump from McCarthy (McCarthy being a person that I hate on a very, very visceral level). I now realize McCarthy is just a smarter, more self-aware version of Trump, even perhaps with a bit more moral fiber somehow.
 
<[analyzed}>

But the point/question is - acknowledging that simple psychology - is there a counter measure that we can agree upon?
Autocorrect for the loss.

As for a counter measure...if you prove him wrong and people don't care it's probably a lost cause
 
The common trend is to say how dem Libs jimmies are being rustled, while in reality there's a President who is shitting on all the things that make America a great country.

There's no need for a second amendment. The tyrannical leaders will have popular support.
 
Back
Top