Quotes of the day

posted at 8:01 pm on January 24, 2016 by Allahpundit

Just over a week before the first votes are cast in the Iowa caucuses, Donald Trump has regained his lead over Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the state of Iowa. Trump now holds a 5-point lead over the Texas Republican [39/34], with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio lagging far behind in third place…

In Iowa, Trump has retained his own support from last month while cutting into Cruz’s edge among both tea party identifiers and evangelicals. The latter group is 38-30 for Cruz now and was 47-28 last month…

Looking ahead beyond the earliest states, Donald Trump has leads in some of the bigger states to vote in March. Trump is up in Florida and Georgia, while Ted Cruz leads him in Cruz’s home state of Texas. In Florida, Trump’s lead is large even over home-state Senator Marco Rubio and former governor Jeb Bush is in single digits.

***

Trump bests Ted Cruz in Iowa and now receives 34 percent support among Republican caucus-goers. Trump was at 23 percent in the Fox News Poll two weeks ago (January 4-7).

Cruz is second with 23 percent — down a touch from 27 percent. Marco Rubio comes in third with 12 percent, down from 15 percent. No others garner double-digit support.

Among caucus-goers who identify as “very” conservative, Cruz was up by 18 points over Trump earlier this month. Now they each receive about a third among this group (Cruz 34 percent vs. Trump 33 percent).

There’s been a similar shift among white evangelical Christians. Cruz’s 14-point advantage is now down to a 2-point edge.

***

RCP poll average of Iowa since January 1st:

rcp

***

1. Donald Trump: Trump has had a very good last few weeks. He continues to hone his pitch on the stump and has clearly thrown Cruz off with the eligibility attack. Say what you will about her decidedly unusual speech endorsing Trump, but Sarah Palin remains a potent force (and surrogate) among social conservative and tea party types. Trump has pulled back into a tie with Cruz in Iowa, has extended his lead over the rest of the field in New Hampshire and leads in virtually every state that follows those two. If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, look out: He’ll almost certainly be the Republican standard-bearer. (Previous ranking: 3)

***

So deep is the dislike for him in some quarters that people like Mrs. Cleveland’s husband, Doug, question the accuracy of polls that so consistently identify Mr. Trump as leading the field with around 32 percent. “I’ve never met a single one of them,” Mr. Cleveland said about those said to be backing Mr. Trump. “Where are all these Trump supporters? Everyone we know is supporting somebody else.”

These are the lamentations of the 68 Percent — the significant majority of Republican voters here who are immune to Mr. Trump’s charms and entreaties, according to a battery of voter interviews on Thursday at campaign events for his rivals…

Trust is a nagging, recurring issue among Trump skeptics…

On some level, they do not quite believe that he is really, seriously running for president, despite everything, nor are they convinced that his Republicanism is authentic.

***

The simple part: Trump is just a really, really good salesman. Or, as the campaign pros put it, a “political athlete.” The sophisticated part is how Trump is making that sale to voters. Consider the possibility that Trump — a billionaire businessman with an Ivy League education and a best-selling author on dealmaking — isn’t some blithering idiot blurting out populist nonsense. Instead, perhaps Trump is calculatedly using tried-and-true influencing and negotiating techniques — ones used by persuaders from carnival hypnotists to high-profile motivational speakers such as Tony Robbins — to literally mesmerize the GOP.

For instance, recall the debate over Trump’s net worth. He claimed a fortune of $10 billion when he released his financial disclosure statement last summer. Media analysts jumped to disagree. Forbes figured his wealth at more like $4 billion, while Bloomberg tallied it at $2.9 billion. But by coming out with a big, round, outrageous number, Trump employed a well-known cognitive bias called “anchoring” where people tend to rely on the first information they hear when making a decision. Classic negotiator technique. And by sparking a debate over whether his net worth was a few billion bucks or several multiples higher, Trump cemented in our collective mind that he was a tremendously successful businessman. He made us “think past the sale,” like when a car salesperson asks if you want that new Toyota Camry in Midnight Black or Blue Crush Metallic. The purchase decision is already locked in.

Or think about when Trump says, “We’re going to take our country back.” The lack of detail is what makes it powerful. Who took America away? Was it illegal immigrants? The Washington Cartel? Wall Street? Letting people fill in the blanks themselves is what hypnotists do. (“Now imagine yourself in a place of total security and serenity.”)…

Trump is intentionally playing a different game than his rivals are, with their tired 30-second ads and think-tank approved policy agendas. And he’s winning that game by a landslide right now — which, by the way, is what Adams is predicting for November 2016.

***

Republicans have spent tens of millions of dollars on political advertising this cycle and virtually none of it has targeted Donald Trump. He is poised to glide into the early-state contests having largely avoided the kind of sustained paid-media attacks that bring down candidates with far fewer vulnerabilities…

If the establishment is responsible for the conditions that led to Donald Trump, many critics of the establishment are responsible for making him the frontrunner. Since Trump entered the race, these voices — on television, on talk radio, in Congress, even in the Republican presidential field — amplified his craziness. They rationalized his vulgarity, explained away his insults, ignored his lies, even celebrated his ignorance…

Cruz himself praised Trump for months despite the fact that they were rivals. “He’s bold and brash, and he’s willing to speak the truth. And he’s taking on the Washington cartel,” Cruz proclaimed in an interview on Hannity last July. But now, with the first Republican nominating contests just days away, Cruz is making the polar opposite critique. “Donald Trump said just yesterday that the problem with me is that I wouldn’t go to Washington to make a deal and go along to get along with the Democrats,” Cruz said. “If you’re looking for someone who’s a dealmaker, who’ll capitulate even more to the Democrats, who’ll give in to Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, then perhaps Donald Trump is your man.”

Did Cruz badly misjudge Trump? Or did he know all along that he was boosting an unprincipled dealmaker? If it’s the former, what does that say about Cruz’s judgment? If it’s the latter, what does it say about Cruz’s scruples?

***

On the Republican side, there’s a limp, last-gasp effort to quash The Donald. Conservative magazine National Review published a special issue and editorial this week calling Trump a “menace to American conservatism” and asking those on the right to oppose his candidacy. But it’s probably a move that comes too late.

It remains a mystery as to why a concerted anti-Trump movement didn’t blossom earlier. All of the other campaigns assumed someone else would take up the task so they didn’t have to do the dirty work – and yet the anti-Trump cavalry never came. As a result, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, John Kasich and Jeb Bush are left fighting for scraps and with each other. They’re in a circular firing squad, squabbling over particular votes and gubernatorial decisions, hoping to score just a pittance of the New Hampshire primary electorate to stay relevant. Remarkably, they’ve essentially conceded that beating Trump there isn’t possible. Second and third place will do just fine, their thinking goes.

***

In the “fight” between Donald Trump and conservatism, Trump has had few better allies than Right to Rise, the super PAC supporting Bush’s candidacy. There will be plenty of blame to go around if Trump ends up as the Republican nominee, but Right to Rise will have earned a prominent chapter in those histories: cable and network television gave Trump endless hours of free publicity; influential conservative voices explained away his liberalism, excused his excesses, and legitimized his crazy; and Right to Rise, like an all-pro right guard, helped clear a path for Trump by blocking several of his would-be tacklers, in particular Marco Rubio.

This was no accident. It was the plan.

“If other campaigns wish that we’re going to uncork money on Donald Trump, they’ll be disappointed,” Mike Murphy, chief strategist of Right to Rise, told the Washington Post in August. “Trump is, frankly, other people’s problem.” In an October interview with Bloomberg, he said: “I’d love a two-way race with Trump at the end.”

It’s entirely possible that there will be a two-way race with Trump at some point before the nomination is decided. But it’s nearly inconceivable that the other candidate in that head-to-head contest will be Jeb Bush.

***

For one thing, according to Langone, a Home Depot Inc. co-founder who’s given New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s super PAC at least $250,000, anything can change before the primaries. Life goes on even under President Trump, Langone said, before getting even sunnier.

“The cockeyed optimist that I am, maybe, just maybe, he might turn out to be one of the greatest surprises America ever had,” he said. “You got to be optimistic.”…

Investor Rob Arnott, a libertarian who supports Cruz and despises Trump, has a theory about why his moderate peers might accept the billionaire.

“The Republican establishment views Trump as someone sufficiently inept that he’ll need them, and they can control the agenda,” said Arnott, who heads asset management firm Research Affiliates LLC, a sub-adviser for Pacific Investment Management Co. “Their view is: Better somebody who has no obvious core political values.”…

Christie supporter Joe Grano, who used to run UBS Group AG’s U.S. wealth-management business and now heads business-strategy adviser Centurion Holdings, could adjust to Trump. He’s a good negotiator and wouldn’t be “as dangerous as some people think,” Grano said.

***

We say we want conservative changes, but we also want our Sugar Daddy Uncle Sam to foot the bill, so we keep running back to first base. Every conservative candidate wants to focus on securing our borders, keeping us safe from terrorists, restoring religious liberty, and dealing with taxes.

Ted Cruz wants to abolish the IRS, but then who will collect federal revenue? When President George W. Bush set up the Department of Homeland Security, there was great fanfare–it’s easy to create new agencies. The EPA, Department of Education, Department of Energy, DHS–none of them existed before 1973, and the government was still big even then.

It will take a generation to kick the habit of agency addiction, and no president can do more than cut some fat and slow the growth. Even that will hurt someone who depends on their fix of federal services. They will have to learn to do without, and when babies lose their pacifiers, they cry. Congress hates crying babies (who vote them into office).

I don’t think the country has the stomach for the kind of change it will take to actually be conservative. I think this is the reason Trump is so popular. He talks about all these things, but he doesn’t really mean it. He makes everyone feel better, but everyone really knows–wink, wink, nod, nod–it’s all just talk.

***

To attack him effectively, you have to go after the things that people like about him. You have to flip his brand.

So don’t tell people that he doesn’t know the difference between Kurds and the Quds Force. (They don’t either!) Tell people that he isn’t the incredible self-made genius that he plays on TV. Tell them about all the money he inherited from his daddy. Tell them about the bailouts that saved him from ruin. Tell them about all his cratered companies. Then find people who suffered from those fiascos — workers laid off following his bankruptcies, homeowners who bought through Trump Mortgage, people who ponied up for sham degrees from Trump University…

Likewise, don’t get mired in philosophical arguments about big government and crony capitalism. Find the people hurt by Trump’s attempts to exploit eminent domain: The widow whose boarding house he wanted to demolish to make room for a limo parking lot, the small businessmen whose livelihoods he wanted to redevelop out of existence…

All of this is not particularly complicated. It’s roughly what the Democrats did to Mitt Romney, rendering him radioactive with many of the same working class voters currently backing Trump.

Except with Trump the trick is subtly different. Mitt was a numbers guy, so he was caricatured as a cruel Scrooge. But Trump is a salesman: That’s been a big part of his campaign’s success. And how do you flip a salesman’s brand? You persuade people that he’s a con artist, and they’re his marks.

***

[I]n Virginia’s Super Tuesday primary March 1, I will not be voting for Trump.

But what about on November 8? Despite NR’s best efforts, Trump could very well be the nominee. (In fact, the fuss made over the “Against Trump” issue may well help him, at least at the margins.) Will the symposium contributors vote for Trump despite their reservations or will they support the Democrat? (either by voting for her directly, or by backing a third party or not voting, which amount to objective support for the Democrat).

I think Erick Erickson was the only contributor to the symposium who said he’d vote for Trump in the general election; no one admitted they’d prefer Hillary in the Oval Office, though John Podhoretz suggested as much in a twitter exchange. (Separately, Ian Tuttle has explained why he’d vote for Trump in November.)

I’ll vote for Trump if he’s nominated and hope for the best, but I can see why someone would decide differently (an easier call if you’re in a state where the outcome is a foregone conclusion). But such a decision means you think Hillary (or Bernie) would be less bad for the country than Trump – and that would be important for readers to know. Your grocery clerk or accountant are under no obligation to disclose their political biases; but those of us who are paid to bloviate on politics are. Idea: Another symposium after the GOP nominee is formally anointed at the convention in July, this one entitled “Against Trump?”

***

***

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Good morning everybody.

Racistanyway on January 25, 2016 at 5:19 AM

Is NYC up and running and back to normal today?

OmahaConservative on January 25, 2016 at 5:48 AM

Unfortunately, nothing can reverse the damage a woman feels when she is raped. But hey, it’s all broken eggs and omelettes with you, right champ?

fossten on January 25, 2016 at 12:37 AM

TBStupid trotting out its moronic “immigration is a right” claim.

Of course, it never has been for the whole of human history. The troll is just stuck on stupid.

animal02 on January 25, 2016 at 5:56 AM

I don’t vote for Democrats.

I hope the GOP won’t nominate one. If we do, Gary Johnson and Jim Webb begin to look like the reasonable candidates in the race.

Adjoran on January 25, 2016 at 6:04 AM

Good Morning everyone:
Trump Sunday Gauntlet:
———————–

Full | Donald Trump Sits Down With Howard Kurtz | Full Interview (1-24-2016)
LatestNews
LatestNews

Published on Jan 24, 2016
***************************

(13:08)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aevZ9qT7Cno
============================================

[FULL INTERVIEW] Donald Trump Interviwed by John Dickerson On “Face the Nation” (1/24/2016)
NEW WORLD
NEW WORLD

Published on Jan 24, 2016
**************************

(8:50)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmlhXCpugac
============================================

Donald Trump “Meet The Press” FULL Interview. I Am a Conservative But I Get Along With People
MAKINGAMERICAGREATAGAIN
MAKINGAMERICAGREATAGAIN

Published on Jan 24, 2016
*************************

(13:53)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aevZ9qT7Cno

canopfor on January 25, 2016 at 6:11 AM

The Boinking Ted cruz World Domination Sumpins:
————————————————

Young TED CRUZ talks about “tits” and “world domination” Real or fake?
Mad Canadian Top 5 & Reviews
Mad Canadian Top 5 & Reviews

Published on Jan 23, 2016
**************************

SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE NO BULL POLITICS
http://bit.ly/Submadcanadian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_cAw2c-INc

canopfor on January 25, 2016 at 6:13 AM

I am so sick of being flooded with IA’s negative political TV ads…

OmahaConservative on January 25, 2016 at 6:25 AM

nicole wallace is one of the most talentless and obnoxious individuals on television.

The price was high for the scalp of Sarah Palin.

renalin on January 25, 2016 at 6:27 AM

From MJ:
———–

Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton (2004)
Bud Meyers
Bud Meyers

Published on Sep 26, 2014
*************************

The Bill Moyers show released a vintage clip of Senator Elizabeth Warren from 2004. In the video, Professor Warren talks about a meeting she had with then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

See the related post at my blog: “Warren: The Only Real Bullet Hillary Might Dodge”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg

canopfor on January 25, 2016 at 6:34 AM

These are the lamentations of the 68 Percent — the significant majority of Republican voters here who are immune to Mr. Trump’s charms and entreaties, according to a battery of voter interviews on Thursday at campaign events for his rivals…

Wow, that’s some sophisticated, unbiased sampling right there.

RINO in Name Only on January 25, 2016 at 6:35 AM

…Moved back to the Emirates in the late 2000s because he was embarrassed to have Bush as his president.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 1:18 AM

Hah! What a fool. Did he return when dog-eater became President? Some of us are pretty embarassed about that too.

rhombus on January 25, 2016 at 6:40 AM

Tina Fey Jack*ss Alert:
———————–

THE CONNET [email protected] 3m3 minutes ago

Trying to make the best of Palin back in news cycle. #morningjoe

https://twitter.com/THEAlleyeceeing/status/691587147120394240

canopfor on January 25, 2016 at 6:49 AM

Donald Rumsfeld
10m
Former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld launches ‘Churchill Solitaire’ gaming app – NBC News
Read more on nbcnews.com
===========================

Jan 25 2016, 5:14 am ET
Donald Rumsfeld Launches Churchill Solitaire Gaming App
*******************************************************

Churchill Solitaire – Full Trailer
Churchill Solitaire
Churchill Solitaire

Published on Jan 21, 2016
**************************

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySnY9HBUAxI
=============

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/video-games/donald-rumsfeld-launches-churchill-solitaire-gaming-app-n503556

canopfor on January 25, 2016 at 6:57 AM

MeanWhile, at the Perry Ranch:
——————————–

2016 US elections
5m
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry endorses Ted Cruz in GOP primary – Politico
Read more on politico.com
=============================

Rick Perry endorses Ted Cruz

By Katie Glueck
01/25/16 04:00 AM EST
**********************

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/rick-perry-endorses-ted-cruz-218170#ixzz3yFnCngzt

canopfor on January 25, 2016 at 7:01 AM

oscarwilde on January 24, 2016 at 11:12 PM

Look, oscar, let’s not pretend you don’t know what you are doing. Cut the crap.

I’m not pretending anything.

Seems to cover what you are doing quiet nicely. The only real question here, is, are you aware that you are lying, or like a pathological lair are unable to recognize that you are lying.

This came immediately following a definition of pathological liar. So your “seems to cover” statement includes that definition. The second half of that is not a question to me, it is a rhetorical device designed to accuse without accusing. Politicians use it often.

No, in fact it absolutely did not. It preceded the definition.

Only fool stoop to lying. You’ve not been one until now.

Schadenfreude on January 24, 2016 at 9:34 PM

Lies? So now quoting Trump = lying? Don’t even try the whole “context” thing.

Pattosensei on January 24, 2016 at 10:05 PM

Contextual lie

One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them. To say “Yeah, that’s right, I ate all the white chocolate, by myself”, using sarcasm, a form of assertion by ridiculing the fact(s) implying the liar believes it to be preposterous.

Lying by omission

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. For example, when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission. It can be compared to dissimulation.

Misleading and dissembling
Main article: Misleading

A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth. “Dissembling” likewise describes the presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading.

Lie – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LieWikipedia

Seems to cover what you are doing quiet nicely. The only real question here, is, are you aware that you are lying, or like a pathological lair are unable to recognize that you are lying.

Pathological lie
Main article: Pathological lying

In psychiatry, pathological lying (also called compulsive lying, pseudologia fantastica and mythomania) is a behavior of habitual or compulsive lying.[9][10] It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck.[10] Although it is a controversial topic,[10] pathological lying has been defined as “falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime”.[9] The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth, being unaware that they are relating fantasies.

oscarwilde on January 24, 2016 at 10:28 PM

This is known as factual evidence. You make a false assertion, and I provide documentation with contradicts your demonstrably false assertion.

The process here really isn’t that difficult to follow. Its a basic logical step by step process. Its as simple as

1)
2)
3)

1 precedes 2 which then precedes 3. 3, being after 1 and 2 never precedes 1 or 2. it always follows after 1 and 2. In this manner, a logical and coherent pattern of communication is established. In this pattern of formal communication ideas are conveyed in sequences of words, sentences and paragraphs.

Each byte of information conveys a discrete idea, in order to avoid confusion, each byte is placed sequentially in a forward progressing order. that way the ideas presented in the first sentence or paragraph are not taken out of their context and confused with the ideas presented in the second or third sentence or paragraph.

In placing the definitions of lying second we see precisely and exactly what is meant by the word, lying. Having placed in a position preceding those definition your actual statement

Only fool stoop to lying. You’ve not been one until now.

Schadenfreude on January 24, 2016 at 9:34 PM

Lies? So now quoting Trump = lying? Don’t even try the whole “context” thing.

Pattosensei on January 24, 2016 at 10:05 PM

We eliminate any possible ambiguity in whether the word lying is applicable to what you did in fact say. The definitions of indirect lying which followed your statement indisputably and incontrovertibly prove that it is in fact not only possible to lie while quoting an individual that it is relatively common, so much so that the specific methods have been categorized and defined.

The full statement, which was not needed to establish that you were lying only makes that point more undeniable.

Schadenfreude on January 24, 2016 at 9:34 PM

Lies? So now quoting Trump = lying? Don’t even try the whole “context” thing. It was in the context of the loyalty of his base. There is only one way to take it. Yeah, he was joking in the sense that he wasn’t going to shoot anyone, but that doesn’t detract from the truth in the statement.

Now let us take a close look at that statement. We will break it up into smaller, bite sized bits.

a)

Lies? So now quoting Trump = lying?

Here we have a classic example of a contextual lie, the definition of which is.

Contextual lie

One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them. To say “Yeah, that’s right, I ate all the white chocolate, by myself”, using sarcasm, a form of assertion by ridiculing the fact(s) implying the liar believes it to be preposterous.

Indisputable in that every single element in the definition of contextual lying is represented in your assertion. The first word (Lies) followed by a question mark is obviously intended to express your feeling of incredulousness that anyone would suggest that you were intentionally and knowingly lying.

That immediately followed by (So now quoting Trump = lying) which is again indisputably sarcasm intended to ridicule the idea that one could tell part of the truth or accurate facts while still being lying, and to show that you clearly believe such a presupposition preposterous.

b)

Don’t even try the whole “context” thing.

Here we have a classic example of Lying by omission. Again the definition of which is.

Lying by omission

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. For example, when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission. It can be compared to dissimulation.

In this case, the lie of omission is not information that has been left out, it is information that you insist be left out. It is an attempt to avoid correcting or admitting to the previous lie told by dismissing the charge out of hand.

c)

It was in the context of the loyalty of his base.

Here we have a classic lie by fabrication as defined here.

Fabrication
See also: Fabrication (science)

A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.[citation needed] Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth. Examples of fabrication: A person giving directions to a tourist when the person doesn’t actually know the directions. Often propaganda is fabrication.

The actual Trump statement

They say I have the most loyal people — did you ever see that? — where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” Trump said, illustrating his point by pulling his fingers into a gun shape. “Okay? It’s like incredible.”

As Trumps actual statement makes it 100 percent clear, it is not in the context of his supporters, its in the context of what others are claiming about his supporters. It becomes a lie of fabrication because just like the people Donald Trump was incredulously quoting you knowingly and willfully falsely attributed a fabricated notion to individuals who support Trump.

d)

There is only one way to take it.

Here, rather than a lie, we have a simple logic fallacy, which you are using to buttress your lies. Its known as a False dilemma, the specific variety of which is the Black-and-white thinking, defined here.

Black-and-white thinking
See also: Splitting (psychology)
See also: Binary opposition

In psychology, a phenomenon related to the false dilemma is black-and-white thinking. There are people who routinely engage in black-and-white thinking, an example of which is someone who categorizes other people as all good or all bad.[7]

In this particular case, you make the attempt to eliminate all other possibilities by simply declaring that they do not exist.

e)

Yeah, he was joking in the sense that he wasn’t going to shoot anyone,

And a Misleading and dissembling lie, as defined here.

Misleading and dissembling
Main article: Misleading

A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth. “Dissembling” likewise describes the presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading.

Yes, it is literally true that Trump said,

They say I have the most loyal people — did you ever see that? — where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” Trump said, illustrating his point by pulling his fingers into a gun shape. “Okay? It’s like incredible.”

By leaving out the words “They say” you create the utterly false and intentionally misleading impression that those were Donald Trumps words and feeling about his supporters. When the reality in fact is, that Donald Trump was quoting someone else and in fact mocking and ridiculing those individuals who have been attacking his supporters. “Okay? It’s like incredible.” is not a statement that Donald Trump agrees with or enjoys the notion that his supports would support him regardless of what he did, but one of incredulousness that anyone would say or believe something so absurd.

f)

but that doesn’t detract from the truth in the statement.

And finally you wrap it up with a Begging the Question logic fallacy as defined here.

Description of Begging the Question

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” typically has the following form.

Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: “X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

This is a begging the question logic fallacy because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. You used Contextual lies, Lies of omission, and Misleading and dissembling lies to create a fiction that a certain situation existed, then you attempt to assert that that situation is true because the rest of your assertion support it.

When in fact, that very context you insisted that we not try, because by implication of your statement it was not a legitimate objection, was not only a legitimate objection, but a whole new lie in and of itself.

Don’t even try the whole “context” thing. It was in the context of the loyalty of his base.

That you are lying is incontrovertible and a fact indisputably in evidence. Whether you are aware that you are lying, or unable to recognize that you are lying is a very obvious and valid question.

You accused me of lying after only posting a word-for-word quote of Trump and saying “Yep. That explains many of HA commenters. /not a cult

As I have already proven, you did not post a word for word quote from Donald Trump, you left out two very crucial words “They Say”. Whereupon not only did you lie by omission, as I said, you knowingly and willfully engaged in a misleading and dissembling lie.

Though you specifically used the phrase ““Yep. That explains many of HA commenters. /not a cult” there is no question that it was your intention that readers would infer all Trump supporters, not just a few HA commentors.

Moreover, again you are displaying that exact same dishonesty. For which I will return once again to the concept of factual evidence. This is the actual quote that I responded to, not the one you assert I responded to.

Lies? So now quoting Trump = lying? Don’t even try the whole “context” thing. It was in the context of the loyalty of his base. There is only one way to take it. Yeah, he was joking in the sense that he wasn’t going to shoot anyone, but that doesn’t detract from the truth in the statement.

I never responded to the quote ““Yep. That explains many of HA commenters. /not a cult”.

Where is the lie? Oh, that’s right, this is what you think the lie is:

No, since you cast serious moral and ethical aspersions on all of Trumps supporters you do not get to play the offended victim. What is disgusting is not pointing out that you are lying, or that you have cast aspersions of millions of people that you do not know.

Oh, I guess “many HA commenters” = “all of Trumps supporters” OR “millions of people.”
Oh, wait, no it isn’t. You want to talk about lying!? Look in the mirror you hypocrite!

Once again, since I never responded to your quote ““Yep. That explains many of HA commenters. /not a cult” but in fact responded to your statement

Lies? So now quoting Trump = lying? Don’t even try the whole “context” thing. It was in the context of the loyalty of his base. There is only one way to take it. Yeah, he was joking in the sense that he wasn’t going to shoot anyone, but that doesn’t detract from the truth in the statement.

The number of HA commentors is utterly and completely irrelevant. The millions of individuals you denigrated and insulted are without any possibility of question, the very same Base you referred to in strong>It was in the context of the loyalty of his base. There is only one way to take it.

As I stated before, I already have one HA Trump supporter openly admit he/she is a cultist. So, it’s not as if I have no basis for assuming there may be more.

Again with the blatant dishonesty. You really love you some misleading and dissembling lies don’t you. You took what someone said completely out of its context and created a false narrative from it. From that false narrative you built a strawman argument. What you have is an individual who was telling you to stuff your insulting and condescending elitist attitude up your baskside.

What is disgusting is just how freely and easily you slander and libel millions of people that you do not even know.

Doubling down on the lie. Oh, and is it slander or libel? There is a difference you know.

I have not lied so it would be impossible to double down on any lie. That you have libeled countless individuals is not in question, as the evidence is right here in this post, documented in excruciating detail.

The question of whether you have slandered anyone is one that must be taken in the context of your documented libel. If you are so freely willing to libel so many so easily with so little provocation, it becomes difficult to believe that behavior you engage in so quickly and freely online is not behavior that you likewise engage in in your real life.

Also, you don’t know me either and you freely imply that I might be a pathological liar.

What is disgusting is that you do not even seem to understand how disgusting and dishonest what you suggested is.

What I have before me are documented statement that you made freely without any coercion and entirely of your own volition. Every single thing I have posited about you is based on those documented record.

When anyone makes a reference to knowing someone, they are not talking about knowing what is in that persons heart or mind, nor are they claiming to know what motivates or motivated them to do or say what they have done or said.

To know someone is to have either a record of their words and deeds, or to remember their words and deeds (which technically is to have a intangible record) that is the only way anyone ever knows another individual.

I am not claiming to know you, I am pointing directly to the record of what you have said. I am taking those words in their full context and subjecting them to a logical analysis and breaking them down to what they mean according to their actual language definitions.

I am comparing them to the documented record of What Donald Trump said and proving beyond any shadow of doubt that you did not accurately reproduce what he said, more importantly, that you did misrepresent not only his actual statement, but what that statement meant.

That furthermore, you went beyond merely misrepresenting what he said and meant, but created a fictional situation from which you engaged in defamatory statements against anyone who supports Mr Trumps candidacy.

As to implying that you were a pathological lair, I didn’t imply anything, I told you it was blatantly and indisputably obvious you were lying then I asked you right straight upfront if you knew that you were lying, or were you incapable of understanding that you were lying.

In other words, I did not imply you were a pathological liar, I asked you if you were a pathological liar.

That many of HA’s Trump supporters act like a cult that will support Trump no matter what he says or does? That suggestion? Well, if the shoe fits, then wear it!

Another of your infamous highly insulting defamatory statements. A group of individuals engaging in political discourse are unwilling to accede to your opinions, positions, assertions, political ideologies and agenda and rather than concede that your arguments have failed to convince them, you elected to hurl derogatory insults and defamatory statements at them.

You strip them of their humanity and hustle them onto metaphorical cattle cars because they refuse to bow down to your superior knowledge and wisdom. You reduce them to members of a feverish crazy religious cult, to simple minded, ignorant and brainwashed to be capable of making decisions for themselves.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

How about you jump off the hyperbole. You sure are thin-skinned for a guy supporting Mr. Anti-PC/straight talker.

You act like a fricking Obama supporter.

Pattosensei on January 25, 2016 at 2:04 AM

You accuse Trump supporters of being cultists because they disagree with you, and will not surrender to you, but at the very same time it is actually you who has embraced the ideology of “The End Justifies the Means“.

It is you hurling derogatory insults and defamatory statements at anyone who refuses to agree with you. It is you who is resorting to willful and intentional misrepresentation and lies in an attempt to sway people to your positions.

No, Donald Trumps political supporters are not cultists, they are just everyday average American citizens participating in America’s political process.

You on the other hand, I asked you straight out, are you a pathological liar? Are you capable of performing a fearless and searching moral inventory of yourself? Can you honestly answer why it is acceptable for you to hold your political beliefs but not for other to hold theirs? Can you explain why it is acceptable for you to attempted to use deceit and intimidation to advance your political agenda? But anyone who does not accept your political opinions and agenda deserves to be stripped of their dignity and humanity at your hands?

I ask you once again, are you a pathological lair, or just a political hack with no morals or ethics willing to commit any atrocity to advance your political agenda.

oscarwilde on January 25, 2016 at 7:12 AM

,…………I ask you once again, are you a pathological lair, or just a political hack with no morals or ethics willing to commit any atrocity to advance your political agenda.

oscarwilde on January 25, 2016 at 7:12 AM

Brutal biatch slapping…..loved every bit of it.

animal02 on January 25, 2016 at 7:45 AM

We are getting freezing drizzle and expect light snow this afternoon…

OmahaConservative on January 25, 2016 at 7:54 AM

Why is Jeb even bothering to come to IA?

OmahaConservative on January 25, 2016 at 7:56 AM

Ted Cruz looks and sounds like Goober Pyle…

OmahaConservative on January 25, 2016 at 8:12 AM

FoxInTheHenHouse Newsless is all in trying to stop Trump.

Just had the brainless Rick Perry on telling how he has a man crush on Cruz.

That should put Trump up 5 more points.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 25, 2016 at 8:17 AM

Rubio…. He I talented.

jake22 on January 25, 2016 at 1:48 AM

Ni, he not.

(Couldn’t resist.)

Fallon on January 25, 2016 at 8:21 AM

Fallon on January 25, 2016 at 8:21 AM

Hey darlin’

OmahaConservative on January 25, 2016 at 8:23 AM

oscarwilde on January 25, 2016 at 7:12 AM

Try to be more succinct. I don’t have the time to devote to this that you obviously do.

It appears I remembered wrong when I was typing the order of things. I apologize for that.

As for the rest of my post, I once again say “physician, heal thyself.” You once again utilize all the definitions of lying to paint me as a liar. The most egregious is your assertion that I called everyone a cultist or that I made some sort of omission lie.

What I implied (many posters on HA are like cultists) has nothing to do with “they say” or not. It was a jab at a specific group of people using their idol’s own words against them. It is irrelevant whether he was explaining the polls or not. But that doesn’t fit your narrative, does it?

Oh, and lies?

I have not lied so it would be impossible to double down on any lie. That you have libeled countless individuals is not in question, as the evidence is right here in this post, documented in excruciating detail.

You straight up accused me of calling “millions of people” cultists when it is plain as day “many commenters at HA.” That is a lie.

You lie again when you say you never responded to that post. That’s where your first accusation of lies came from!

Another of your infamous highly insulting defamatory statements. A group of individuals engaging in political discourse are unwilling to accede to your opinions, positions, assertions, political ideologies and agenda and rather than concede that your arguments have failed to convince them, you elected to hurl derogatory insults and defamatory statements at them.

Infamously? Highly insulting? This is laughably over-the-top. What agenda? I made no arguments before you accused me of lying. In fact, you are using this rhetoric as an attempt to demonize me. Again, hypocritical.

You strip them of their humanity and hustle them onto metaphorical cattle cars because they refuse to bow down to your superior knowledge and wisdom. You reduce them to members of a feverish crazy religious cult, to simple minded, ignorant and brainwashed to be capable of making decisions for themselves.

More demonization…now I’m essentially a Nazi for implying that many posters on HA are like cultists. Don’t bother pretending that the reference to humans in cattle cars isn’t a Nazi reference, you obviously aren’t that dense. Next, add in a bunch of awful things I never said nor implied to make it look really bad.

You accuse Trump supporters of being cultists because they disagree with you, and will not surrender to you, but at the very same time it is actually you who has embraced the ideology of “The End Justifies the Means“.

Where did anyone disagree with me on anything? Who did I ask to surrender? How the hell would you know what ideology I embrace? All because you say so? Every one of these is a baseless assertion.

Can you honestly answer why it is acceptable for you to hold your political beliefs but not for other to hold theirs?

Where does this implication come from? Another attack with no evidence.

But anyone who does not accept your political opinions and agenda deserves to be stripped of their dignity and humanity at your hands?

More assertions and defamation with no factual basis. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of. The worst I’ve done is call you a hypocrite, and that fits because the proof is right here.

I don’t have time to continue with this. I shouldn’t have bothered in the first place. It’s all absurd. It’s all over one stupid little post that took a jab at HA commenters.

Pattosensei on January 25, 2016 at 8:44 AM

oscarwilde on January 25, 2016 at 7:12 AM

Give it a title and sell it on Kindle. No more coffee for you.

troyriser_gopftw on January 25, 2016 at 8:44 AM

OmahaConservative on January 25, 2016 at 8:23 AM

‘Morning, Sweetie. Hope all is well or getting better.

Fallon on January 25, 2016 at 8:52 AM

FoxInTheHenHouse Newsless is all in trying to stop Trump.

Just had the brainless Rick Perry on telling how he has a man crush on Cruz.

That should put Trump up 5 more points.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 25, 2016 at 8:17 AM

‘Brainless’? Former Texas Governor Rick Perry is one of the most successful and capable state governors in modern history. Unlike Trump, Perry didn’t inherit a fortune, attend an exclusive, rich kid military prep school and call it ‘just as good as real military service’, and–insofar as I know–hasn’t gamed eminent domain to force people out of their homes to build a frigging limousine garage. Also unlike Trump, Rick Perry hasn’t made lewd remarks laden with sexual innuendo about his daughter, either.

You Trump people are a strange bunch, doing all you can to alienate those who don’t like your guy but who–if Trump wins the primaries–have to decide whether or not to pull the lever for him in the general election. You’re making a hard decision ten times harder for people like me. Lighten up.

troyriser_gopftw on January 25, 2016 at 9:01 AM

‘Morning, Sweetie. Hope all is well or getting better.

Fallon on January 25, 2016 at 8:52 AM

I am working very hard to make it better…

OmahaConservative on January 25, 2016 at 9:05 AM

You Trump people are a strange bunch, doing all you can to alienate those who don’t like your guy but who–if Trump wins the primaries–have to decide whether or not to pull the lever for him in the general election. You’re making a hard decision ten times harder for people like me. Lighten up.

troyriser_gopftw on January 25, 2016 at 9:01 AM

Be honest, all candidates’ surrogates seem to alienate the opposition in the primary. Trump (and his supporters) did not reinvent the wheel.

The Romniacs were particularly a mean and divisive bunch and yet, I voted for him in the general. Meh.

Fallon on January 25, 2016 at 10:26 AM

Whoa, I did not mean to strike you, lol. Sorry Troy.

Fallon on January 25, 2016 at 10:28 AM

williamg on January 25, 2016 at 12:01 AM
Late, late…but I want to thank you for posting this link…you sent me off on a journey down memory lane. I wound up watching all related videos, I love the Nitty GittyBand, I first saw them live in 1967 they played in concert the headlined by the Doors, along with Jefferson Airplane, great concert! Anyway thanks ….Bkitty

Bakokitty on January 25, 2016 at 11:22 AM

oscarwilde on January 25, 2016 at 7:12 AM

Harsh, Oscar. :-)

Solaratov on January 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM

You’re only interested in banning Muslims.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 4:52 AM

You and your wife are muzzies. Henceforth that’s all the commenters will need to know about you.

Schadenfreude on January 25, 2016 at 3:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6