Trump and Carson -- Shared Delusions (or straight up lies?)



Aside from all of his other unsubstantiated fear-mongering claims (lapped up by his like-minded followers), Trump is doubling down on his claim that he saw with his own eyes "thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering when the twin towers went down on 9/11." He says he saw the videos on t.v. and read about it on the internet too.

Trump is full of shit. No such video exists and there is no evidence that anything of the kind ever happened. Every fact checker has debunked his claims, as have authorities and fellow GOP candidates. But, that's not stopping his supporters from tweeting that they too saw the (imaginary) news videos.

Shortly after Trump first made the claim, Ben Carson was asked about it in an interview. Carson claimed that he too had seen the video of New Jersey Muslims celebrating the attacks. However, yesterday, he went on FOX News and attempted to back-peddle. He now claims that the media twisted his words and he meant that he'd seen some videos of Muslims celebrating, but he didn't know where those Muslims were located. More bullshit. Carson was specifically asked about Muslims IN NEW JERSEY when he supported Trump's false claim.

Sad state of affairs for Republicans when these two clowns are leading the GOP race. Incredibly good ammunition for the Democratic party, however.

Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/d...tember-11/

This may or may not work an interesting read though.

IT’S HARD TO know who is stretching the truth more these days, Donald Trump or the reporters covering his increasingly bizarre campaign.

Last week, Trump supposedly called for a national database to register all Muslims in America, a reprehensible and unconstitutional idea. Except he didn’t.

Yahoo reporter Hunter Walker asked Trump if he favored registering Muslims in a database. Trump steamrolled over the question, gave a rambling answer about having “to look at a lot of things closely” and pivoted to the need to articulate radical Islamic terrorism as our enemy. The story quickly morphed from “Trump won’t rule out Muslim registry” to “Trump would register all Muslims.” Rival candidates in both parties denounced the comments. Trump both denied he said it, but confused the issue by conflating all Muslims with incoming refugees.

Trump’s blustery interview style pays so little attention to the questions being posed that it’s often hard to know what exactly he’s supporting or opposing. For a truth-telling tough guy, he lets reporters lead him down dark alleys full of hypotheticals and bad ideas. His own proposals are so thin on details that supporters or opponents can project whatever good or bad ideas they imagine.

On Saturday, Trump spun another confusing yarn, which the press exaggerated even further.

Recounting events from 9/11, Trump claimed that American Muslims cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center.

“I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, when thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down,” Trump told a rally in Birmingham, Ala. Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler pounced, writing that while there were reports of Muslims overseas celebrating the attack on America, there was “nothing that we can find involving the Arab populations of New Jersey.”

Which is strange, since Kessler apparently didn’t bother checking his own paper, which reported on Sept. 18, 2001, that Jersey City police questioned “a number of people” who allegedly celebrated the attacks on rooftops from across the river.

Here, Trump not only took as fact a single item published without any supporting evidence, but massively exaggerated the number of people involved, and put himself as an eye witness. That should be shocking enough to warrant a story, but Kessler couldn’t be bothered to find the kernel of evidence behind the trumped up claim.

At that same Birmingham rally, CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond tweeted that a black protester “was shoved, tackled, punched & kicked”, though the video he posted fails to show any such violence. Mercutio Southall Jr., who the Washington Post reports has a history of being arrested at political protests, disrupted the rally, and was eventually taken out of the room by Trump supporters and security.

The cellphone footage I’ve seen shows that Southall is exaggerating his treatment, and that he seemed to be instigating physical contact. I’m open to the idea that someone else in the crowd started the shoving. But the story was too good, and media outlets repeated as fact that Trump supporters had attacked a protester. Maybe that’s what happened, but I haven’t seen anything to back Southall’s account. Protesters who try to shout down candidates at political rallies are counterproductive. They help the very candidates they oppose, engendering sympathy from a crowd that showed up to hear what the candidate had to say. Trump has helped himself in such situations before. Instead, he kept digging, saying Sunday that “maybe he should have been roughed up” for disrupting the rally.

Good grief. The press blamed Trump supporters for beating up a protester, which may not have even happened, and instead of denouncing such behavior, Trump endorsed it.

It’s not that Trump is trying to lie. He just doesn’t care enough to learn the truth. Instead of sharing half-baked stories on Facebook, Trump puts them in his speeches. He recently retweeted specious crime data that originated from a white supremacist group.

I doubt Trump knew where the numbers came from. He didn’t care enough to check.

There’s no credibility to anything Trump says. And it must be contagious. You can’t believe anything from the reporters covering Trump either.

.

Grant Bosse is the Editorial Page Editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader.

It's Trump.

I'm not the media, and I'm someone who's voted Republican before and may again.

Trump caters to the ignorant and/or paranoid, in my opinion. I listen to some of what he says and know immediately that it's bullshit. Then, I research and confirm it's bullshit. It has nothing to do with the media. I'm not a rocket scientist, just not ignorant and not paranoid.

Carson's worse, just listening to his own words out of his own mouth (without any media twist on it) is jaw dropping at times.

If I could only vote for either Carson or Trump, I'd vote for Trump. But, I'd vote for any of the other candidates from either party before I'd vote for either of those two clowns.

I often feel like he is handing Hillary the Presidency on a silver platter.

The closer it gets to the election the worse it will get. Its all about them ya know. And the media does wank itself to death quite a bit.

I'm beginning to like Rubio and I can see him gaining traction in the coming months. His ability to speak Spanish will help him gain the latino/Mexican vote. There are quite a few that have come to the country and did what was required to gain citizenship and they get pissed when someone gets a free ride.

Rubio will never get it and that's some kinda shame. I Predicted Jeb a long time ago, we need someone to reconnect with our partners through established channels that have been shunned by the current administration. Seems the the sooner the better to me.

I think it's most likely gonna come down to Rubio vs. Clinton a year from now.

Why do you think Rubio hasn't a chance, Biggie?

Donald Trump is running around the country lying his ass off. I feel like that's only a very slight exaggeration. Depending on how I feel in that moment is how I take him, sometimes I laugh and roll my eyes and other times I mutter "lyin' muthafucka" at the television.

He's keeping up with the Clintons at least.

(11-28-2015, 06:37 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I think it's most likely gonna come down to Rubio vs. Clinton a year from now.

Why do you think Rubio hasn't a chance, Biggie?

Cruz v Clinton. They are both strategists. Rubio's only strategy is to make bank off of old guys.
They love his breathing beauty pageant presentation.

(11-29-2015, 06:26 PM)Adub Wrote:

(11-28-2015, 06:37 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I think it's most likely gonna come down to Rubio vs. Clinton a year from now.

Why do you think Rubio hasn't a chance, Biggie?

Cruz v Clinton. They are both strategists. Rubio's only strategy is to make bank off of old guys.
They love his breathing beauty pageant presentation.

Could be, Adub.

I think it's either gonna be Rubio, Cruz or Bush who ends up facing off against Clinton.

I wish Kasich or Graham had a chance of getting the GOP nod, but I think they're both too moderate, inclusive, and willing to work bi-partisan to garner enough support in today's Republican Party.

Cruz is too extreme right and has alienated too many establishment GOPers to get the nod for 2016, I suspect.

That leaves Rubio -- aggressive, articulate, Hispanic, conservative, smart, young, power money backed... I think Rubio could not only appeal to more Independents than Cruz (particularly in terms of immigration), he might steal some wavering Democrats who really don't like Hillary Clinton; wavering Democrats who consider Hillary Clinton equally hawkish and establishment-entrenched as her Republican rivals.

As for Bush, if he can up his game in terms of projecting confidence and leadership qualities, I think he has a chance.

I think Trump and Carson will implode over the next few months and they'll leave a lot of Republicans looking more favorably at establishment/familiar politicians again as the election approaches.

Bush, in my opinion, is the most "what you see is what you get" candidate in the race.

Cruz vs. Rubio on Foreign Policy

I actually agree with Ted Cruz's claimed foreign policy position more so than that of most of the other 2016 candidates.

I think that the U.S.'s toppling Saddam's regime under the Bush administration led to more harm than good for Iraqis (and global security).

The U.S. support of Mubarik's ouster in Egypt, and the regime change in Yemen, has also failed to lead to increased stability in those countries.

And, I agree with Cruz that Obama's and Clinton's toppling of Qaddafi led to more harm than good for Libyans (and global security).

Cruz is criticizing Rubio for supporting ^ those interventionist foreign policies. Cruz believes that the U.S. should stay out of conflicts in other countries unless there is an immediate threat to the U.S., and he believes that attempting to democratize Middle Eastern societies can be counterproductive. The U.S. military, in his view, should be focused narrowly on protecting U.S. interests.

I disagree with Cruz and agree with Rubio when it comes to NSA surveillance in the U.S. however. I think such screening for potential terrorist activity at home is more important now than ever. I don't know of any criminal case where authorities used info gathered from anti-terror surveillance to prosecute a citizen for non-terror related crimes (THAT is something to which I'd object strongly).

Story: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...ry-clinton

(12-01-2015, 11:52 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Cruz vs. Rubio on Foreign Policy

I actually agree with Ted Cruz's claimed foreign policy position more so than that of most of the other 2016 candidates.

I think that the U.S.'s toppling Saddam's regime under the Bush administration led to more harm than good for Iraqis (and global security).

The U.S. support of Mubarik's ouster in Egypt, and the regime change in Yemen, has also failed to lead to increased stability in those countries.

And, I agree with Cruz that Obama's and Clinton's toppling of Qaddafi led to more harm than good for Libyans (and global security).

Cruz is criticizing Rubio for supporting ^ those interventionist foreign policies. Cruz believes that the U.S. should stay out of conflicts in other countries unless there is an immediate threat to the U.S., and he believes that attempting to democratize Middle Eastern societies can be counterproductive. The U.S. military, in his view, should be focused narrowly on protecting U.S. interests.

I disagree with Cruz and agree with Rubio when it comes to NSA surveillance in the U.S. however. I think such screening for potential terrorist activity at home is more important now than ever. I don't know of any criminal case where authorities used info gathered from anti-terror surveillance to prosecute a citizen for non-terror related crimes (THAT is something to which I'd object strongly).

Story: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...ry-clinton

Obama has taken the "do nothing" path with Syria since 2012. That's not turning out so good for us.

(12-01-2015, 02:56 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Obama has taken the "do nothing" path with Syria since 2012. That's not turning out so good for us.

That's one take on it. But, would directly intervening in Syria's civil war really have been more in America's best interest?

Another take on it: had the U.S. intervened with no clear or qualified leadership to fill the power vacuum left by Assad's (secular) regime, the U.S. would likely have once again taken sides in a civil war or coup (like Egypt and Yemen and Libya) only to see the investment of American lives and dollars lead to even more unrest and destabilization.

(12-02-2015, 03:21 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(12-01-2015, 02:56 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Obama has taken the "do nothing" path with Syria since 2012. That's not turning out so good for us.

That's one take on it. But, would directly intervening in Syria's civil war really have been more in America's best interest?

Another take on it: had the U.S. intervened with no clear or qualified leadership to fill the power vacuum left by Assad's (secular) regime, the U.S. would likely have once again taken sides in a civil war or coup (like Egypt and Yemen and Libya) only to see the investment of American lives and dollars lead to even more unrest and destabilization.

I'm not a politician or a fortune teller like Mr. Cruz so for me it's difficult to say what could or would have happened if did or didn't. Currently ISIS has a state and a home base in Syria. This was a bit of an eye opener for me.

Good for Obama. Crying shame another President couldn't have shown some restraint.

(12-02-2015, 02:33 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Good for Obama. Crying shame another President couldn't have shown some restraint.

"To understand where we need to go in Iraq, it is important for the American people to understand where we now stand," the president said on a visit to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, a month after taking office. "Thanks in great measure to your service, and you sacrifice and your families' sacrifice, the situation in Iraq has improved."

(12-02-2015, 03:12 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: "Thanks in great measure to your service, and you sacrifice and your families' sacrifice, the situation in Iraq has improved."

I'd give that comment some weight if the people of Iraq were saying it.