Skip to main content

Election 2016: Trump flaw 3: No idea what he stands for, and he consistently lies #NeverTrump

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016.

I don’t know what Trump believes, and honestly, you don’t, either.  Let’s forget how his website is devoid of policy discussions (compare his to hers).  On every major issue, he changes positions, sometimes hourly. Here is one compiled list of flip flops.  Don’t believe NBC (maybe because it’s a member of the “mainstream media” and relies on “facts” to do “reporting”)? We can look to Rush Limbaugh to hear him laugh over a flip.  Of course, Trump flopped back later.

Is abortion the litmus test? “I’m very pro-choice,” Trump said in 1999. “I hate the idea of abortion, I hate it … But you still – I just believe in choice.” Russert’s follow-up question is whether Trump would ban partial-birth abortion. “No,” Trump clearly says.  Fast forward to 2011, when he tells the Conservative Political Action Congress that he is “pro-life [and] against gun control.”   In 2016, he not only disagrees with his original position, but he disagrees with himself 3 or 4 times within a single day.  None of this is to question someone’s right to change their mind; indeed, the ability to reconsider past positions in light of new evidence should be a mark of wisdom. It is to say that I honestly have no idea what he believes here, and it certainly seems like his ideas are flexible and murky. That would seem to be questionable to the true pro-lifers.

He flipped on both the Iraq and the Afghanistan wars, and then he has repeatedly lied about how he was against the Iraq war.

Maybe you think Israel is important? Trump surprised the world when he said that he would be neutral in relation to one of our biggest allies in the world: “I want to be very neutral and see if I can get both sides together,” he said in December, and reiterated it in February. But later he said that “the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one.”   A bit later, he said that “nobody is more pro-Israel” than he is.  What does that mean?  I don’t know.

Maybe he just doesn’t know the law, like when he says that torture works, and when he was told that military officers could and should disobey illegal orders by the Commander-in-Chief, he responded, “Frankly, when I say they'll do as I tell them, they'll do as I tell them.”   He walked the remarks back the next day.

And maybe you just hate Hillary. Trump praised her and her policies as recently as March, 2012: “[S]he really works hard and I think she does a good job.”  Maybe you think the Iran deal is one of the worst deals ever made, and that Hillary is a horrible negotiator. Trump didn’t, in 2007, when he said she would make a good deal in Iran.

Here is another list of big flip-flops, for your perusal.

One reason that he gets away with these is that they are somewhat pale when put against his legion of lies. All politicians spin facts, but his controversial statements are more likely to be false than true.  See Politifact (the Pulitzer-prize winning organization) or FactCheck.org.  I know that some think that any fact checkers must be liberal, but you can always read the underlying sources.

The truth is that Trump lies, and is often caught red-handed in his lies and doubles down, like continuing to say that he was opposed to the Iraq war before it started; or that he didn’t hear the name “David Duke” even when he said the name himself; or that he saw thousands and thousands cheering in New Jersey as the Towers came down; or that we are the most highly taxed nation in the world. These claims earned him the dubious distinction of 2015 Lie of the Year from Politifact. 

Politicians are known for spinning the truth, but Trump claims to be a “straight shooter” and not a politician, able to avoid “political correctness.” But he can be compared against Nixon, Reagan (the“Teflon President”), or even McCarthy, while Clinton appears to simply be a normal politician.

I don’t know what Trump really believes on the most important points in the election.  I don’t even know if he knows. His mendacity makes him unfit to serve, in my opinion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to read the Bill of Rights

The legal rights in the Bill of Rights didn't exist until the 20th century Social media has been abuzz with the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 1st Amendment, recently. Many posts, explicitly or implicitly, trace the Bill of Rights to the Founders.  That's wrong and leads to a poor understanding. A proper reading of the Constitution and the law reveals that, while the text was written then, these rights did not apply even on paper to the states until 1868, in fact until the middle of the 20th century, or even into the 21st century for the 2nd Amendment. “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” The Constitution sets out principles and goals, structures and limitations, and we must never forget that . It is law -- the highest law of the land , in fact -- but it is not code , which is detailed and often attempts to be exhaustively complete and explicit. The Constitution was written to provide a framework of balances by a group of  flawed aristocrats trying to rebel from ano
Post a Comment
Read more

Election 2016: Why Hillary’s conflated scandals are unconvincing #ImWithHer

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016 . To be honest, I’ve stopped listening to most of the scandals about Hillary. That’s not because I think she is perfect or would never do something scandalous, but because the noise of obvious crap, generated over 3 decades, has made me jaded about spending any time investigating stories by people who think Killary is a fascist Communist. To be clear, I think she is an imperfect human. We don’t subject most politicians to the kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced – how much do we know about George and Laura’s relationship, or his struggles with addiction, for instance?  But she isn’t perfect.  I think she is a bit paranoid and has a tendency to “circle the wagons” at the slightest sign of problems, and I think she is a fierce competitor that swings first and asks questions later. Like all successful politicians, she is willing to spin the truth to meet her needs, and she comes across, in crowd settings, as a bit fake.  Unlik
Post a Comment
Read more

Astrologists and racists, or this is where the party ends

How are astrologists like racists?  There could be a funny one-liner response to that, I'm sure, but the answer I'm looking for is simple:  They are lazy thinkers. I'm going to spend a few paragraphs here doing a cursory job of debunking both viewpoints and showing why they are lazy, but I'm not going to go into much detail, as that's not the real point I want to make. Astrology:  Really?  You honestly think that 1/12th of the human race will have the same general set of experiences based on when they were born?  (This is assuming the "normal" Zodiac, though a similar thing can be said about, for instance, the Chinese Zodiac, and this is ignoring the silliness added in by distinguishing between "Sun signs" and "moon signs.")  Do you realize that these signs were based on people believing some quite inaccurate things about the stars (like virtually anything besides that they are gaseous giants that are light years away)?  Did you kno
2 comments
Read more