Skip to main content

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


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

Popular posts from this blog

The problem with fundamentalism, part 2: Religious fundamentalism

This is the second part of a two part series where I discuss the problems I see with two prevalent forms of fundamentalism (the first discussed Constitution and fundamentalism: http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/05/problem-with-fundamentalism-part-1.html ).  In this part, I will be discussing biblical fundamentalism.  I will be referring to sources more frequently here, as I cannot claim the expertise I could for the last installment. Let me start by saying that I understand this is an extremely controversial topic, especially the stance I am taking.  My goal is not to offend, but it is instead to discuss why I think a fundamentalist approach to the Bible (and, in some respects, any text) has insurmountable problems.  I think that most Fundamentalists I know are quite willing to discuss why they believe their hermeneutic approach is the correct one, so my hope is that they are equally sanguine when someone explains why that pathway seems problematic. Here is t...

The problem with fundamentalism, part 1: Constitutional fundamentalism

In this two-part series, I plan on discussing the major issues I see with two prevalent types of fundamentalism: constitutional and biblical.  Though the two need not be related, it appears to me that one often leads to the other. This first installment is on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution.  I have some expertise here, given that I have my JD and an undergraduate in English, so I will rarely be referring to other sources (outside the Constitution itself).  In this discussion, I am defining constitutional fundamentalism as a combination of "originalism" -- look at what the words meant when they were originally written -- and "strict constructionism" -- go strictly by the words on the page, with no reference to anything external, avoiding inferences. Original intent Ethical considerations Before I get into a more textual discussion, first I would like to point out that the founders were extremely flawed, and the document they made was, to mo...

Why COVID-19 is MUCH worse than the seasonal flu

This is the second in a series of posts about the COVID-19 pandemic . This installment is discussing why COVID-19 is much, much worse than the seasonal flu. Here it is, in a nutshell : COVID-19 is more contagious, more deadly, already has more known long-term impacts, has no vaccine or truly effective treatments, and has no apparent seasonality. Contagion SARS-COV-2 is much more contagious. The median R0 (average number of people infected by each person when nobody is immune) is 5.7 , or more optimistically 2.5 . For the pandemic to go away, R0 would need to effectively be less than 1.  The estimate of the 1918 novel flu was between 1.2 and 2.4 .  (An R0 of 5.7 means we need over 80% of the population to be immune to reach effective herd immunity .) Beyond that, the incubation period is long, and the number of transmissions before symptoms begin hovers near half those infected . And the duration of being contagious is longer, up to 10 days after the first symptoms. That means ...