4 ms·

Shame on you. You don't like his politics, fine, but cut the propaganda. > Lying about his past support for the Iraq war Go watch his Howard Stern interview y

Shame on you. You don't like his politics, fine, but cut the propaganda. > Lying about his past support for the Iraq war Go watch his Howard Stern interview yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OU_Vrb_QXo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OU_Vrb_QXo. Listen at how indecisive he is for that question compared to the rest of the interview. It's wishy washy. It's hesitant. It's not a statement of support to call someone a liar over, unless you have an agenda.

mwpmaybe 10y ago
"I was totally against the war in Iraq." — Donald Trump on NBC News in 2016[0] That's a lie, and one he's repeated often. Wishy-washy, hesitant support for a thing is not the same as being totally against a thing. His assertion that he was in opposition to it from the very beginning is a deliberate, egregious misrepresentation of his past views intended to convey authority on a subject that he simply does not possess. I'll update the wording of my initial point to be more clear, since you have my original wording quoted here for posterity. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/the-first-hillary-clinton-vs-donald-trump-showdown-of-2016-annotated/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/th...
- SnowFace 10y ago
  "Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he’ll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn’t have. - Trump in Esquire 2004
  - mwpmaybe 10y ago
    Sure. A lot of people were against it after it started, especially when it began to go south. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about statements like this: "[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on 8-Sep-2016[0] Considering that the vote was on 11-Oct-2002, and we have audio of Trump expressing hesitant, wishy-washy support for the war on 11-Sep-2002, that is almost certainly not true. 0. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-09-10/ap-fact-check-trumps-false-claim-of-opposing-the-iraq-war https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-09-10/ap-...
    - SnowFace 10y ago
      You're trying to put his statement into a different context now. I thought we were talking about him saying that he was totally against the war in Iraq, which he was. So we agree that wasn't a lie. > "[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on September 8th, 2016[0] You can't disprove a hypothetical situation that never happened to call him a liar. Who knows what he would have done if he had been in congress instead of a businessman. It's clear though he was questioning it publicly as early as 2003 in the Cavuto interview, which was before the war started, and came out totally against it publicly in 2004 less than a year after it started. Who knows what he was saying privately before that. You don't know. This isn't grounds to call him a liar.
      - zepto 10y ago
        Being against the war after it started is utterly irrelevant. If you remove that from your defense of him, there is nothing left. He was weakly in support of the war before it started. That is a fact. When he says he was against the way, he says it to differentiate himself from the people who voted for it. When he does that, he is lying. There is no evidence whatever to support any other conclusion. Anything that comes from after the war was in progress is of no relevance.
        SnowFace 10y ago
        > Being against the war after it started is utterly irrelevant. It’s not irrelevant when someone claims "I was totally against the war in Iraq” is a lie. That's provably true. > He was weakly in support of the war before it started. That is a fact. Very weakly after he was asked the question for the first time. It’s utterly irrelevant. > When he says he was against the way, he says it to differentiate himself from the people who voted for it. Yes. Because those that voted for the war did not come out against it until much later, if they even did at all. He came out against it early. > When he does that, he is lying. Nope. That doesn't follow from what you wrote. Do you want to try again?
        SnowFace 10y ago
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
dang 10y ago
> Shame on you. You don't like his politics, fine, but cut the propaganda. You can't address other users like that on Hacker News, so please don't do it again. Also, this account has been using HN exclusively for political battle. That's an abuse of this site and we ban accounts that do it. The purpose of HN is to gratify intellectual curiosity. It can't both be that kind of site and a political battlefield.

mwpmaybe 10y ago

"I was totally against the war in Iraq." — Donald Trump on NBC News in 2016[0] That's a lie, and one he's repeated often. Wishy-washy, hesitant support for a thing is not the same as being totally against a thing. His assertion that he was in opposition to it from the very beginning is a deliberate, egregious misrepresentation of his past views intended to convey authority on a subject that he simply does not possess. I'll update the wording of my initial point to be more clear, since you have my original wording quoted here for posterity. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/the-first-hillary-clinton-vs-donald-trump-showdown-of-2016-annotated/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/th...

SnowFace 10y ago
"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he’ll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn’t have. - Trump in Esquire 2004
- mwpmaybe 10y ago
  Sure. A lot of people were against it after it started, especially when it began to go south. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about statements like this: "[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on 8-Sep-2016[0] Considering that the vote was on 11-Oct-2002, and we have audio of Trump expressing hesitant, wishy-washy support for the war on 11-Sep-2002, that is almost certainly not true. 0. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-09-10/ap-fact-check-trumps-false-claim-of-opposing-the-iraq-war https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-09-10/ap-...
  - SnowFace 10y ago
    You're trying to put his statement into a different context now. I thought we were talking about him saying that he was totally against the war in Iraq, which he was. So we agree that wasn't a lie. > "[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on September 8th, 2016[0] You can't disprove a hypothetical situation that never happened to call him a liar. Who knows what he would have done if he had been in congress instead of a businessman. It's clear though he was questioning it publicly as early as 2003 in the Cavuto interview, which was before the war started, and came out totally against it publicly in 2004 less than a year after it started. Who knows what he was saying privately before that. You don't know. This isn't grounds to call him a liar.
    - zepto 10y ago
      Being against the war after it started is utterly irrelevant. If you remove that from your defense of him, there is nothing left. He was weakly in support of the war before it started. That is a fact. When he says he was against the way, he says it to differentiate himself from the people who voted for it. When he does that, he is lying. There is no evidence whatever to support any other conclusion. Anything that comes from after the war was in progress is of no relevance.
      - SnowFace 10y ago
        > Being against the war after it started is utterly irrelevant. It’s not irrelevant when someone claims "I was totally against the war in Iraq” is a lie. That's provably true. > He was weakly in support of the war before it started. That is a fact. Very weakly after he was asked the question for the first time. It’s utterly irrelevant. > When he says he was against the way, he says it to differentiate himself from the people who voted for it. Yes. Because those that voted for the war did not come out against it until much later, if they even did at all. He came out against it early. > When he does that, he is lying. Nope. That doesn't follow from what you wrote. Do you want to try again?
      - SnowFace 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

dang 10y ago

> Shame on you. You don't like his politics, fine, but cut the propaganda. You can't address other users like that on Hacker News, so please don't do it again. Also, this account has been using HN exclusively for political battle. That's an abuse of this site and we ban accounts that do it. The purpose of HN is to gratify intellectual curiosity. It can't both be that kind of site and a political battlefield.