Trump's Twitter Promise

Author: Barney
Donald Trump
Memories
Facebook
Twitter

Posts

Total: 12
Topic's author
#1
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Interesting Facebook memory popped up yesterday, which included an informal debate I had with a fellow debater with whom I had respected and been Facebook friends.

Going to share the conversation below, but in essence...
Ragnar: "the irony of Trump's promise to cease with Twitter is just hilarious"
Other Guy: "How did a remark about twitter become a binding contract, the violation of which is a hanging offense?"

Just sharing the worst conversation line. For context, in the one that immediately preceded this one, I was very directly praising one of Trump's promises for being a great idea, regardless of it it ever became the law of the land (“for every new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated”); so this wasn't started with me looking like some frothing at the mouth Trump-hater.
Topic's author
#2
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
[START]

Initial Post:
“I tweeted today. At ‘realdonaldtrump,’ I tweet. You know it… don’t worry, I’ll give it up after I’m president. We won’t tweet anymore, I don’t think. Not presidential.”

Other Guy:
Let's just say the ThinkProgress list is unreliable. Trump said he would repeal Obamacare immediately, and it's over a month now so Trump lied. Ryan said today he expects repeal and replace by August. I'll grant that Trump is annoyingly imprecise and annoyingly hyperbolic, but few Trump supporters care about precision that ThinkProgress thinks so important. Did it bother any Obama supporter that Obama lied about keeping your doctor or about stopping the rise of the oceans?

---
Ragnar:
Obama honored so many campaign promises... ones made by John McCain.
Anyway I only shared due to the Twitter promise.

---
Other Guy:
Well, then the question is whether Trump lied about giving up Twitter or whether he changed his mind. Obama said that Obamacare would be discussed openly and that there would be no secret deals. Obama wasn't in office for a month before he violated that pledge. Democrats refused to have hearings and Obama did everything behind closed doors. So did Obama lie or change his mind? He said he changed his mind.

---

Ragnar:
Obama could be an angel or a devil, and it would have no baring on if Trump did or did not honor his word on something that is 100% within his power, and further honoring his word would require doing absolutely nothing.

As for if future tense lies exist... Of course they do, if someone borrows money from you, and later decides they don't feel like paying you back (not talking about changed financial means preventing it, merely their mood), I highly doubt you consider them to have not acted in deceit.

---

Other Guy:
Ragnar Are you claiming that it is immoral --or a sign of poor character-- to change one's mind on deciding whether to use twitter or not? Lies do exist. We know the claim "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" is a lie because Gruber revealed that it was known by Obama to be false when Obama said, and Obama said it with the intent to deceive. There is no evidence of intent to deceive in Trump saying he wouldn't tweet; he changed his mind when he discovered how well it worked for him. I think it is a fair criticism of Trump that he makes pronouncements without tinking things through. He also unnecessarily exaggerates -- like the "Mexican" judge comment. I think any president should speak carefully. Trump is on record as saying that the way to negotiate is to start with an outrageous position and then back off from it. He has a bad habit of being outrageous when it isn't necessary. But no, posturing and hyperbole are not the same as deliberately lying to sell a political policy. Ideologues like Obama have all the answers and never change positions. Trump is not an ideologue, so he is able to change positions.

---

Ragnar:
1. My what part of "the irony of Trump's promise to cease with Twitter is just hilarious," do you not understand? Love or hate the guy, this is funny.

2. Unless you think Trump and Obama are the same person, why do you keep bringing up Obama even after it's been outlined this is not a discussion of Obama?

3. Your argument for violating your word based on it working well, was in direct response to the debt analogy. Following the analogy under discussion, but applying a real world example to it: yes, I do consider the con artists I met at church to be "immoral," having "poor character." Them changing their mind based on how well keeping my money worked for them, in no way absolves them. Your argument that it's in no way a lie, does not change the benefit recieved and harm done by the falsehood.

4. Call intentional falsehoods lies or changing ones mind, it still indicates a shortage on integrity. ... such is common on politicians, but see point #1.

---

Other Guy:
1. It is ironic that Trump has come to use twitter so much.

2. Because the issue is distinguishing among lies, mistakes, and changing one's mind. A "lie" requires an intent to deceive, so I gave an example from Obama of proof of intent to deceive. It's unlikely that Trump intended to deceive about using twitter.

3. I don't think Trump received any benefit from changing his mind on using twitter, except the benefit of communicating more directly. The people who care about it would never have voted for him anyway. It is characteristic of business people to change their minds when something works or doesn't work. For Trump, "His supporters took him seriously, but literally while his opponents took him literally but not seriously." You are in the latter category. I don't excuse Trump's loose talk and endless hyperbole on many things. No president should do that. But I understand it for what it is.
I don't know your church story, but I grant that churches pull cons.

4. No, changing one's mind is not an intentional falsehood. The person stated what he believed to be true when he said it, so it's not a lie. Everyone is free to dislike the change or to like it, that's not the issue. George H.W. Bush said "no new taxes," and I think he meant it. But then he raised taxes saying he was forced to by unforeseen circumstances. Voters didn't like it, with the result that he lost the next election. I don't have a problem with your not liking Trump using twitter. I'm not fond of it myself. But I doubt it was a lie.

Other Guy:
Lying is making a statement known by the speaker to be false with the intent to deceive.

"I took a 20 question math test and answered 17 correctly."
"So you lied about the other three?"
"No, I didn't know at the time the answers were wrong. Those were mistakes, not lies."

"I can shoot someone and get away with it because of celebrity."
"That was a lie because you know you couldn't get away with it."
"No, you and everyone else recognizes it is obviously false, so there is no intent to deceive. Jokes and sarcasm are not lies."

"I talked to a million people and everyone agreed with me."
"That's a lie. You know you didn't talk to a million people."
"It's obvious that I didn't talk to a million people, so there was no intent to deceive. It was obvious exaggeration with no intent to deceive."

The last two examples call upon something being obvious. What is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another, and everyone can face a borderline case. If you say you talked to thirty people, maybe it's true, maybe it's hyperbole and maybe it's a lie.

Topic's author
#3
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Ragnar:
When you cite Bush being forced to raise taxes due to circumstances, you are sidestepping the issue. Trump is choosing to actively take action with the intent to break his word (that or he slips and falls on his keyboard, and the Twitting just happens...).

It is not comparable to a math test. To make that comparison, the test taker would have to magically change the rules of math after the fact to make their former statements falsehoods. We're talking about vows for future activity. Not a hypothetical statement of what someone could get away with doing, not exaggerating past actions.

Again, this is not anything outside of him causing his word to be broken, this is not congress blocking him from not logging into Twitter, but his own active choice. We can baby him and say he doesn't have the mental faculties for his word to be meaningful, or we can treat him like an adult who made the choice to break his word.

---

Other Guy:
Ragnar Bush could, of course, have not raised taxes. He chose to because he believed it was better than the other options, even though it broke his pledge.

I think it it is ridiculous to claim that a person should never change their plan when they realize that an alternative is better. for example, suppose a student says they will go a certain school. Then they learn more and decide to go to different school. Nothing forced the change, they just thought better of it. Is the person then immoral scum for making a different choice? Have you ever changed plans from what you originally planned, even though you were not forced too? I have.

---

Ragnar:
Who has said a person should never change their plans? The choice will always be in front of everyone, however the obvious penalty for constantly breaking your word even is that your word becomes worth less and less, and people call you out for it.

As with the con artist example, for them stealing from people is as you'd put it "better than the other options," but it still means they have intentionally committed deceit, and therefore their integrity is in question, marking them as "immoral scum."

Again: "We can baby him and say he doesn't have the mental faculties for his word to be meaningful, or we can treat him like an adult who made the choice to break his word." Which would you prefer?

---

Other Guy:
Ragnar Explain how Trump's changing his mind to tweet rather than not tweet stole from the people. I don't get that at all. If you had built your life around Trump saying he wouldn't tweet and were then crushed when he did you might have a point.

I don't get your point that a con artist stealing is better than other options. If an elected politician says he will do X, and then does Y on the grounds that he decided Y was better, nothing is stolen. I agree that not doing X means the politician's credibility is less, but if the politician's honest opinion is that Y is better for all concerned, then he is obliged to do Y. Are you saying that following through is more important than doing what the person believes is best. If voters think the change was not justified they can speak by voting in the next election.

Explain why you call changing your mind "intentional deceit." Do you really think it is exactly the same as a lie made to deceive from the outset? I am having a hard time believing you cannot tell the difference. "We planned to vacation in Chile, but we changed plans due to the earthquake." "We could have persisted and gone anyway. You are lying scum."

I don't see how you could ever succeed in business with the principle that you always proceed as planned, no matter how many more favorable alternatives are discovered. It makes not sense. Please tell me when, in your aopinion, it is good to change plans. Is it only when forced at gunpoint?

---

Ragnar:
Other Guy 1. When did I say he stole from people? I've been straight forward that he committed a funny blunder; I haven't gone off and said he should be impeached over it, or that he's a Nazi over it, or anything else (not even what he said against himself on issue), merely that he committed a funny blunder. 2. He gave a verbal contract that if enough people voted for him that he won, he would cease a minor activity which was wholly in his power. Even if they would have voted for him anyway, either he did honor his word (or at least attempt to), or his word is worth less (not to say worthless).

I have to use to con artist example to counter you continued claim that no future tense lies exist.

"I don't see how you could ever succeed in business with the principle that you always proceed as planned, no matter how many more favorable alternatives are discovered."
WTF is wrong with you? I already stated "Who has said a person should never change their plans? The choice will always be in front of everyone, however the obvious penalty for constantly breaking your word even is that your word becomes worth less and less, and people call you out for it." (how the fuck do you take that to mean no one should ever change any plans?)

I have not disagreed with Bush changing his plans, which is a fine example as circumstances changed from those when he gave his word. I have not disagreed with Obama changing his plans when faced with reality once he was elected (as much as I already threw a joke about it). Your entire problem is that people should not so much as be called out for breaking their word. If I break a business deal, I'll face being called out on it, in addition to possible legal action; yet I might have to do that at times, but I am an adult who makes adult decisions, rather than a someone who "doesn't have the mental faculties for his word to be meaningful," which you seem to be arguing our president to be, while complaining that anyone hopes for better from him.

---

Other Guy:
Ragnar asks "When did I say he stole from people?" You said, "As with the con artist example, for them stealing from people is as you'd put it "better than the other options," ..." You said Trump was a con artist. That implies that you believe that Trump planned deceit in order to get something that he did not merit; that he stole something.

You say people can change their minds. I shed you under shat circumstance was it justified to change, and you didn't respond. So while at once acknowledging that change can be justified, you say, "[Trump] gave a verbal contract that if enough people voted for him that he won, he would cease a minor activity which was wholly in his power...." You imply it perfectly okay for an ordinary person to change their mind, presumably when the change is justified by it being a better course of action, but in the case of Trump a casual remark about a trivial matter ought to binding as if it were a legal commitment. You should respond to my question and give me the rule you are using by which you determine when it's justified to change course and when it not. How did a remark about twitter become a binding contract, the violation of which is a hanging offense? As far as I can tell from what you have said, the distinction is solely that you hate Trump.

My purpose is to distinguish among (a) lies done deliberately with intent to deceive (If you like your doctor), (b) mistakes (mistaken answers), (c) changes brought by reconsideration or new evidence (Bush, Sr. new taxes), (d) hyperbole (exaggeration for effect), and (e) sarcasm ("I can shoot anyone and get away with it ..."). I said that it is fair to point out a change of direction and to decide if that affects who you vote for. But it is not fair to consider everything equivalent to a lie conjured up to perpetuate a scam. "If you like your doctor .." was a flat out lie told to perpetuate a scam. Deciding to tweet was a change in policy based upon subsequent experience.

You are free to hate Trump all you want but don't conflate lies with changes.

---

Ragnar:
Other Guy you have gone off the deep end of insanity, even insisting that any business person who so much as keeps their word in mind when evaluating actions will never succeed. Like how when you order from Amazon they just pocket the money and never bother to mail anyone anything (sarcasm).

You've even had to pretend to be illiterate during this conversation, and cannot reply to the direct quotes being called out in context.

Now you're outright insisting that I claimed Trump should be hanged for using Twitter ("violation of which is a hanging offense"). That you can no longer tell the difference between mild mockery, and calls for outright execution, show that you've turned into a complete moron.

[END]
#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Knowing you, this isn't the full story and you're just posting this to feel good about yourself at the expense of someone who had been your friend until this particular disagreement.

I've spent enough time interacting with you to know the word and concept of 'friend' and 'respect' don't mean as much to you as they do to most people. I also don't get why you needed to share this with everyone who you already know are going to ask 'ooooh which debater was that?' 

I'm not saying I agree with 'other guy', however if this was a private PM and you were the initiator as this implies, I think you knowingly baited him more and more as things progressed, knowing he heavily supports Trump until finally he reacted to you.

#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Barney
My purpose is to distinguish among (a) lies done deliberately with intent to deceive (If you like your doctor), (b) mistakes (mistaken answers), (c) changes brought by reconsideration or new evidence (Bush, Sr. new taxes), (d) hyperbole (exaggeration for effect), and (e) sarcasm ("I can shoot anyone and get away with it ..."). I said that it is fair to point out a change of direction and to decide if that affects who you vote for. But it is not fair to consider everything equivalent to a lie conjured up to perpetuate a scam. "If you like your doctor .." was a flat out lie told to perpetuate a scam. Deciding to tweet was a change in policy based upon subsequent experience.
This is the only important takeaway from the entire conversation.

The toxic Virtue Signaling environment we have today emotionally rewards people for labeling all people they do not like as liars without even superficially pretending to go through the process of evaluating the intent of the source. Little wonder there exists a frequently accessed archived repository of incalculable amounts of "Trump Lies."
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The difference between saying Trump is "wrong" over Trump is "evil" is that one is a violation and one is not.
Topic's author
#7
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Knowing you, this isn't the full story
In the first post here, the final paragraph gave added context, literally labeled with that: "For context, in the [reply set] that immediately preceded this one, I was very directly praising one of Trump's promises." Of course, you're free to write more of your ongoing Ragnar fanfiction series.


also don't get why you needed to share this with everyone
Like most topics anyone starts, it was on my mind. Further, it's a (hopefully interesting) sample of me and another skilled debater in an informal debate on a different platform. My S&G errors and over reactions included.


however if this was a private PM and you were the initiator as this implies,
It was not a private PM, it was all very public.
Topic's author
#8
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The difference between saying Trump is "wrong" over Trump is "evil" is that one is a violation and one is not.
IMO like any president, Trump was a mixed bag. Unlike previous presidents, his social media addiction facilitated routine moments of comedy. Within that, him Tweeting a promise to not Tweet, hit me in the funny bone.
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,023
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Barney
When someone is wrong, it's usually funny.
#10
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Barney
Why would you post all this publicly with your names attached?

If you and him both posted this publicly then idk what to say. I learned to basically share 0 controversial views on social media with my name attached, to each their own I guess.

#11
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
Holy cow, Batman, er... Ragnarok. Got an itch to scratch???


don't mean nothin' by that, just curious about the motivation and time expended. lots o' words.
Topic's author
#12
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
When I posted this here, it was just copy/paste, with a tiny bit of formatting and changing out of names.

At the time, it was frustrating to be just trying to share something a little funny (which if not actually funny, something to easily scroll past) and have someone accuse me of wanting the president dead because I can see fault with one of his actions.

Reading it again after four years, I can say that I've only seen the trend in whataboutisms grow (I am still not sure why anything about Obama is a defense of anyone else); and I really hope I don't fall into that illogical dead end (save for my usual whataboutism mockery of the didit fallacy).