• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The 9 Wildest Answers in Trump's Interview With Jonathan Swan

Why is Donald Trump always so fixated on size? He always has to convince us that things are bigger than they really are.

If 3,000 people show up just say 3,000 people showed up. He doesn't have to say 5,000 people showed up.

The dude has some kind of issue.
 
VanCleef said:
9 Wildest Answers in Trump’s Jonathan Swan Interview, Ranked

If you haven't seen the hugely talked about and wild interview yet, the full episode is up for free on Youtube. Trump seems to have completely lost his mind. Jonathan Swan destroys him quite easily by asking simple follow ups to his lies.




Some samples of the insanity:



This is just.....how petty can someone be?




What in the world?



Well they were great buddies.


AXIOS on HBO: President Trump Exclusive Interview (Full Episode) | HBO - YouTube
Click to expand...

He thinks he has done more for African Americans than any other president, except maybe Lincoln... who can seriously defend this orange clown?
 
The oddest moment was when he started handing Swan the sheets with graphs during the pandemic section. What cracked me up was when Swan retorted with the deaths by percentage of population as a way of comparing stats between nations of differing population sizes. I've seen some posters here echo the same odd argument Trump was making.

I think Swan did a good job with the follow up questions challenging the usual vague references makes like "lots of people say" or "read the books". Whenever Trump says that to me it means he has no idea what he's taking about and is trying to qualify his statement by claiming others are saying/thinking the same thing.
 
ElChupacabra said:
The oddest moment was when he started handing Swan the sheets with graphs during the pandemic section. What cracked me up was when Swan retorted with the deaths by percentage of population as a way of comparing stats between nations of differing population sizes. I've seen some posters here echo the same odd argument Trump was making.

I think Swan did a good job with the follow up questions challenging the usual vague references makes like "lots of people say" or "read the books". Whenever Trump says that to me it means he has no idea what he's taking about and is trying to qualify his statement by claiming others are saying/thinking the same thing.
Click to expand...

It was literally like the guy in Spinal Tap, who renumbered his amps.

“These go to 11”

These go to Eleven... ? "This is Spinal Tap" (1984) - YouTube
 
Threegoofs said:
Wait.. what?

In this case, the more you include, the worse it gets.
Click to expand...

Really? Please show us. Somehow I doubt that source would leave out the worst parts.
 
btthegreat said:
That is not a concern. The interview is on tape completely without any edit at all, and I urge you, beg you watch it and quote it for rebuttal purposes. Please!!
Click to expand...

"He was a person who dedicated a lot of energy and a lot of heart to civil rights....There's a petition to rename [some bridge in Alabama] as the John Lewis Bridge, would you support that idea? I would have no objection to it if they'd like to do it."
 
Tlrmln said:
"He was a person who dedicated a lot of energy and a lot of heart to civil rights....There's a petition to rename [some bridge in Alabama] as the John Lewis Bridge, would you support that idea? I would have no objection to it if they'd like to do it."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this one basic statement takes away all of his insane sentences before that sentence.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Oh my god... it was 37 minutes of awful.

You didn’t watch?

I understand why. It’s scary.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that. Show us the worst parts.
 
Tlrmln said:
You keep saying that. Show us the worst parts.
Click to expand...

The worst parts are quoted in my original post's link and some of them in the post.

This is being seen as a disaster.
 
VanCleef said:
The worst parts are quoted in my original post's link and some of them in the post.

This is being seen as a disaster.
Click to expand...

Maybe because people like you are quoting it out of context? I don't know, I don't care enough to watch the whole thing, but I saw the part about John Lewis and you definitely cherry-picked.

And before you start calling me names, which I assume is inevitable (but terribly hurtful, so I'd like to avoid it if possible), I'm not defending Trump. I'm just criticizing you.
 
Threegoofs said:
37 minutes.

It’s not hard.

It’s hilarious, actually.

Time for you to proactively become less ignorant.

I believe in you! You can do it!
Click to expand...

A lot of people would be less ignorant if people criticized Trump honestly. There's plenty of material, so there's no reason to cherry-pick.
 
VanCleef said:
I'm not sure how this one basic statement takes away all of his insane sentences before that sentence.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's because you are too dishonest or lazy.

Prompted by Swan to give a nod to Lewis’s history in civil-rights activism, Trump instead returned to skipping the inauguration, which he emphasized this was “a big mistake.”
Click to expand...
 
Tlrmln said:
Maybe because people like you are quoting it out of context? I don't know, I don't care enough to watch the whole thing, but I saw the part about John Lewis and you definitely cherry-picked.

And before you start calling me names, which I assume is inevitable (but terribly hurtful, so I'd like to avoid it if possible), I'm not defending Trump. I'm just criticizing you.
Click to expand...

LOL.

“I didnt watch it, but you definitely left out the important parts.”

That’s about as ridiculous as it gets.
 
Threegoofs said:
Weird that you wont even look at it.
Click to expand...

You haven't given me a good enough reason to. I can't even get the OP to admit that he was dishonest about first part, which is quite clear.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

“I didnt watch it, but you definitely left out the important parts.”

That’s about as ridiculous as it gets.
Click to expand...

So you're into misquoting people too? How precious.

I don't care enough to watch the whole thing
Click to expand...

I bet if Trump's opponents weren't half as dishonest as he is, he'd never get a single vote.
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh my god... it was 37 minutes of awful.

You didn’t watch?

I understand why. It’s scary.
Click to expand...

this is the man that modern day Confederates put their trust in.
 
Tlrmln said:
You haven't given me a good enough reason to. I can't even get the OP to admit that he was dishonest about first part, which is quite clear.
Click to expand...

Quite clear because... you cant be bothered to watch it, but you “know” its not true?

Dude.. the whole 37 minutes is a disaster which gets progressively worse.

I can see why you are afraid to watch it, but dont try to pretend you know that its better at some points... its not.
 
The worst part to me was refusing to acknowledge John Lewis' legacy instead just going on about how he wouldn't come to Trump's inauguration, now that's petty.
 
itstony said:
The worst part to me was refusing to acknowledge John Lewis' legacy instead just going on about how he wouldn't come to Trump's inauguration, now that's petty.
Click to expand...

i don't think i've ever seen a 70some year old man who is this colossally petty.
 
Tlrmln said:
Perhaps it's because you are too dishonest or lazy.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how the sentence you quoted stops the sentences I quoted from being less insane.
 
Tlrmln said:
You haven't given me a good enough reason to. I can't even get the OP to admit that he was dishonest about first part, which is quite clear.
Click to expand...

I linked the whole interview. We are specifically pointing out Trump being out of his mind in this particular interview, which is most of it. It's even in the thread title.

You're squirming because you don't like the thread subject and can't defend Trump's words.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom