The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: velcro on September 04, 2018, 01:23:20 PM

Title: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 04, 2018, 01:23:20 PM
Just a sort of archive of the most egregious examples.  Please note that these are not "lies", so do not move the goalposts and claim they do not meet that standard.

In order to be lies, they must be false, but we must also know that the person telling them is aware of the false character.  I won't try to guess what Trump actually knows.  This will simply state what he said, and what the facts are.

Also, technically an intentionally misleading statement is not a lie.  But from a moral standpoint, I believe intentionally misleading statements are just as bad as lies.

Finally, if Trump says something like "Democrats are for open borders", please don't claim that to be an opinion, and therefore immune from characterization as false or misleading.  He stated it as fact.  Opinions are "I like ice cream" or "Rugby is better than football", which can't be disproven.

If anyone is curious, I am picking items from here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3e3567cfb21f).  Feel free to doubt that site - not all 4713 (as of today) false or misleading statements are particularly harmful, or well documented.  But please do not ignore the facts I present.

Here's one from yesterday.

Quote
SEP 3 2018
“Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff.”

The investigations were not "Obama era".

Quote
Trump is referring to the recent indictments of Reps. Christopher Collins (R-N.Y.) and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). He calls them "Obama era" probes but Collins was indicted for insider trading that allegedly took place on June 17, 2017; a video caught him making a call on Trump's White House lawn that was cited in the case. Hunter was cited for campaign spending violations by the Federal Election Commission in 2016 but there was also a House Ethics Committee investigation -- and it did not defer to the Justice Department probe until 2017. Both indictments were approved by a U.S. attorney picked by the Trump

As far as harm, those who think anything from the Obama era is suspect will have more reason to doubt the validity of the investigations, thus further eroding support for law enforcement.  I won't get into Trump's implication that anything from the Obama era is suspect, or that the party affiliation of those being investigated should be relevant in any way.

I will add to this as time permits.  I would ask for others adding to he list, try to make it as bulletproof as possible.  There are plenty of choices to pick from.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on September 04, 2018, 02:26:24 PM
Quote
Finally, if Trump says something like "Democrats are for open borders", please don't claim that to be an opinion

Isn't that pretty garden variety political stuff? I've heard politicians for decades claiming that an opponent is indifferent to crime, only wants tax cuts for the wealthy that clearly include people who are not.

Would it be better if he said Democrats are for porous borders?

As for calling an investigation "Obama era", wouldn't any investigation that started during administration X be considered from that era? There are obviously insinuations, including that somehow there were directives in place that would start an investigation into Republicans but not Democrats, which is laughable. But the statement standing on its own doesn't seem at all misleading to me.

On the other hand...

Quote
a video caught him making a call on Trump's White House lawn that was cited in the case.

Isn't that misleading to include in isolation? Considering:

Quote
It was June 22, 2017, and Collins was at the congressional picnic on the White House grounds. At around 7 p.m. he received an email from the chief executive officer of Innate Immunotherapeutics, an Australian company in which Collins was a director and its largest shareholder.

So the offence was committed in the Obama era, the investigations was started then. The list is so terribly suspect when it includes items like:

Quote
“I signed a document [with North Korea] -- you know, that document I signed said there will be a denuclearization. You know, everyone says we didn’t agree -- we agreed to a lot of very positive things.”

Refuted by:

Quote
North Korea has a long history of making agreements and then not living up to its obligations. The document signed by Trump and Kim was remarkably vague, leaving it open to interpretation and debate, compared to previous documents signed by North Korea. The statement said North Korea (officially the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK) committed to “work towards the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” The phrase is not defined and “toward” is rather weak. In the past, North Korea viewed “denuclearization” to mean the United States removing the nuclear umbrella it provides to Japan and South Korea; there is no indication its definition has changed.

This just isn't misleading according to my definition. The fact that the document was signed and an agreement in principle was made is not really in dispute. The author claims the document is vague (it is), and that North Korea might not honor the agreement (they won't). That doesn't evaporate the document, and it is a matter of characterization to decide how significant it is.

Then they count it 14 times because it was repeated. There are items on the list that I'll probably agree with, but I'm stay out of the way on this thread for people who want to participate in velcro's experiment.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 05, 2018, 08:15:26 AM
Quote
I've heard politicians for decades claiming that an opponent is indifferent to crime, only wants tax cuts for the wealthy that clearly include people who are not.

Yup.  All guilty of false or misleading statements, and all, Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc. should be called out.


Quote
So the offence was committed in the Obama era, the investigations was started then.

If you are referring to June 22, 2017, that is not the Obama era.  Trump took office January 2017.

As I mentioned, some of the statements from the site are not well documented or harmful.  But just because some of them are weak does not mean all of them are weak. I am bringing up facts - denigrating the intermediate source does nothing to dispute the actual facts.

How about this:  I will not use that site as my source.  I will find the exact same things from other sources.  Does that make a difference?

But since I can't resist the example of a stupid accusation:

The NK agreement says they will "work towards the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” They can work all they want and have no obligation to obtain results.  I can promise to work towards being a professional baseball player for next 20 years, but I may never get it.

Trump claimed "that document I signed said there will be a denuclearization."  Nope.  Slightly different words, very different meaning.  Textbook definition of misleading, and actually, false. If North Korea tries for a week to denuclearize, they have "honored" the agreement, as you say. But if you believe Trump, they are required to denuclearize.  This is not a minor point.


Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on September 05, 2018, 10:41:05 AM
Quote
Trump claimed "that document I signed said there will be a denuclearization."  Nope.  Slightly different words, very different meaning.  Textbook definition of misleading, and actually, false. If North Korea tries for a week to denuclearize, they have "honored" the agreement, as you say. But if you believe Trump, they are required to denuclearize.  This is not a minor point.

I hear you. Maybe I'm just numb to it over the years. I believe I've heard a lot of people describe a "framework for peace" in similar terms. Especially in the middle east.

Quote
"Politicians have always lied, but it used to be if you caught them lying, they'd be like, 'Aw, man,' " Obama said. "But now if you catch them lying, they'll just keep on lying!"

Maybe that's the different thing about Trump, rather than focusing on whether he tries to mislead. He's generally bad at it, and when caught red-handed, he just kind of shrugs.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on September 05, 2018, 12:06:40 PM
Oh, and I forgot to acknowledge that I slipped a cog on the "obama era" thing. Absolutely right on your part. Perhaps by "Obama Era" he meant the period of time when Republicans were held to account for anything, which continues to wind down, and the "Trump Era" takes over where Trump loyalists get pardons and investigations are berated as witch hunts.

Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 05, 2018, 12:45:14 PM
The Drake,

Thank you for acknowledging that you hear my view, and that one of the investigations did not start in the Obama era.  There are too many people on this site who would never exhibit that kind of common courtesy and integrity.

Next false or misleading statement:

Quote
Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California - so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias - big problem!
Link (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/803033642545115140?lang=en)

No evidence to support this claim has ever been found.

Virginia Commissioner of Elections, New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State ,California Secretary of State, New Hampshire Assistant Attorney General, New Hampshire Assistant U.S. Attorney,  president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, and chairman of Trump’s Virginia campaign all say that they have no evidence to support the claim.

This is harmful because it causes people to lose faith in the election process for false reasons.  Mind you, there are plenty of reasons to lose faith, from gerrymandering to easily hackable electronic voting machines to voter suppression.  But by providing false reasons, many people are distracted from doing something about the real reasons.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Lloyd Perna on September 05, 2018, 12:54:35 PM
I googled "trump voter fraud new hampshire" and the first result found this article from May this year.

https://www.concordmonitor.com/Database-flags-142-possible-voter-fraud-cases-17835841 (https://www.concordmonitor.com/Database-flags-142-possible-voter-fraud-cases-17835841)

Quote
After the 2016 general election, the system flagged 94,610 New Hampshire voters whose first and last names and dates of birth matched those in other states. That amounts to about 1 in 9 voters, but officials eliminated all but 142 of the matches after taking a closer look at middle names and other information, including the marked checklists maintained by poll workers. Of the 142, officials have sent 51 to the attorney general’s office for investigation and are waiting for information from other states on the rest, Secretary of State Bill Gardner told the Ballot Law Commission.

I'm willing to give this one to Trump since at the time of the tweet I would have considered this a problem as well.  I'm glad that after a year investigating that we can say that there were probably only somewhere between 51 and 142 actual cases of voter fraud.

Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 05, 2018, 01:05:35 PM
While I'm here:

Quote
nobody cares about my tax return except for the reporters
January 11, 2017

I acknowledge that "nobody" can mean "few people" or "a small percentage of people".

This poll (http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/01/10140241/01-10-17-Trump-press-conference-release.pdf), from January 10, 2017, says 60% of people believe "Trump has responsibility to publicly release his tax returns".  38% of Republicans believed that.

This is harmful because it provides a false excuse for him not to release his returns.  It also demonstrates that he will dismiss the opinion of the majority.

By the way:
Starting in 2011
"I may tie my tax returns, I'd love to give my tax returns, I may tie my tax returns into Obama's birth certificate."(Which has been released"
"If I decide to run for office, I'll produce my tax returns, absolutely. And I would love to do that,"
 "I would release tax returns, and I would also explain to people that as a person that’s looking to make money, you know, I’m in the business of making money until I do this. And if I won, I would make money for our country. […] So the answer is yeah, I would do it. […]"

Will you release any of your tax returns for the public to scrutinize?

DONALD TRUMP: Well, we’re working on that now. I have very big returns, as you know, and I have everything all approved and very beautiful and we’ll be working that over in the next period of time, Chuck. Absolutely.

Kind of like North Korea "working towards" denuclearization vs. actually doing it.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on September 05, 2018, 01:12:01 PM
Quote
Quote
After the 2016 general election, the system flagged 94,610 New Hampshire voters whose first and last names and dates of birth matched those in other states. That amounts to about 1 in 9 voters, but officials eliminated all but 142 of the matches after taking a closer look at middle names and other information, including the marked checklists maintained by poll workers. Of the 142, officials have sent 51 to the attorney general’s office for investigation and are waiting for information from other states on the rest, Secretary of State Bill Gardner told the Ballot Law Commission.

I'm willing to give this one to Trump since at the time of the tweet I would have considered this a problem as well.  I'm glad that after a year investigating that we can say that there were probably only somewhere between 51 and 142 actual cases of voter fraud.

Voter roll duplication isn't fraud is it? I might still be on voter rolls in Utah from 2 years ago when I moved from there, but there's no evidence anyone is voting under my name. And the cure many Republicans would like would wipe out people indiscriminately from those rolls, which is the real danger of this misleading claim of massive voter fraud. But in the Trumpian mind, anything that could happen is happening, or will happen. I'm not sure he knows the different verb tenses well enough to intentionally mislead. I'm sure he says "I am building a big new beautiful hotel". When, in fact, he hasn't secured funding, deed to property, zoning approval, or any other required step.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 05, 2018, 01:25:22 PM

I'm willing to give this one to Trump since at the time of the tweet I would have considered this a problem as well.

If you read your source carefully,
Quote
The review follows President Donald Trump’s claim that he lost New Hampshire only because “thousands” of people came by bus to vote against him. Trump, who also has alleged repeatedly and without evidence that voter fraud cost him the popular vote, later created an elections integrity commission, of which Gardner was a member.

The check was run in January 2017 (http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8589977421).  The claim was made in November 2016. 

As far as the 51 to 142 "actual cases of fraud"- you jumped the gun there.
Again from your source,
Quote
In the last 18 months[from May 2018 back], the [Attorney General's] office investigated 28 complaints, only five of which were founded. Those included an older woman who filled out her husband’s absentee ballot four days after he died.

Other fraud included:
Quote
One college student voted in the wrong location on the faulty instruction of an election official.
Two people cast a ballot in Dixville Notch’s famous midnight primary without establishing domicile there.
one person actually voted twice; he was fined $2,500 and threatened with criminal prosecution if he ever did it again.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on September 05, 2018, 02:00:26 PM
Quote
I'm willing to give this one to Trump since at the time of the tweet I would have considered this a problem as well.

How about  last April? (https://twitter.com/BrennanCenter/status/981972895948820482)  Do you still think he is justified in complaining about voter fraud?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 05, 2018, 08:51:48 PM
Quote
The poll numbers are through the roof, our poll numbers are great

Today.

The actual polls have him at 54% disapproval, 40% approval.  For the last 6 months, they have been about the same.

For comparison, peaks for other Presidents have been70-80% approval.

This is harmful because:
If he actually believes it, he is oblivious to reality, which is a very dangerous thing for a President.
If he doesn't believe it, then he is perfectly comfortable with outrageous, easily disproven, bald-faced lying to the American public, which is also a very dangerous thing for a President.

Is it a big deal that he lies about his poll numbers?  Yes.  For better or for worse, our political system relies on polls to get input from the public, and to shape public opinion.  Lying about the results is no better than creating a fake poll.  This also is no minor point.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on September 06, 2018, 02:14:10 PM
disagree. He doesn't specify which poll, at least from the quote out of context. He probably saw great numbers from a fox news poll scrolling across his covfefe.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on September 06, 2018, 03:29:33 PM
He also adds 10-20% to the poll numbers because "you can't trust the lying media" or somesuch. :)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: D.W. on September 06, 2018, 03:54:11 PM
Given the conditions of his win, can you blame his attitude regarding polls?   :D
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on September 06, 2018, 04:02:01 PM
disagree. He doesn't specify which poll, at least from the quote out of context. He probably saw great numbers from a fox news poll scrolling across his covfefe.

Or an "in-house poll" his own people conducted. Or that a well-intentioned staffer ran through a random number generator trying to not upset his overly delicate mental stability.  ::)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 07, 2018, 03:52:26 PM
“We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning.”

That's his biggest lie. Bigger than like your doctor, keep your doctor. Two awesome Supreme Court justices so far and even if Ginsberg retires and Trump gets another one, even if unemployment goes down another percent, even if the Korean War finally comes to an end with denuclearization of the peninsula, even if we get trade deals that are more fair, the border gets more secure, and the stock market goes up another five thousand points Trump supporters, the people he's talking about here, still aren't going to get sick and tired of winning. I guess I can't really prove it's a lie. Maybe Trump will advance us into the leisure age when robots do all of our work for us, cancer is cured, and we have colonies on the moon, Mars, and the bottom of the ocean and we will get tired of winning, but barring that I have to say Trump told a real whopper here.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 07, 2018, 08:56:50 PM
cherry,

Thank you for your opinions on how wonderful and successful Trump is, and how much Trump supporters are winning.  Let's get back to the actual subject here:  Trump's misleading and false statements, documented and substantiated, which your comment did not address in any way.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 07, 2018, 09:11:24 PM
Quote
He doesn't specify which poll, at least from the quote out of context. He probably saw great numbers from a fox news poll scrolling across his covfefe.

Assuming that is serious, here (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/) are all the recent polls.  Rasmussen is historically the most favorable to Republicans.  They had it 48% approve, 52% disapprove.  Latest Fox poll was 45/53.

If Trump had an internal poll that contradicted every single internal poll, but didn't clarify, then that would be misleading.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on September 11, 2018, 11:08:33 AM
Then there's Trump latest tweet: (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/10/politics/trump-unemployment-gdp/index.html)

Quote
The GDP Rate (4.2%) is higher than the Unemployment Rate (3.9%) for the first time in over 100 years!

Based on that statement, when would you think the last time this occurred?  Is it a rare event or something common?  How significant is it?

Naturally, the truth is completely different from what you'd infer from the statement...  ::)

So why would he say such a thing?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 11, 2018, 12:39:50 PM
The last time that happened was 10 years ago, not 100 years ago.  Not really a big deal in my opinion.
It is an indication of positive economic news, in that low unemployment is good, and high GDP growth is good, but it doesn't really have any significance.

The significance is that Kevin Hassett, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, admitted the mistake on Monday, but as far as I know, Trump has not corrected his tweet, or acknowledged the error.

I have no problem with people making honest mistakes, especially when there is no significant impacts.  I have a problem with people who do not admit mistakes at all.  I'd be interested if anyone has evidence of Trump ever admitting a mistake. 

(The one exception was the Access Hollywood tape, where he apologized. Then said Bill Clinton was worse.  Then said it was just locker room talk.  Then there were reports that he privately challenged the authenticity of the tape, but that was not corroborated.)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 11, 2018, 01:11:36 PM
Not intended to politicize the tragedy, but relevant to today's history:

Trump pledge $10,000 to one of two 9/11 charities.  A thorough examination of the records shows he never paid, at least up until mid 2002.  No anonymous gifts were made either, nor gifts from the Trump Foundation at any time up to 2014.  If he donated personally, it would be on his tax return. :(

link  (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-lied-donating-9-11-charities-article-1.2829908)

The Trump Foundation did donate to the 9/11 Museum in April 2016, but Trump personally has not put any money into the Foundation for a long time.

But the Trump Organization did request and receive a $150,000 grant for local businesses hurt by the attack.  The reasons he gave for that grant were contradicted by the documentation of the grant, and by people involved at the time.  Nothing illegal, but he said he was being partially reimbursed for charitable work, when in reality he just took the money to cover losses from the attack.

No real significance to the American public.  Just incredibly slimy.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 12, 2018, 01:10:30 PM
Quote
And, frankly, many countries [in NATO] owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where they’re delinquent, as far as I’m concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them. So if you go back 10 or 20 years, you’ll just add it all up. It’s massive amounts of money is owed.

NATO countries pay for the costs of running NATO and implementing its policies and activities. As far as I know, they are all paid up.

NATO countries agreed that they would have a goal of spending 2% of their GDP on defense.  That goal was established in 2014, and is intended to be met by 2024.  But if Germany does not spend 2% of their GDP on defense now, it does not mean they owe the shortfall to anyone, least of all the United States. You might argue that if Germany spends less than 2%, it is more likely that we would have to spend more.  But that is not necessarily the case, there is no way to measure it, and there is absolutely no documentation that that is the case.  In no way could you say anyone owes us anything.

This is dangerous, because if Trump is aware of his misleading comments, he is using them to justify ill-will towards NATO and our allies. If he is unaware, then his ignorance is dangerous, because it is causing ill-will towards NATO and our allies.

Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on September 12, 2018, 02:05:12 PM
Woodward's book paints a picture of Trump misunderstanding the concept of "owing" something on fundamental levels, particularly trade deficits. In this case, where other people might see a debt of gratitude, for instance, Trump sees it as more tangible. It also reflects his narrow America First worldview, where essentially any dollars the US spends defending or deployed in Europe is something owed to the US.

This specific case, Woodward describes Mattis and others trying to explain the difference between a target goal and a firm commitment. As well as the tangible benefit that the US gets from the NATO relationship and deployments.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 12, 2018, 07:06:54 PM
Maybe this outright LIE by Trump will be more favorably received than the last one which was harder to prove anyway. I waited until after 9-11 to post this out of respect but I saw it many times on message boards yesterday. As New York City was under attack, Trump said that since the WTC fell now his building was the tallest in NYC but that is provably a lie because actually the office building at 70 Pine Street is listed as being 25 feet taller than the Trump Building at 40 Wall Street. I double checked this at Snopes to be certain. There was also an issue about whether or not he was bragging about his building now being the tallest since the formerly tallest got taken out, and there is debate on that point but regardless he just outright lied about his building being the new tallest and as far as I know he has never corrected the record or apologized.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-bragged-tallest-building/

 
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 13, 2018, 08:14:29 AM
Maybe this outright LIE by Trump will be more favorably received than the last one which was harder to prove anyway.

This is not really a lie, barely misleading or false, 17 years old, and in any case, it has no harmful effect on the country.  So thanks, but this just waters down the point of the thread, and tries to lump in the frivolous accusations with the substantive ones.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on September 13, 2018, 10:53:15 AM
Of course, even the frivolous lies have some significance, since it demonstrates his character.

If Trump will readily lie about something as trivial (and easily disproven) as the height of his building, what will he do when it is something important and hard to disprove?  Does anyone believe he would hesitate for one instant to lie like a dog over something that might actually hurt him when he will lie like a dog over something that no one really cares about?

Trump obviously doesn't care if what he says is true or not, whether because he doesn't know what is true and won't check it, or because he wants people to believe a lie for his own gain or ego.  So whenever he says something, we should all realize it is from someone who may actually know what he is talking about, or may be saying stuff just to look good or keep himself out of trouble. 

IOW (to paraphrase Ronald Reagan): Don't trust. Verify.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 13, 2018, 01:07:11 PM
Cherrypoptart got me thinking.  In the speech where he mentioned the height of his building, Trump said

Quote
Well, I have a window that looks directly at the World Trade Center and I saw this huge explosion. I was with a group of people and I really couldn't believe it and even I think worse than that for years, I've looked right directly at the building. I see the Empire State Building in the foreground and the World Trade Center the background, and now I'm looking at absolutely nothing. It's just gone.

In a rally in Columbus Ohio in 2015, he went further. (https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/donald-trump-9-11-twin-towers/index.html)

Quote
"Many people jumped and I witnessed it, I watched that. I have a view -- a view in my apartment that was specifically aimed at the World Trade Center,"

"And I watched those people jump and I watched the second plane hit ... I saw the second plane hit the building and I said, 'Wow that's unbelievable,'"

At the time, Trump lived in Trump Tower. 

Trump Tower is 4 miles from the World Trade Centers.

Not a dangerous lie. Maybe not a lie, if he actually thinks he saw it himself from his apartment. But that means he misremembers one of the most memorable events in his life.  And as far as I know, it has never been retracted.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on September 13, 2018, 01:25:47 PM
Not a dangerous lie. Maybe not a lie, if he actually thinks he saw it himself from his apartment. But that means he misremembers one of the most memorable events in his life.  And as far as I know, it has never been retracted.

This is interesting to me for a separate reason, which is the plasticity of memory. Based on the events of 9/11 alone it seems clear that there are very disparate accounts on what happened. There is ample room for memory to really be altered or 'tagged incorrectly' so that things you imagined or heard are associated in your brain with being memories, or details from actual memory get collated with imagined or semi-real things. Basically memory can be really unreliable at the best of times, and in a major event like this it's probably unreliable to an exaggerated degree because of how often people recall and utilize those memories, the process of which can change them. This is interesting to me because of the relationships between just remembering incorrectly, lying, and remembering incorrectly but sort of on purpose - like where you condition yourself to actually remember things in a certain way that benefits you (the Costanza principle: it's not a lie if you believe it). And presumably since the ability to do this in the first place was an adaptive mechanism we can suppose that there has been historical usefulness in a distorted recall of events. In Trump's case we might well wonder whether he is lying, or doesn't know what he remembers and chooses to remember things in a beneficial way, or actually just has a crappy memory but is too proud to admit it. I guess they're all problems of different sorts so it doesn't bode well whichever way it is. It seems to me basically inconceivable that his story about witnessing those events firsthand can be accurate if he really was in Trump Tower on 5th Ave at the time.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: DonaldD on September 13, 2018, 01:50:52 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/trump-puerto-rico-death-toll/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/trump-puerto-rico-death-toll/index.html)
Quote
3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. When I left the Island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000

<snip>

This was done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible when I was successfully raising Billions of Dollars to help rebuild Puerto Rico. If a person died for any reason, like old age, just add them onto the list. Bad politics. I love Puerto Rico
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on September 13, 2018, 02:52:33 PM
Quote
This is interesting to me for a separate reason, which is the plasticity of memory.

This is indeed interesting. It could apply to Hillary taking sniper fire (she didn't), and to Brian Williams helicopter getting shot down (it wasn't). We know exactly how plastic memory is, which is why eyewitnesses are kept away from one another and discussing anything. It is also why experienced investigators (like Comey) write down notes immediately after events. It might also be why people get so worried about perjury that they say the magic words "to the best of my recollection".

Among the main points is when a correction is made - what happens next? Is it a double-down, or do you say to yourself "hey, I might not be remembering right". Trump is incapable of walking anything back though. He views any apology or admission of error as a sign of being weak. Plus, when you believe you have "one of the greatest memories of all time" then it is triply impossible.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on September 13, 2018, 03:35:57 PM
Among the main points is when a correction is made - what happens next? Is it a double-down, or do you say to yourself "hey, I might not be remembering right". Trump is incapable of walking anything back though. He views any apology or admission of error as a sign of being weak. Plus, when you believe you have "one of the greatest memories of all time" then it is triply impossible.

On the other hand, since in the public's opinion memory is perfect it seems to be the case that walking back something said earlier will just as likely be interpreted as "he admits he lied before" as "he admits he is only human." And once it's been admitted that a past statement was an 'untruth' (that is what it would be called, in mealy-mouthed manner, deliberately avoiding the term "lie" but implying it) then a 'pattern of untruth' could be empirically attributed to that person. The whole procedure of spin is outrageous enough that I could see a legitimate case for a reasonable and honest person to still avoid walking back past statements just to avoid what the spin machine will do to it. As bad as "never admits a mistake" looks, the alternative might be strategically worse.

I have a much bigger problem, mind you, with "I cannot recollect" while under oath as a way of avoiding any possible repercussions for testimony.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on September 13, 2018, 03:44:05 PM
IOW, it's better to keep lying and to be thought to be a liar, than to admit to a mistake and remove all doubt?  :o
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on September 13, 2018, 03:51:58 PM
IOW, it's better to keep lying and to be thought to be a liar, than to admit to a mistake and remove all doubt?  :o

I'm not personally recommending this, but trying to imagine what some arbitrary person with no particularly bad intentions might choose to do in a crappy environment where no matter what they say it'll stand as proof of their malfeasance. The only alternative, of course, would be to never say anything definitive or if you do, for it to be perfectly accurate 100% of the time. This is party why, I think, with no joke intended, Hillary probably decided that her best campaign strategy was basically to say nothing about anything. I don't think this was the best option for her, but I can see why she might have thought this was superior than making definitive statements that would be picked apart no matter what they were.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on September 13, 2018, 03:56:21 PM
This is generally a reason why the best politicians are like speak-n-spells or soundboards. They speak no statistic unless it has been carefully memorized and tested. They relate no stories or anecdotes without trying them out first in some kind of prep session, which is then vetted for any possible contradictory statement. If statements are made, there is a deliberate vagueness to it that defies debunking.

In Trump's case, it is simple enough for even a rookie poltician.

I saw thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey.
I saw Muslims celebrating, even here in the United States.

Spicer (on behalf of Trump)

this was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe

this was one of the largest audiences to witness an inauguration, I'm pretty sure, especially if you include people watching on TV around the world


The second version of these statements defies any real solid fact checking. Some might call them misleading, but that's such a far cry from "flat out wrong" or "way off".

Much like the deft handling by Cheney to always sort of mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same conversation, but being very careful never to say that Iraq contributed directly to 9/11.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on September 13, 2018, 04:01:33 PM
Oh, and, by the way....

If you're somebody who has a really hard time keeping facts straight maybe you shouldn't be the one criticizing everyone else for getting things wrong...
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on September 13, 2018, 09:11:31 PM
Quote
I'm not personally recommending this, but trying to imagine what some arbitrary person with no particularly bad intentions might choose to do in a crappy environment where no matter what they say it'll stand as proof of their malfeasance. The only alternative, of course, would be to never say anything definitive or if you do, for it to be perfectly accurate 100% of the time.

No there is another alternative.
Take reasonable care not to say things that are provably wrong.  When proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, apologize, correct yourself and move on.  When liars lie and haters hate, move on. They are going to do it no matter what you say or do.

That is how I operate.  That is how everyone in my family, and in my place of business operates.  That is how most honorable people operate.  That is how most politicians operate, at least on the surface.

What you are "not personally recommending" is reprehensible and dishonorable.

Trump makes little or effort to say things that are not provably wrong. To my knowledge, he has never admitted a mistake, except for what he said on the Access Hollywood tape, which he backed off from.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on September 14, 2018, 05:26:23 PM
It just hit me - Trump would have done great as a weatherman. You can be wrong all the time, you are expected to exaggerate everything way out of proportion, and you never have to apologize for any of it.

"Let me tell you folks, this storm is gonna be huge. Huge. We're talking 15 inches of rain, we haven't seen rain like that in a hundred years."
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on September 14, 2018, 05:30:36 PM
Best of all, with global warming (which he would deny is happening, of course), he would be correct more often than usual.  ;D
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 20, 2018, 06:40:53 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-9-11-memorial-renewed-resolve-build-border-185200352--politics.html#mycomments

Brandon 15 hours ago
After 9/11 Trump bragged that he now had the tallest building in New York.

With 106 replies, 748 thumbs up and 139 thumbs down.

So I was harangued pretty badly about bringing up that and the point was made that it was trivial but I've seen that statement by Trump brought up many times and it's getting a lot of reactions here as I've seen the comment do many other times. A lot of people seem not to think it's trivial at all. Basically I'm begging to differ and this is my substantiation that there are a lot of people out there concerned about this as one of Trump's statements, be it an inappropriate brag or lie or whatever you want to call it. In other words, it (my comment about this) was legit. Whether it's trivial or not, it's still something a lot of people apparently have concerns about. Bradon, whoever that is, and the 748 people who gave him a thumbs up, whoever they are, thought it was relevant enough.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: yossarian22c on September 20, 2018, 08:57:04 PM
Basically I'm begging to differ and this is my substantiation that there are a lot of people out there concerned about this as one of Trump's statements, be it an inappropriate brag or lie or whatever you want to call it. In other words, it (my comment about this) was legit. Whether it's trivial or not, it's still something a lot of people apparently have concerns about. Bradon, whoever that is, and the 748 people who gave him a thumbs up, whoever they are, thought it was relevant enough.

I tend to agree his willingness to so lie about something so easily disprovable in the wake of a tragedy to self-promote speaks volumes to the character (or rather lack thereof) of the man.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 21, 2018, 06:11:59 AM
I wonder if my comment would have come from someone else perhaps it would have been interpreted differently and not so harshly. That goes well with my point about seeing things from a certain perspective based on on preconceptions of the person in question. Although it is true that I didn't necessarily think that example of one of Trump's lies was that important, the point is that many people put it up right up there with the rest. It's a good example of judging the source instead of the simple disconnected merits of the statement itself and that's what happens a lot with Trump too. Not that Hillary or Obama would say most of the stuff Trump says, but if they did say something like it they would be judged in a more flattering light by their supporters and more harshly by their detractors. Just about all of us have our biases is all I'm saying and it's more constructive we when can see and acknowledge them.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: yossarian22c on September 21, 2018, 08:00:46 AM
I wonder if my comment would have come from someone else perhaps it would have been interpreted differently and not so harshly. ... Just about all of us have our biases is all I'm saying and it's more constructive we when can see and acknowledge them.

I think your comment would have been interpreted differently if you hadn't started with the tongue in cheek "lie" of too much winning. However I thought this one was nice, there is no grey or wiggle room in that lie, nothing to argue that it is really just an opinion. In talking with people we may not agree with on many issues its good to start with the low hanging fruit.

I agree, based on Trump's actions and style I'm inclined to judge him harshly but I try to keep that in mind when interpreting events. Being cognizant of our own biases is a good reminder for everyone.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on October 03, 2018, 06:23:32 PM
This one is personal, malicious, and without any basis in reality.  Trump fabricates a situation that never happened, and says it over and over again.

Here is the reality:

Richard Blumenthal, Senator from Connecticut, on two occasions said he served in Vietnam.  He was in the Marine Corps Reserve from 1970 to 1976, thus serving during the Vietnam Era, but did not serve in Vietnam.

Quote
“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Blumenthal, then Connecticut’s attorney general, told a group in Norwalk, Conn., in 2008. He also praised a group of military families in 2003 by saying, “When we returned from Vietnam, we saw nothing like this.”

At other points before and during the 2010 race, Blumenthal accurately described his military record. “Although I did not serve in Vietnam, I have seen firsthand the effects of military action,” he said during a March 2010 debate for the Senate race.

He described himself as “someone who served in the military during the Vietnam-era in the Marine Corps” at the same 2008 event where he later said he served “in Vietnam.”

He did not correct the record at other times when he was described in news reports as serving in Vietnam.

He did apologize, “On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service, and I regret that, and I take full responsibility. But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country. I served in the United States Marine Corps Reserve and I am proud of it.”

Link (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/03/president-trumps-second-rant-richard-blumenthal-vietnam/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9e39b92aba18)

That's it.  That is the sum total of his statements claiming to serve in Vietnam. News organizations have been looking at this for years.  There is nothing else, no allegations of anything else, no accusations of anything else.

Here is Donald Trump's near-hallucinatory version of events.

Quote
Look at Blumenthal. He lied about Vietnam. He didn’t just say, ‘Hey, I went to Vietnam.’ No. No. For 15 years, he said he was a war hero, he fought in Da Nang province. We call him ‘Da Nang Richard.’ ‘Da Nang’ — that’s his nickname. ‘Da Nang.’

Never in U.S.history has anyone lied or defrauded voters like Senator Richard Blumenthal. He told stories about his Vietnam battles and conquests, how brave he was, and it was all a lie.

Senator Richard Blumenthal must talk about his fraudulent service in Vietnam, where for 12 years he told the people of Connecticut, as their Attorney General, that he was a great Marine War Hero. Talked about his many battles of near death, but was never in Vietnam.

Calling out Blumenthal for lying about where he served?  Fair game.
Making up brand new stories out of thin air to put in Blumenthal's mouth, knowing that the lies about what he said are more blatant, more numerous, and more vindictive?  That is repugnant for anyone to do, particularly for a President.

What kind of person just fabricates defamatory nonsense out of thin air, knowing that they can be definitively disproven almost instantly?
Donald Trump.

The article also mentions this from Trump.
Quote
And then, when he got out — he actually dropped out of the race, and he won anyway because Democrats always win in Connecticut. He won very close, probably the closest ever. And when he got out and when he apologized, he was crying. The tears were all over the place.

Also proven to be complete and total fabrications.  He didn't drop out.  Democrats don't always win in Connecticut.  He won by 12 points (Lieberman won by 10 points and 0.8 points).  He didn't cry.

I have no words.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 03, 2018, 07:09:04 PM
binary Trump again. He lacks the ability to discern between a few misleading statements and running around all the time doing it, and embellishing it until the amplifier goes to 11.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on October 04, 2018, 08:40:43 PM
Trump knows exactly what he is doing. Its not a lack of discernment but his strategy. Read his book

The left has to stop thinking that Trump is stupid and the right has to stop thinking that what Trump says and how he says it does not matter.


Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 05, 2018, 10:49:14 AM
Trump is stupid. He does not have the best words. His strategy rarely works. I've read one of his books, "Think Like a Champion". It's the antithesis to actual good management practices. The fact that he's an idiot on purpose does not mean that he's not an idiot, and I do think he can't discern reality anymore because he's held it in such low regard that he no longer cares what is true and what is not. Read Woodward's book, which describes his advisors trying to explain basic economic theory to him. It's not some show for the masses.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on October 05, 2018, 12:12:54 PM
Quote
The fact that he's an idiot on purpose does not mean that he's not an idiot,

I agree that when it comes to understanding complex ideas, good management practices... or even caring about them - Trump is "stupid" What he has learned in his life time is that he does not have to be "smart" in this areas in order to get what he wants. Trump learned how to become a master manipulator and in that regard he is not "stupid" he knows exactly what he is doing.
I also agree that his ability to discern reality has been very much impacted by his life strategy. Its why he needs all those rally to help him reinforce his reality. But does that make him stupid?

You will hear many of Trumps followers defend him, saying that's just Trump being Trump, he doesn't mean it, or it doesn't matter. Like Trump his followers are falling into the trap of not caring what is true and what is not. That is what IMO makes Trump so dangerous - hes a virus.  Trump has brilliantly remained in control of the base,  because he dons't care about things like truth or right and wrong. What matters is winning, and wining is the guy with the most toys and adulation.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 05, 2018, 12:37:54 PM
I don't think he is "brilliantly in control of the base". I think he just does what he does, and happens to be in the right place and time to resonate with a large number of people. He doesn't calculate that its time to mock someone because it will reinforce his support. He doesn't chafe at admitting fault for anything because it could undermine his support.

He's accidentally in control of his base. He didn't craft his messaging based on what people might like or not like, he just blurted out a bunch of things he thought, and had a bunch of people agree with him.

"Winning" involves never admitting fault, always claiming victory no matter how dubious, and most importantly running down anyone who even mildly disagrees with him.

He's not a master manipulator, he's a bully and not that masterful at even that. He's no Rockefeller. He's a cheap knockoff throwback to those times when all management and leadership theory for the past 50 years indicates worse outcomes with that style. He's like a regional manager of a chain restaurant in everything form his volatility to his trashy vocabulary. Bullies and people who admire bullying as strength probably give him strong support.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on October 05, 2018, 12:42:40 PM
he dons't care about things like truth or right and wrong. What matters is winning

Don't see how this applies only to Trump. Even if Trump is the naked version of this exposed for all to see, the systemic problem still predates him. Others were just better at cloaking this. Would you rather this be true and hidden, or true and exposed?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: D.W. on October 05, 2018, 12:50:55 PM
That is a question that on it's face seems to insist on transparency.  I tend to agree with that sentiment.  However rightleft22's point about such nakedness being viral is a problem.  When blatant disregard for the niceties becomes contagious it makes me question that sentiment. 
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 05, 2018, 12:55:20 PM
Quote
Others were just better at cloaking this. Would you rather this be true and hidden, or true and exposed?

I'd prefer a Nixon to a Trump, if that makes it clear. Nixon was a bare knuckle brawler, full on racist, vindictive to his enemies, paranoid, and nowhere near as divisive to the country because he closed the door first.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on October 05, 2018, 01:04:23 PM
My question wasn't really about which you'd like more if given the choice. It's more that Trump has openly exposed what I think has been the case for a while, that politics has devolved into a WWE wrestling match where you create a persona, flex your muscles, and have the audience root for you the loudest.

Dunno if you remember Doc Brown's amazing line from Back to the Future, where when told that Reagan is President he says something like "Of course! Once politics is televised it makes sense that actors would be elected." Although that hasn't been literally true all the way since Reagan (that people whose profession is acting win in politics) for the most part, with exceptions in California and Minnesota, it has roughly been true that elections are now mostly theatre where you're voting for the best character. Trump is the absurdist version of that, where the audience voted for the 'troll character'. But the audience mustn't be blamed for this: it's not them who turned it into a circus, but once it is a circus, who's to blame them voting for the clown?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on October 05, 2018, 01:46:18 PM
"Don't see how this applies only to Trump"

Of course it doesn't only apply to Trump however I'm not a fan of the "well Johnny does it to" defense.
The difference with Trump is that he is a master of manipulating reality in order to "win".     
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on October 05, 2018, 02:36:06 PM
"Don't see how this applies only to Trump"

Of course it doesn't only apply to Trump however I'm not a fan of the "well Johnny does it to" defense.

No, you missed the point. It has nothing to do with pointing a finger at another politician who does the same. I'm talking about the structure of politics in general at this point.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on October 05, 2018, 03:03:54 PM
Well then I guess I would rather they hid it and maintained a pretense of civility
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 07, 2018, 04:51:18 PM
Trump said soybean prices have gone up. They're near decade-lows.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-said-soybean-prices-gone-171400339.html

I don't think I can be accused of cheeky frivolity on this one seeing as how they did a whole story on it that ended up on the front page of my internet. Just another one of Trump's many lies. How is he not impeached already? (Alright, that part was cheeky.)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Crunch on October 08, 2018, 11:30:29 AM
But checking NASDAQ, soybean prices have gone up.

https://www.nasdaq.com/markets/soybean.aspx

From Farm Future:
Quote
Soybean prices gained more than 1% Friday with weather-related harvest delays imminent in some key production areas, and with plenty more rain in the forecast. November futures climbed 9.75 cents to $8.69, while January futures gained 9.5 cents to $8.8250. For the week, November futures were up 2.8% and found six-week highs in the process.
Currently at 6 week highs.  Are they near decade lows? Maybe, I don’t know. But they have been going up and the futures prices are going up as well.

Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 08, 2018, 12:37:19 PM
A dead cat bounce is not "going up". In the context of describing the impact of his policies, Trump can't reasonably mean that an end of September phenomenon is caused by his policy, which had its impact in June causing a 20% drop. If you just zoom your chart out to a six month time frame you'll have a better picture.

He in fact knew that his policies were hurting soybean prices because he supported a bailout package for them in July. In August, this solidified into 3.6 billion for the soybean producers.

Now he could mean soybean prices + the $1.65 per bushel he's going to hand them.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on October 08, 2018, 12:55:22 PM
A dead cat bounce is not "going up". In the context of describing the impact of his policies, Trump can't reasonably mean that an end of September phenomenon is caused by his policy, which had its impact in June causing a 20% drop. If you just zoom your chart out to a six month time frame you'll have a better picture.

He in fact knew that his policies were hurting soybean prices because he supported a bailout package for them in July. In August, this solidified into 3.6 billion for the soybean producers.

Give it a couple more months, China has already nearly exhausted nearly every other source for soybeans available in the global market and it isn't anywhere near enough to meet their domestic demand for it. They're going to have to "suck it up" and either contend with significant domestic inflation on food prices because of their tariff on American Soy, or lower the tariff.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Crunch on October 08, 2018, 01:07:49 PM
A dead cat bounce is not "going up". In the context of describing the impact of his policies, Trump can't reasonably mean that an end of September phenomenon is caused by his policy, which had its impact in June causing a 20% drop. If you just zoom your chart out to a six month time frame you'll have a better picture.

He in fact knew that his policies were hurting soybean prices because he supported a bailout package for them in July. In August, this solidified into 3.6 billion for the soybean producers.

Now he could mean soybean prices + the $1.65 per bushel he's going to hand them.

You don’t know if it’s a dead cat bounce or not - that’s merely opinion. The fact remains, prices are increasing just as Trump claimed. Maybe they’ll decline, maybe not. Maybe they’ll just circle this price. We don’t know.

You can try all the spin you want but the bottom line is Trump is telling the truth at this moment in time.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: D.W. on October 08, 2018, 01:10:23 PM
Is that an actual economics term?   ;D
(DCB)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 08, 2018, 01:14:57 PM
So if Pelosi were talking about how healthcare costs had gone down in the past couple of weeks, after a massive jump a few months earlier....? I'm sure you'd get right behind that characterization.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Crunch on October 08, 2018, 04:24:52 PM
So if Pelosi were talking about how healthcare costs had gone down in the past couple of weeks, after a massive jump a few months earlier....? I'm sure you'd get right behind that characterization.

Did she?  Have they? Hey, now that you mention it, how have healthcare costs done since ObamaCare fixed everything?
 ;D
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Crunch on October 08, 2018, 04:26:40 PM
Is that an actual economics term?   ;D
(DCB)
It’s more of an investment term when discussing stocks:

Quote
In finance, a dead cat bounce is a small, brief recovery in the price of a declining stock. Derived from the idea that "even a dead cat will bounce if it falls from a great height", the phrase, which originated on Wall Street, is also popularly applied to any case where a subject experiences a brief resurgence during or following a severe decline.

Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 08, 2018, 06:04:50 PM
Quote
You can try all the spin you want but the bottom line is Trump is telling the truth at this moment in time.

So what's the limitation on describing that trend - anything at all? Couple of days? Hours? The kind of standard you seem to be setting is what is known as quibbling rather than lying in various honor codes, especially military ones. It involves setting up a technicality where you could claim you are not lying in order to get away with misleading statements.

It's like a story I heard attributed to Pravda about a bicycle race and said that Russia came in second while the US came in second to last. All true on a technicality in a two country race, but most people would describe the US as winning if they are being forthright.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Crunch on October 08, 2018, 07:02:34 PM
Quote
You can try all the spin you want but the bottom line is Trump is telling the truth at this moment in time.

So what's the limitation on describing that trend - anything at all? Couple of days? Hours? The kind of standard you seem to be setting is what is known as quibbling rather than lying in various honor codes, especially military ones. It involves setting up a technicality where you could claim you are not lying in order to get away with misleading statements.

It's like a story I heard attributed to Pravda about a bicycle race and said that Russia came in second while the US came in second to last. All true on a technicality in a two country race, but most people would describe the US as winning if they are being forthright.

The limit is whatever you want I suppose. If you don’t like that he’s saying something true, pick any arbitrary timeframe you want that gets you a version you prefer.

Over the lasr few weeks, prices were rising. Trump truthfully said they were. Sorry that pisses you off.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 08, 2018, 07:06:36 PM
I'm sorry that you can't see my point. We'll come back to this the next time somebody you dislike says something misleading that is technically true.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Crunch on October 08, 2018, 07:11:26 PM
Really?  I’ve pointed out exactly that many times in many forums. I’m applying the rules of the left to things, sorry that pisses you off.



Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 09, 2018, 11:19:03 AM
I don't know why you think I'm angry, I don't think I used any microaggressions. I just think you are wrong, and I've attempted to clarify why. You don't have to worry about pissing me off. I invite you to call me out if I defend a misleading statement as technically true. I reserve the right to argue why I don't think something is misleading.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on October 09, 2018, 11:33:23 AM
I don't know why you think I'm angry, I don't think I used any microaggressions. I just think you are wrong, and I've attempted to clarify why. You don't have to worry about pissing me off. I invite you to call me out if I defend a misleading statement as technically true. I reserve the right to argue why I don't think something is misleading.

Whoa, there. Calm down!
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on October 09, 2018, 12:45:58 PM
The whole soybean argument is irrelevant.  There is some ambiguity as to the time scale, and it doesn't really affect anything.  Once again, cherrypoptart dilutes the thread by bringing trivial issues and calling them lies.

Here's an update (https://www.factcheck.org/2018/10/trumps-escalating-exaggerations-on-blumenthal/) on full-blown, verging on hallucinatory fabrication:

Quote
Trump, Oct. 2: This guy lied about his service. He didn’t just say, “Gee, I was in the service.” No. He said, “I was in the Marines. Da Nang Province. Soldiers dying left and right as we battled up the hill.” This went on for 15 years when he was the attorney general of Connecticut. I thought he was a great war hero. And then it turned out he was never in Vietnam. He was in the Reserves. And I watched him two days ago. I watched him saying, “We need the truth. If we don’t have” — and here’s a guy who was saying people were dying all around him and he was never there. And then he cried. When they caught him, he cried like a baby. … And the reason he got elected is because in Connecticut it’s impossible for a Republican to get elected. And I did well there. But you can’t. He actually gave up the race. You’d thought he lost. You remember that? He, sort of, gave — he stopped campaigning. It was over. And then he won by three points.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania said this was false.  Just to refresh your memory, that is one of the "best schools" that Trump attended.

Blumenthal never said anything remotely close to that.  He did not cry.  He did not give up the race.  He won by 12 points.

Crunch, you win on soybeans.  Now you can address this, and the multiple significant falsehoods and misleading statements on this thread.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 09, 2018, 02:56:41 PM
The fact that he made up some random stuff about a political opponent is dull. Yes, it is a terrible set of lies about what happened in an egregious way. You win velcro.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 09, 2018, 10:53:45 PM
Well I thought I defended pretty well against the dilution accusation this time because I referenced the story that was on the yahoo but I guess I failed again. This wasn't my opinion this time This was a real so called journalist, one of the people Trump is attacking and we citizens are supposed to be defending. Yeah to be honest I had my own suspicion it was kind of lame too but that's the Trump hating media to blame more than me in my opinion. It's their story, not mine after all. It is worth noting that even someone who doesn't seem to like Trump all that much agrees that it was pretty lame. That's something anyway and made the observation worth noting just for that at least to me. Basically the media is lame with bringing up trivial so called Trump lies and people on both sides agree. We've reached a little bit of common ground there. 
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: yossarian22c on October 11, 2018, 08:24:56 AM
The whole soybean argument is irrelevant.  There is some ambiguity as to the time scale, and it doesn't really affect anything.  Once again, cherrypoptart dilutes the thread by bringing trivial issues and calling them lies.

Do you just really like arguing with conservatives? Cherry has now pointed to two distinct lies that he sees. I think this should be encouraged. If conservatives see that Trump will lie or mislead about obvious things then they are more likely to view his other statements with suspicion. But instead of trying to agree with him and build on a common discussion framework you keep dismissing or disparaging his statements.

This one is about a key economic metric for many farmers. The reason why soy bean prices were so low is because of Trump's economic polices. So lying or misleading (however you want to characterize this statement) is not trivial or irrelevant. He is actively trying to mislead the American people about the cost of his trade policies.

Thanks Cherry for what I see as a legitimate attempt from a conservative to discuss Trump's lack of honesty.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: yossarian22c on October 11, 2018, 09:32:48 AM
Fact check of Trump's op-ed.

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/10/656249981/fact-check-trumps-false-claims-on-medicare-for-all (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/10/656249981/fact-check-trumps-false-claims-on-medicare-for-all)

I'll highlight #5 since it is the most unambiguously false.

Quote
5. Strength of Medicare: Trump writes that "Democrats have already harmed seniors by slashing Medicare by more than $800 billion over 10 years to pay for Obamacare. Likewise, Democrats would gut Medicare with their planned government takeover of American health care."

He is repeating a claim that was widely debunked during the 2012 election. The Affordable Care Act actually strengthened the solvency of Medicare, but it has since been weakened again by the GOP tax cut.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 11, 2018, 11:56:20 AM
I'd say the medicare statement has always been true but misleading. Private medicare payouts were reduced by the amount claimed. Whether that led to any reduction in services is debatable, but unlikely.

two ways that medicare costs were reduced by ACA (http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/the-second-anniversary-of-health-care-reform-is-good-news-will-there-be-a-third/)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on October 12, 2018, 01:07:38 PM
The whole soybean argument is irrelevant.  There is some ambiguity as to the time scale, and it doesn't really affect anything.  Once again, cherrypoptart dilutes the thread by bringing trivial issues and calling them lies.

Do you just really like arguing with conservatives? Cherry has now pointed to two distinct lies that he sees. I think this should be encouraged. If conservatives see that Trump will lie or mislead about obvious things then they are more likely to view his other statements with suspicion. But instead of trying to agree with him and build on a common discussion framework you keep dismissing or disparaging his statements.

This one is about a key economic metric for many farmers. The reason why soy bean prices were so low is because of Trump's economic polices. So lying or misleading (however you want to characterize this statement) is not trivial or irrelevant. He is actively trying to mislead the American people about the cost of his trade policies.

Thanks Cherry for what I see as a legitimate attempt from a conservative to discuss Trump's lack of honesty.

This thread was inspired by a comment on another thread, claiming that most of the 4000+ false or misleading statements by Donald Trump since his inauguration were really not false or misleading, or were extremely trivial.  The fact that some of the long list were not important was used to imply that none of them were important.

My purpose on this thread was to list just a few clear statements of relative importance that were unambiguously false or misleading, and ask Trump supporters to address those.

Cherrypoptart responded by calling Trump a liar, because Trump said we would get tired of winning, but we aren't tired yet. Yup, I am disparaging that statement for the obvious reason that it is snark, but also because it supports the false argument that all accusations about Trump's truthfulness are frivolous.

A Trump supporter has acknowledged that Trump "lied" about winning, but has yet to acknowledge false or misleading statements on anything substantive.  He can now say "even I admit that Trump lied about soybeans, but I still don't see him lying about North Korea, so it must not be because of my biases".

If you choose to interpret that as good faith argument, go for it.  When Cherrypoptart acknowledges the half dozen solidly proven false or misleading statements on this thread, I will treat him differently.

I don't just like arguing with conservatives.  I feel obligated to point out when people distort the truth, or do everything in their power to distract from facts  or ignore facts that prove that their conclusions are wrong.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on October 12, 2018, 03:49:49 PM
Quote
“The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration—and a very effective form of promotion.” – Donald Trump

For me Trump stated strategy of truthful hyperbole suggests that many if not most of his statements are intended to mislead and or manipulate. When we talked about this idea of truthful hyperbole in other threads it was argued that because a statement held some truth the statement was not a lie. And as the intention of the statement is to exaggerate such statements are not misleading because they are intended to be misleading... I don't know I got confused

My take away was that for anything that Trump says to be taken as a lie or misleading 100% of the statement must be a lie. So if trump said the sky is Blue and he is the richest self made man ever. Even if it is proven that he is not the richest man ‘ever’ as much of his wealth was given to him by his father, He did not Lie because the sky is blue, and in away he is self made…

We need two threads – one for misleading statements and one for solidly proven lies
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on October 12, 2018, 04:02:10 PM
For me Trump stated strategy of truthful hyperbole suggests that many if not most of his statements are intended to mislead and or manipulate. When we talked about this idea of truthful hyperbole in other threads it was argued that because a statement held some truth the statement was not a lie.

This is basically the definition of advertising. I actually have a problem with advertising as it's currently understood in our culture, as I view it as fundamentally the sort of thing that upsets you about Trump: being being told something design to sway them through emotion, which is usually not exactly a lie but whose content is something non-rationale and will persuade you through innuendo and unstated but felt tactics. For example: advertising a product next to a beautiful woman. It's not a "lie" exactly, but the idea that buying this thing will have something to do with that woman is a clear deception of sorts. Selling usually involves a combination of this, along with making people have just enough psychological problems that they feel the need to sate it with the product. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the Presidency has boiled down to selling a much larger product, but that it involves the same principles.

We might argue that other areas of the economy can continue to use this model while somehow the Presidency has to be shielded form it. But I think the reality is that once it's understood that non-rationale persuasion tactics will work - probably better than rational ones will - then the conversation to be had is whether to re-assess the culture of advertising itself. If you can basically lie to people about what a product will do (satirized best in Old Spice commercials) then I see little difference in lying about everything else that matters too. Maybe lying should be stopped, instead of pretending that it can be restricted to products that 'don't matter.' Everything matters; people are trained by the entire culture. I see the last election as being a strong red flag that something is rotten in the state of trademark.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on October 12, 2018, 05:24:27 PM
Maybe you have somethinge there, Fenring.  Advertising got so out-of-hand that the FTC got tasked to enforcing truth in advertising standards, just to keep the lies in check.

Maybe we should apply the truth-in-advertising statues to politicians, too.

I think I could get behind that.  :D
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on October 18, 2018, 10:11:42 AM
The Lie or intentional misleading statement

"For the record, I have no financial interests in Saudi Arabia (or Russia, for that matter)," Trump tweeted. "Any suggestion that I have is just more FAKE NEWS (of which there is plenty)!" - Trump

True: The Trump Organization does not own any buildings in Saudi Arabia... But

By his own account
“I love the Saudis. Many are in this building.”  “Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million,” Trump Alabama rally on Aug. 21, 2015
In 1991, as Trump was teetering on personal bankruptcy and scrambling to raise cash, he sold his 282-foot Trump Princess yacht to Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal for $20 million, a third less than what he had reportedly paid for it. Four years later, the prince came to his rescue again, joining other investors in a $325 million deal for Trump’s money-losing Plaza Hotel.


The statement is not a 'lie' but effectively obfuscated the issue of his business dealings with the Kingdom which he does not answer to. If it is not a lie is it dishonest?
Does Trumps base notice the manipulation or are they pleased by it "cleverness"?


Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on October 18, 2018, 11:16:49 AM
rightleft, I would suggest that in this case Trump's claim might not be spurious. I think "financial interests in Saudi Arabia" could be taken to mean direct ties to the government, or else a regular business venture that operates out of the country. It seems unreasonable to say that literally any rich Saudi person who buys something from Trump (like a boat) constitutes having a financial conflict of interest in that country. What would that mean, that if literally anyone from a country outside the U.S. buys personal property or possessions from you that you're conflicted as President with that whole country?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on October 18, 2018, 01:23:54 PM
From what I can gather when it come's to the Kingdom almost all Rich Saudi are connected to the government.
Regardless the truth is that Trump has and continues to make a lot of money from the Kingdom, even if he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on October 18, 2018, 01:46:53 PM
From what I can gather when it come's to the Kingdom almost all Rich Saudi are connected to the government.
Regardless the truth is that Trump has and continues to make a lot of money from the Kingdom, even if he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia

Isn't that like saying that if someone sells their house to Jeff Bezos that they now have "financial ties to the U.S."? After all, he has some dealings with the government too. But the claim in this case would sound silly to me.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on October 18, 2018, 02:49:06 PM
In this case I think people are questioning the amount and type of financial ties Trump has and as with who  (royals)

And perhaps there are other countries in which Trump has significant financial ties that should be question as well especially if there is a possibility of influence.

But it doesn't matter. Even if the Prince "invested" millions into Trump, its just business, Trump would never be influenced by that money.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 18, 2018, 03:46:34 PM
So we're looking back on transactions that occurred around 25 years ago and saying he has financial interests based on that???

Now other sources are describing an ongoing revenue stream. That is a financial interest. If you have a bunch of people who are regular customers for your goods and services, ones that might be predisposed to stop being your customers based on your policy decisions, that is a financial interest and a conflict of interest. But I tend to think that Trump probably doesn't even understand what a "financial interest" is, and thinks it implies he owns businesses in Saudi Arabia.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on October 21, 2018, 08:33:57 PM
rightleft22 wrote
Quote
We need two threads – one for misleading statements and one for solidly proven lies

I was very careful to name this thread "misleading or false claims" to avoid that argument.  Lies can be defined as requiring intent, which is difficult to prove, so I left that out.  Your example of "So if trump said the sky is Blue and he is the richest self made man ever. Even if it is proven that he is not the richest man ‘ever’ as much of his wealth was given to him by his father, He did not Lie because the sky is blue, and in away he is self made…"

Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't.  Sure, in a way he is self made.  But the claim that he is the richest self made man ever would be undeniably false.  Full stop.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: yossarian22c on October 21, 2018, 10:29:14 PM
So we're looking back on transactions that occurred around 25 years ago and saying he has financial interests based on that???

Now other sources are describing an ongoing revenue stream. That is a financial interest. If you have a bunch of people who are regular customers for your goods and services, ones that might be predisposed to stop being your customers based on your policy decisions, that is a financial interest and a conflict of interest. But I tend to think that Trump probably doesn't even understand what a "financial interest" is, and thinks it implies he owns businesses in Saudi Arabia.

No we're talking about a business relationship that goes back 25 years. He has continued to sell properties to rich Saudi's (a.k.a. Saudi royalty). Also there was MSB's stay at one of Trump's hotels that boosted quarterly revenue for the hotel by 13%.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on October 24, 2018, 03:07:12 PM
And in case anyone has any doubts why Democrats are not cooperating with Trump: "I'll soon sign into the law the largest legislative effort in history to address the opioid crisis where just this year we got $6 billion from Congress — thanks to (Ohio Republican Sen.) Rob Portman and a lot of others — thank you, Rob — but Rob and so many others helped. Very little Democrat support." (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/oct/24/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-opioid-bill-didnt-get-much-demo/)

The bill was introduced by both Republicans and Democrats.  Initial version passed the House 396-14; final version 393-8.  Initial version passed the Senate 99-1; final version 98-1.  (Only Mike Lee (R) voted against both versions.)

It doesn't matter if the Democrats cooperate or not.  Trump doesn't know or care, and just assumes they never do.  ::)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on October 24, 2018, 05:41:02 PM
Quote
It doesn't matter if the Democrats cooperate or not.  Trump doesn't know or care, and just assumes they never do
For Trump his language is always or never, good or bad/Sad - he has no between 
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on October 25, 2018, 12:47:47 PM
Quote
Trump, Nevada, Oct. 20: And we just passed — after 44 years, we just got it passed, I signed it two months ago, veteran’s choice, so that if they have to wait on line for 12 days or 14 days or 32 days, or much longer than that — can you believe it? …

They go immediately to see a doctor privately. We pay for their bill. …

But I thought it was so brilliant, I came back to my group, I said, I got the greatest idea, because I haven’t been doing this that long, so, you know, it wasn’t like high on my list, but it became high. I did know the veterans were never treated fairly. But I said, I have the greatest idea. We’re going to do this. If a veteran has to wait, we’re going to send them to a private doctor. We’ll pay the bill. What a genius — I said, I said, how good is that? They said, “Sir, we’ve been trying to get it passed for 44 years.” So I was good at getting things passed. That’s what I did.

Link (https://www.factcheck.org/2018/10/trumps-greatest-idea-for-a-2014-law/)

Completely false.  The law he is referring to was passed in 2014.

Now he did sign legislation that extended funding, but that was it.

So he either doesn't know the difference between funding a program and initiating it, or he is lying.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on October 25, 2018, 12:56:52 PM
Quote
Republicans will totally protect people with Pre-Existing Conditions, Democrats will not! Vote Republican.
Donald Trump, October 24, 2018

I don't think I even need to explain this, but if anyone thinks this is not blatantly false, let me know and I will go into detail.

Speaking of which, have Crunch or Seriati commented at all on this thread, either to attempt to defend the claims, or acknowledge the magnitude of the falsehoods?
 
Cherrypoptart has, but only to the extent of adding frivolous examples to dilute the purpose of the thread.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on October 25, 2018, 01:40:02 PM
Speaking of which, have Crunch or Seriati commented at all on this thread, either to attempt to defend the claims, or acknowledge the magnitude of the falsehoods?

I had not, honestly, thought it would be a waste of time.  Can do so.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on October 25, 2018, 02:32:57 PM
Finally, if Trump says something like "Democrats are for open borders", please don't claim that to be an opinion, and therefore immune from characterization as false or misleading.  He stated it as fact.  Opinions are "I like ice cream" or "Rugby is better than football", which can't be disproven.


I think this rule doesn't work.  "Some Democrats are for open borders" is a fact.  "All Democrats are for open borders" is false.  "Certain policies favored by the DNC are tantamount to open borders" is a conclusion or opinion, that can be justified or not to certain levels of satisfaction. 

Most things in politics are not capable of being proven or disproven because they are a mix of fact and axiom and involve a complex judgement of which factors have to be improving for something to be better.  "Open Borders" requires an agreement on what definitionaly that means - definitions are inherently not a matter of fact or proof but of agreement; it requires an agreement on what the results of a policy are and of which of those results are the intentional or material consequences.  So yes, "Democrats are for open borders" is an opinion, whether its also a fact or a false statement depends on a number of items that aren't directly capable of objective proof.
 

Quote
Quote
SEP 3 2018
“Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff.”

The investigations were not "Obama era".

Quote
Trump is referring to the recent indictments of Reps. Christopher Collins (R-N.Y.) and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). He calls them "Obama era" probes but Collins was indicted for insider trading that allegedly took place on June 17, 2017; a video caught him making a call on Trump's White House lawn that was cited in the case. Hunter was cited for campaign spending violations by the Federal Election Commission in 2016 but there was also a House Ethics Committee investigation -- and it did not defer to the Justice Department probe until 2017. Both indictments were approved by a U.S. attorney picked by the Trump

So Collins indictment for that conduct took place while he was already under a probe by the office of Congressional Ethics for his role in the company.  There were apparently "overheard" calls of his that were being investigated in January 2017.  And questions on his conduct may have been arising from 2013 onwards.  Sessions was appointed in February. 

How likely is it that the investigation only began in June?  Certainly possible, but it doesn't appear that you did anything to show that the investigation didn't predate Sessions.  Sure the charges are based on Trump era conduct, but it's just as obvious that the investigation predated the conduct that was charged.  So slightly misleading, but possibly factually accurate.  Certainly the timing piece was accurate, but I agree that shouldn't matter, crimes are crimes regardless of the election coming up.

Hunters' indictment for taking over $250k in campaign funds for personal expenses includes numerous citations to conduct that occurred during the Obama era, looks like small drips and drabs from 2011 onwards, things that could almost be legitimate, or that could be explained in ways that make them appear as such (kind of like creative income tax deductions).

Some examples, charging shorts at a pro shop where he was at a political event; paying for plane tickets "primarily" to attend a family dance competition (no idea if he did legit campaign business there but everyone knows people who mix personal events into business trips); paying for tickets for funeral travel.  Petty stuff, but legitimate charges.

Not clear though how you'd establish that wasn't a long running Obama Era investigation, without showing when the investigation started, given that the conduct was long running and during the Obama Era.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on October 25, 2018, 03:01:20 PM
Next false or misleading statement:

Quote
Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California - so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias - big problem!
Link (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/803033642545115140?lang=en)

No evidence to support this claim has ever been found.

No evidence?  Really?  There are multiple convictions of persons for false registration of voters in each of those states.  The article you linked for NH showed that the most basic kind of database search identified people that may have fraudulently voted and listed out persons that had in the past.

In many cases ferreting out common forms of voter fraud is very difficult.  That we find it nonetheless is very telling.

I mean, I assume you have no problem believing that the vast majority of sexual assaults are not reported, which factors into every estimate of the crime rate.  Why do you think we'd "catch" voter fraud related to mail in voting?  Or voting for falsely registered people?  It'd only be by a truly unlucky coincidence for the fraudster.

In any event, I don't have a quibble with calling him out for claims about how much voter fraud occurs, and you can certainly believe he doesn't believe it, but claiming there is "no evidence" when not only is there evidence, there's convictions, and the scope is impossible to measure accurately under the current system is not a reasonable claim.  Especially against a backdrop where non-US persons have admitted to having been registered and even voting.

Quote
This is harmful because it causes people to lose faith in the election process for false reasons.  Mind you, there are plenty of reasons to lose faith, from gerrymandering to easily hackable electronic voting machines to voter suppression.  But by providing false reasons, many people are distracted from doing something about the real reasons.

I see, and what's the evidence for your "real" reasons.  I just saw an article two days ago that 80% of Americans support voter id and 80% support automatic registration of voters.   It also showed that there doesn't appear to be a statistically significant voter suppression, even among minorities, of voter id laws.  Pretty much the claim is bunk.

Gerrymandering is only a "problem" when the other side is doing it, and our laws specifically require that we gerrymander in some circumstances to protect the ability of minorities to elect representatives.  The fact that there is no agreement on how that's best implemented has caused endless problems.

How about the impact of politically motivated district challenges that always are brought up at times where they are intended to prevent the plans approved by the proper process from being used? 

Voter fraud should be taken seriously by everyone, there's really no legitimate reason that someone should oppose preventing it.  The disenfranchisement argument is bull, and can be easily addressed in connection with the rules.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on October 25, 2018, 03:05:10 PM
nobody cares about my tax return except for the reporters

This one is objectively a false statement, and any statement that he will release them is more than likely a flat lie. 
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on October 25, 2018, 03:21:51 PM
Then there's Trump latest tweet: (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/10/politics/trump-unemployment-gdp/index.html)

Quote
The GDP Rate (4.2%) is higher than the Unemployment Rate (3.9%) for the first time in over 100 years!

Based on that statement, when would you think the last time this occurred?  Is it a rare event or something common?  How significant is it?

Naturally, the truth is completely different from what you'd infer from the statement...  ::)

So why would he say such a thing?

So the answer seems to be that it was an error.  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/sep/11/top-economic-advisor-says-trumps-tweet-about-economy-was-wrong-video (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/sep/11/top-economic-advisor-says-trumps-tweet-about-economy-was-wrong-video)  The "story" being that no one knows how Trump got told it was 100 instead of 10. 

So your choice is to believe Trump knew it was 10 and said 100 against a background of anyone with a computer being able to verify it, or he didn't know it.  In any event he doesn't seem like he personally corrected it.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on October 25, 2018, 03:39:08 PM
Quote
And, frankly, many countries [in NATO] owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where they’re delinquent, as far as I’m concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them. So if you go back 10 or 20 years, you’ll just add it all up. It’s massive amounts of money is owed.

NATO countries pay for the costs of running NATO and implementing its policies and activities. As far as I know, they are all paid up.

NATO countries agreed that they would have a goal of spending 2% of their GDP on defense.  That goal was established in 2014, and is intended to be met by 2024.  But if Germany does not spend 2% of their GDP on defense now, it does not mean they owe the shortfall to anyone, least of all the United States. You might argue that if Germany spends less than 2%, it is more likely that we would have to spend more.  But that is not necessarily the case, there is no way to measure it, and there is absolutely no documentation that that is the case.  In no way could you say anyone owes us anything.

This is dangerous, because if Trump is aware of his misleading comments, he is using them to justify ill-will towards NATO and our allies. If he is unaware, then his ignorance is dangerous, because it is causing ill-will towards NATO and our allies.

Nothing you wrote showed this to be false or misleading.  You just mansplained that in your view the other members of NATO didn't "owe" their fair share to NATO.  Both sides of the "issue," yours and Trump's are more about preconceptions than objective fact.

So while you're accurate when you say, effectively, there's no debt on the accounting ledgers, Trump's just as accurate when he says they owe us for our contributions covering their failure to do their part.

In this case, I think your claim that he's being false or misleading, is a bigger harm and more false than his claim.  His is easily understood in contest and raises a material point, whereas yours relies on technicalities that actually ignore the most material part of the issue (whether other members have done their fair share compared to the US).
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on October 27, 2018, 06:13:36 PM
Some arguments were made that didn't actually refute the points. 

Briefly, no evidence for serious voter fraud was found.  Period. If you want to define "serious" as a college student voting in the wrong place, and one actual case of voting twice, knock yourself out.

The example of open borders was for illustrating that not everything can be an opinion and therefore immune from being labeled false.  But to smash your argument, one would just have to show that Trump had a very clear definition of open borders that was not met by Democrats.  Oh wait, already did that (http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,561.msg22063.html#msg22063).

As far as the GDP and unemployment rate, I said it was not a big deal.  What is notable that the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers admitted the mistake, but Trump never did.  But again, not a big deal.

And finally NATO.  Does the US choose to spend more based on what other countries spend on their own defense?  Could be, but we don't know.  What we do know is that there is an explicit agreement on what defense spending goals are.  Every country is in compliance with that agreement.  Nobody owes anybody anything.  Period.  Not "my view", not preconceptions, not "understood in context".  Hard, cold, point of fact.  I really don't understand why an intelligent person devotes effort in trying to say that is not true.

Characterizing an investigation as "Obama era" has the unquestionable intent of casting doubt on its validity, to frame it as purely partisan.  Do you deny that?  Given that the indictable offense was after the Obama era, that characterization is misleading at best.  If you choose to interpret that characterization as neutral, knock yourself out.

But might it have started in the Obama era?  Sure, so I can't prove it is false, just misleading.

Still waiting on your response to
North Korea not being a nuclear threat anymore
completely misrepresenting polls
misrepresenting the $150K 9/11 grant
seeing people jump out of the WTC from 4 miles away
Puerto Rico death tolls
attributing statements to Richard Blumenthal that verge on hallucinatory
taking credit for passing a law passed in 2014
claiming Democrats will not protect pre-existing conditions

I'll work on some more once you address those.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on October 28, 2018, 02:15:47 PM
Sorry, I decided to post more, about President Trumps rationale for having a political rally after the Pittsburgh shooting.

Quote
“With what happened early today, that horrible, horrible attack in Pittsburgh, I was saying maybe I should cancel both this and that [Farmers For America and his own political campaign rally]. And then I said to myself, I remembered Dick Russell, a friend of mine, great guy, he headed up the New York Stock Exchange on September 11th, and the New York Stock Exchange was open the following day. He said — and what they had to do to open it you wouldn’t believe, we won’t even talk to you about it. But he got that exchange open. We can’t make these sick, demented, evil people important.”

“Remember the teams, the Yankees, George Steinbrenner. He said we have got to play, even if nobody comes, nobody shows up, we have got to play.”

So President Trump justified going ahead with a campaign rally based on the fact that the New York Stock Exchange, a business that drives much of the economy, decided to open the day after a tragedy

Except they didn't open the next day. Or the day after, or the day after.  It was not until September 17. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/28/no-president-trump-nyse-did-not-open-day-after-sept-attacks/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cc8a97bd4fa6)
And all sports teams shut down for about a week.

Did they have good reason to wait?  Certainly.  Does Trump have the same reasons?  Not at all.  But that does not change the fact that he used a false statement as an excuse to have a political rally within hours of a national tragedy.

The President could have cancelled the rally.  Or he could have had it without making excuses.  Or he could have had it with a weak but truthful excuse, e.g. I think stopping my campaign rally is giving in to terrorists.

But he chose the least honorable path possible, using an excuse that is provably false.

Oh, and Dick Russell was a pro-segregation Senator from Georgia.  Dick Grasso was the head of the NYSE.  Easy mistake to make when you don't have anyone check your speeches for accuracy.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: D.W. on October 29, 2018, 09:56:43 AM
Quote
The President could have cancelled the rally.  Or he could have had it without making excuses.  Or he could have had it with a weak but truthful excuse, e.g. I think stopping my campaign rally is giving in to terrorists.

But he chose the least honorable path possible, using an excuse that is provably false.
You're framing almost makes it look like he couldn't resist an opportunity to lie.  What really happened was he couldn't resist an opportunity to paint himself as heroic and triumphant.  That a lie just sorta spilled out to achieve that doesn't matter to him.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on October 29, 2018, 10:04:18 AM
Quote
You're framing almost makes it look like he couldn't resist an opportunity to lie.  What really happened was he couldn't resist an opportunity to paint himself as heroic and triumphant

Couldn't both be true? He can't resist a opportunity to lie or the opportunity to sing is own praises... which kind of the same thing... :) The man knows how to sell himself and speak to his followers. That an't now lie.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: D.W. on October 29, 2018, 10:30:54 AM
At this point I don't think he lies deliberately.  Without getting into his unfitness for office, I don't think he understands these things aren't true.  Or slightly more generous, I don't think he understands why anyone cares whether they are true or not...
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on October 30, 2018, 01:37:32 AM
IIRC, the biggest factor in the NYSE being shutdown for a week was it took that long to complete the cleanup of the surrounding area following the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, as well as implementing additional security measures in the aftermath of the attacks. (I also seem to recall a number of brokerages, and possibly NYSE hardware were present in those same towers, so they needed time to replace lost infrastructure)

No "clean up" was needed where Trumpy really was, unless you're claiming he held it in the same venue or "across the street" for all intents. Likewise the security situation as it pertains to Trump Rallies didn't change in light of the shooting. No support infrastructure was negatively impacted either.

Likewise, major league sporting events went on "pause" in part for PR, but largely because they too were scrambling to rework and strengthen their security measures in the aftermath of 9/11. Which once again is N/A for Trump's situation.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on October 30, 2018, 05:52:42 AM
IIRC, the biggest factor in the NYSE being shutdown for a week was it took that long to complete the cleanup of the surrounding area following the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, as well as implementing additional security measures in the aftermath of the attacks. (I also seem to recall a number of brokerages, and possibly NYSE hardware were present in those same towers, so they needed time to replace lost infrastructure)

No "clean up" was needed where Trumpy really was, unless you're claiming he held it in the same venue or "across the street" for all intents. Likewise the security situation as it pertains to Trump Rallies didn't change in light of the shooting. No support infrastructure was negatively impacted either.

Likewise, major league sporting events went on "pause" in part for PR, but largely because they too were scrambling to rework and strengthen their security measures in the aftermath of 9/11. Which once again is N/A for Trump's situation.

Which doesn't justify trumps false statement right? The stock market was not open. He didn't make your well reasoned arguments as to why it was shut down for a week. You could say he misremembered it, but don't forget he has "one of the great memories of all time". So if you remembered it, surely he must have, or he was making a misleading statement about his memory.
😉
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: DonaldD on October 30, 2018, 08:23:48 AM
Not to mention he misremembered the name of his "friend", Dick Russell - seriously, if he was even slightly friendly with Dick Grasso, he wouldn't have made either of those mistakes.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on October 30, 2018, 09:53:49 AM
Do Trump's Tariffs Actually Exist?

Quote
‘Where Do We Have Tariffs?’  “We don’t even have tariffs,”  “I’m using tariffs to negotiate. I mean, other than some tariffs on steel—which is actually small, what do we have? ... Where do we have tariffs? We don’t have tariffs anywhere.” - Trump

Quote
Billions of dollars are, and will be, coming into United States coffers because of Tariffs. Great also for negotiations - if a country won’t give us a fair Trade Deal, we will institute Tariffs on them. Used or not, jobs and businesses will be created. U.S. respected again! - Trump

"The more I think about Trump's argument that his tariffs are not real, the more I think he believes it. Real tariffs could not do all the things Trump says his tariffs can do, have done, and will do in the future. - In the end, there are only two options: Either Donald Trump is lying, or Donald Trump is lying." Eric Boehm

"The existence of the tariffs may be up for debate within Trump's mind, but they are very real to every other human being participating in the world economy."

What is real?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on November 08, 2018, 12:32:29 PM
This is not technically Trump, but Sarah Sanders.

They used a doctored video to justify pulling a press pass for a CNN reporter.

There are links  (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/white-house-releases-doctored-video-to-back-up-attack-on-acosta)here, you can see for yourself.  Subtle, but doctored to make it look like a more violent motion, instead of a natural motion.



Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: D.W. on November 08, 2018, 12:57:56 PM
It was too subtle for me...  Even in its "doctored" form, it didn't look like a big deal either way.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on November 08, 2018, 01:09:09 PM
I've looked at both versions the doctoring claim seems to be nonsense, it's totally designed to pull the focus off how inappropriate Acosta's behavior is in either video.

not to mention the "undoctored" version is in slow motion on your think, kind of odd when the claim about the "doctored" version is that its' sped up.  Lol.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on November 08, 2018, 01:29:59 PM
Quote
"Many people jumped and I witnessed it, I watched that. I have a view -- a view in my apartment that was specifically aimed at the World Trade Center,"

"And I watched those people jump and I watched the second plane hit ... I saw the second plane hit the building and I said, 'Wow that's unbelievable,'"

At the time, Trump lived in Trump Tower. 

Trump Tower is 4 miles from the World Trade Centers.

At the time I was barely south of Trump Tower, and I did not have direct view of the WTC, yet I too would say that I watched the second plane hit and people jump.  I was in the city that day and like - most - of the people in the city we were glued to a tv in a conference room from immediately after the first plane hit until we realized we needed to go home.

Calling that a lie is absurd.  I grant the way he said it could lead someone uncharitable to think he said he could "see Russia from his backporch."  But that's not close to the only reasonable way that could be interpreted.  I wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't see the explosion, he certainly could see the collapses.

Quote
Not a dangerous lie. Maybe not a lie, if he actually thinks he saw it himself from his apartment. But that means he misremembers one of the most memorable events in his life.  And as far as I know, it has never been retracted.

Again, ridiculously uncharitable.  I have no doubt he saw portions out his window and portions on his tv, exactly what everyone else with a similar window view remembers.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on November 08, 2018, 01:34:33 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/trump-puerto-rico-death-toll/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/trump-puerto-rico-death-toll/index.html)
Quote
3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. When I left the Island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000

This one was an interesting piece of BS.  Studies like this are designed to inflate body counts and really came into their own when they were developed to show the number of "Iraqi deaths" caused by George Bush's sanctions on Iraq.  Ultimately though they are ridiculous attempts to imply deaths by other causes should be retroactively attributed to a particular disfavored event, without any regard for intervening events and actual proximate causes.

Quote
This was done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible when I was successfully raising Billions of Dollars to help rebuild Puerto Rico. If a person died for any reason, like old age, just add them onto the list. Bad politics. I love Puerto Rico

He's literally correct about what happened and why, why is this even on the list?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on November 08, 2018, 01:53:43 PM
This one is personal, malicious, and without any basis in reality.  Trump fabricates a situation that never happened, and says it over and over again.

I would ask for proof that 'Trump fabricated' this situation, which - to my knowledge - was originally reported by Connecticut Newspapers, in Hartford I believe, long before Trump came into the picture.  Reporters that followed Blumenthal gave their accounts that his message and statements changed venue to venue and included things that were misleading.

Heck for someone who thinks anything says should always be interpreted as uncharitably as possible, it seems an odd position not to hold Blumenthal to the same standard.

Quote
Here is the reality:

Richard Blumenthal, Senator from Connecticut, on two occasions said he served in Vietnam.  He was in the Marine Corps Reserve from 1970 to 1976, thus serving during the Vietnam Era, but did not serve in Vietnam.

Here's a fairly neutral account, you'll note that Blumenthal even admits that he has on a "few" occasions mispoke about his service.  https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-richard-blumenthal-vietnam-20181001-story.html (https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-richard-blumenthal-vietnam-20181001-story.html)  By the standards you are using in this thread to evaluate Trump that makes it "proof" of his lies, does it not?

Of course, I recommend the original NYT article, in which it is very clear that it's not just "two" occasions.  https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html)

Now that said, it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not, but it certainly sounds possible given the number of times he spoke on the issue, the impression given and his deliberate stories about "when we came back."

Quote
That's it.  That is the sum total of his statements claiming to serve in Vietnam. News organizations have been looking at this for years.  There is nothing else, no allegations of anything else, no accusations of anything else.

As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate, or this just a false representation.  I should note, you could also look for CT residents who heard him speak on the topic.

But I agree, I haven't seen any substantiation in the official media about the war stories Trump claimed Blumenthal told.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: yossarian22c on November 10, 2018, 07:25:28 AM
Quote
"I don't know Matt Whitaker," Trump told reporters on Friday as he left the White House for a trip to Paris. "Matt Whitaker worked for Jeff Sessions. And he was always extremely highly thought of and he still is. But I didn't know Matt Whitaker." 


Quote
Matt Whitaker is a great guy. I mean, I know Matt Whitaker," 

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/666235157/trump-falsely-claims-not-to-know-the-man-he-hand-picked-as-acting-attorney-gener   (https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/666235157/trump-falsely-claims-not-to-know-the-man-he-hand-picked-as-acting-attorney-gener)

More pathological lying by trump.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on November 10, 2018, 10:48:43 AM
Context on the latter quote would be good. It is a common practice for High Profile persons to "talk up" others that they probably only met literally minutes before speaking about them, and possibly will never meet again.

The sense I get from Trump is he does that a LOT, and considers it to be akin to "a celebrity endorsement" of a person or thing. So it is very possible he lied when he said he "knows" Matt Whittaker and that he is being honest about not knowing him beyond his working for Sessions.

Edit: Yes, Trump's defense of Kavanaugh can be called into question with that. However one thing that went VERY under reported with regards to Kavanaugh was that the Bush Family was working behind the scenes to support him and they backed him fully too. If George and Laura Bush hadn't supported him, many Republicans likely would have not backed the nomination. (Senator Collins in particular was cited as such a case)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on November 11, 2018, 08:47:01 PM
This one is personal, malicious, and without any basis in reality.  Trump fabricates a situation that never happened, and says it over and over again.

I would ask for proof that 'Trump fabricated' this situation, which - to my knowledge - was originally reported by Connecticut Newspapers, in Hartford I believe, long before Trump came into the picture.  Reporters that followed Blumenthal gave their accounts that his message and statements changed venue to venue and included things that were misleading.

Heck for someone who thinks anything says should always be interpreted as uncharitably as possible, it seems an odd position not to hold Blumenthal to the same standard.

Quote
Here is the reality:

Richard Blumenthal, Senator from Connecticut, on two occasions said he served in Vietnam.  He was in the Marine Corps Reserve from 1970 to 1976, thus serving during the Vietnam Era, but did not serve in Vietnam.

Here's a fairly neutral account, you'll note that Blumenthal even admits that he has on a "few" occasions mispoke about his service.  https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-richard-blumenthal-vietnam-20181001-story.html (https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-richard-blumenthal-vietnam-20181001-story.html)  By the standards you are using in this thread to evaluate Trump that makes it "proof" of his lies, does it not?

Of course, I recommend the original NYT article, in which it is very clear that it's not just "two" occasions.  https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html)

Now that said, it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not, but it certainly sounds possible given the number of times he spoke on the issue, the impression given and his deliberate stories about "when we came back."

Quote
That's it.  That is the sum total of his statements claiming to serve in Vietnam. News organizations have been looking at this for years.  There is nothing else, no allegations of anything else, no accusations of anything else.

As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate, or this just a false representation.  I should note, you could also look for CT residents who heard him speak on the topic.

But I agree, I haven't seen any substantiation in the official media about the war stories Trump claimed Blumenthal told.

Seriati,
I would like to have a rational, respectful, fact-based conversation.  No personal attacks, no name-calling, no snide remarks or belittlement.  When a fact is stated, a source should be provided.
I hope you will do the same.

Let’s start with the facts:

Quote
“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

Quote
In 2003, he addressed a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “Let us do better by this generation of men and women.”

That is two cases where Blumenthal claimed to serve in Vietnam.

Now there is also this:

Quote
At a 2008 ceremony in front of the Veterans War Memorial Building in Shelton, he praised the audience for paying tribute to troops fighting abroad, noting that America had not always done so.“I served during the Vietnam era,” he said. “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse.”

This is not a case where Blumenthal claimed to serve in Vietnam.

If you can find a third case, please show me the source.  As far as I can tell, it is not the New York Times article you posted. 
I know that you are busy, and so if you can provide the source for the third case you insist exists, I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice.  Really.

Given those are the only two times he mentioned serving in Vietnam, there is no substantiation, in “official media” or otherwise about the war stories Trump claimed Blumenthal told.  Quite the opposite. 

The Washington Post  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/03/president-trumps-second-rant-richard-blumenthal-vietnam/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e330194dd8f0)said that Trump’s claim was "littered with falsehoods that veer into ridiculous territory."
The Hartford Courant (https://www.courant.com/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-trump-blumenthal-vietnam-liar-phony-20181001-story.html) called it “utter nonsense”,  and “hogwash”. 
The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/trump-democrats-blumenthal-feinstein-booker.html?module=inline) said Trump was “embellishing the senator’s misdeeds far beyond the truth.”

So we have the facts.  I am curious how you came to this conclusion:

Quote
it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not.

Blumenthal made two statements, “I served in Vietnam”, and “when we returned [from Vietnam]”.  Nobody, anywhere, supports Trump’s claim that he said more. (If you can find someone, please let me know). Multiple newspapers (the same ones that did the original reporting) say that Trump’s claim is false.  Multiple other sources (provided on request) say that Trump’s claim is false.

Yet you seem to be saying you are unable to determine whether the claim is supportable or not.

What level of evidence do you require for something to be unsupportable?  How do you define something as false?

Some clarification- “the situation” you refer to, brought up in 2010, is that Blumenthal made the two statements I quoted.  You are absolutely correct - Trump did not fabricate that situation.

But the topic was Trump's DaNang story etc.  Trump fabricated that.  I just wanted to point out your conflation between the two “situations”.

Yes, Blumenthal said he misspoke about his service a “few” times.  Definition of few:
Quote
a small number, a handful, one or two, a couple, two or three;

Seriati said
Quote
As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate, or this just a false representation.

I think my research was very thorough.  I would ask you to provide some evidence to justify your claim.
I repeat my offer of $50 to your favorite charity for sources that support a third statement by Blumenthal that he served in Vietnam.

Still waiting to hear your defense of these claims by Trump:
“And when he got out and when he apologized, he was crying. The tears were all over the place.”
Blumenthal “ actually dropped out of the race, and he won anyway because Democrats always win in Connecticut.”,
Blumenthal’s 12 point victory was “very close, probably the closest ever”
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on November 11, 2018, 09:02:18 PM
Quote
"Many people jumped and I witnessed it, I watched that. I have a view -- a view in my apartment that was specifically aimed at the World Trade Center,"

"And I watched those people jump and I watched the second plane hit ... I saw the second plane hit the building and I said, 'Wow that's unbelievable,'"

At the time, Trump lived in Trump Tower. 

Trump Tower is 4 miles from the World Trade Centers.

At the time I was barely south of Trump Tower, and I did not have direct view of the WTC, yet I too would say that I watched the second plane hit and people jump. 

Yes, you watched [on TV] people jump.  Did you see them?  Donald Trump said he saw the plane hit. Did you witness people jumping?  Donald Trump said he witnessed it.  Witnessed is a very strong, specific word.

People may claim to "see" something they saw on TV.  That is misleading, but I will not press the point. 

People don't "witness" things they watch on TV.  That is a false or misleading statement.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on November 11, 2018, 09:21:09 PM
I've looked at both versions the doctoring claim seems to be nonsense, it's totally designed to pull the focus off how inappropriate Acosta's behavior is in either video.

not to mention the "undoctored" version is in slow motion on your think, kind of odd when the claim about the "doctored" version is that its' sped up.  Lol.

I make no claim about Acosta's behavior.

The video was undeniably altered (https://www.thehour.com/news/article/White-House-shares-doctored-video-to-support-13374634.php), speeding up certain portions and adding frames to make the motion more aggressive.

Quote
Side-by-side comparisons support claims from fact-checkers and experts such as Jonathan Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, who argued that crucial parts of the video appear to have been altered so as to distort the action.

A frame-by-frame breakdown by Storyful, a social-media intelligence firm that verifies media content, found that the edited video included repeated frames that did not appear in the original footage. The repeated frames were shown only at the moment of contact and made Acosta's arm movement look more exaggerated, said Shane Raymond, a journalist at Storyful.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on November 18, 2018, 09:35:08 PM
Quote
“So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!”

Donald Trump, November 18, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1064216956679716864)

Technically false.  The Senate unanimously confirmed Mueller as FBI director on August 2, 2001, voting 98–0 in favor of his appointment.

But more important, misleading, in that Special Counsel does not require confirmation by law, so bringing it up implies that Mueller is somehow illegitimate for that reason.

I'm not sure how to categorize these Trump statements (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-18/trump-insults-key-house-democrat-schiff-with-potty-humor-tweet):

Quote
“You have to practice decorum,” Trump told reporters at a bill signing at the White House on Nov. 16. “You have to act with respect.” Trump repeated the call for decorum in a “Fox News Sunday” interview taped Friday.

"little Adam Schitt(D)"

I guess it's just gross hypocrisy, crassness, and obnoxious juvenility, not anything explicitly false or misleading.

I am willing to stipulate that Trump made an error typing Schiff's name.  All I need to see is a correction in his tweet, which he has done many times with previous typos.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on November 18, 2018, 10:37:50 PM
Quote
“So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!”

Donald Trump, November 18, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1064216956679716864)

Technically false.  The Senate unanimously confirmed Mueller as FBI director on August 2, 2001, voting 98–0 in favor of his appointment.

But more important, misleading, in that Special Counsel does not require confirmation by law, so bringing it up implies that Mueller is somehow illegitimate for that reason.

The Special Prosector's Office is not subject to Senate Confirmation, so it would be correct to state that Bob Mueller wasn't approved by the Senate for carrying out the role of Special Prosecutor.

And if you're going to pull out Mueller's Senate Confirmation in 2001 as Director of the FBI, then Trump should be able to bring up Whitaker's appointment to the US Attorney's office in 2004, and the requisite Senate Confirmation that happened then. Heck, for that matter, he was reviewed by the Senate Confirmation Committes more recently than Mueller has been. :)

I know that isn't the point you're trying to make, but the arguments you're attempting to make also happen to need some work.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Pete at Home on November 19, 2018, 08:38:32 AM
Quote
“So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!”

Donald Trump, November 18, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1064216956679716864)

Technically false.  The Senate unanimously confirmed Mueller as FBI director on August 2, 2001, voting 98–0 in favor of his appointment.

But more important, misleading, in that Special Counsel does not require confirmation by law, so bringing it up implies that Mueller is somehow illegitimate for that reason.

I'm not sure how to categorize these Trump statements (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-18/trump-insults-key-house-democrat-schiff-with-potty-humor-tweet):

Quote
“You have to practice decorum,” Trump told reporters at a bill signing at the White House on Nov. 16. “You have to act with respect.” Trump repeated the call for decorum in a “Fox News Sunday” interview taped Friday.

"little Adam Schitt(D)"

I guess it's just gross hypocrisy, crassness, and obnoxious juvenility, not anything explicitly false or misleading.

I am willing to stipulate that Trump made an error typing Schiff's name.  All I need to see is a correction in his tweet, which he has done many times with previous typos.

Thanks for starting my day with a laugh. This is actually the first time in his entire life that Donald Trump has ever done something that made me laugh. I’ve had a number of short laughs At the media reaction to him.  Yes he’s a juvenile son of a bitch. Yes he’s the misogynist sick grandson of the pampers.   Best bars I see no ones died because he was pissed off are in a bad mood.  So I’m still inclined to conclude that Donald Trump has done less damage to the country as president then he did as a private citizen
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Pete at Home on November 19, 2018, 08:42:41 AM
Quote
"Many people jumped and I witnessed it, I watched that. I have a view -- a view in my apartment that was specifically aimed at the World Trade Center,"

"And I watched those people jump and I watched the second plane hit ... I saw the second plane hit the building and I said, 'Wow that's unbelievable,'"

At the time, Trump lived in Trump Tower. 

Trump Tower is 4 miles from the World Trade Centers.

At the time I was barely south of Trump Tower, and I did not have direct view of the WTC, yet I too would say that I watched the second plane hit and people jump. 

Yes, you watched [on TV] people jump.  Did you see them?  Donald Trump said he saw the plane hit. Did you witness people jumping?  Donald Trump said he witnessed it.  Witnessed is a very strong, specific word.

People may claim to "see" something they saw on TV.  That is misleading, but I will not press the point. 

People don't "witness" things they watch on TV.  That is a false or misleading statement.

 Please pack up your claim that it’s misleading to say that you witnessed something on television. If you can’t find a federal rules of evidence, I’d be happy to provide a link.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2018, 08:54:23 AM
I think it is clear from the context that Trump was describing seeing it with the naked eye, else why talk about his view? If you just take the verb in isolation, yes, I wouldn't hold someone to the fire for saying they witnessed something on live TV. It's a little sloppy but easy to do in off the cuff remarks. Describing a view that he absolutely didn't have would either mean that he has misled people, or that he is clairvoyant - which really would be some kind of news.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on November 19, 2018, 08:56:16 AM
Which isn't to mention Trump may very well have (had)  a telescope or set of binoculars in his office/residence at Trump Tower. While technically "with assistance" it would still be his own eyes seeing it through the viewfinder.

But also others have mentioned, watching it through live TV coverage and confusing one detail about the memory 10+ years later is small potatoes compared to, for example, stories of taking weapons fire at airport when no such contemporary accounts exist of such a thing having ever happened. (I could believe there were briefings about what to do in case of such a thing)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Pete at Home on November 19, 2018, 09:43:47 AM
 I agree that a lot of people might be confused from reading it. Particularly if they’re not aware that President Trump has a tendency to exaggerate. Nevertheless, I think I put that statement on the list of the top 10 least miss leading statements by Donald Trump
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on November 19, 2018, 10:40:41 AM
I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as an acceptable for any leader. But that me.

Quote
But also others have mentioned, watching it through live TV coverage and confusing one detail about the memory 10+ years later…
If this was isolated failure to remember correctly I might agree, personally to me If Trump is not intentionally ling, misleading, exaggerating or remember wrong it suggests a mental issue.
I’m ok with miss-remembering however Trump other character traits of not apologizing or acknowledging mistakes makes it difficult to determine when he’s "just" discarding information he does not consider relevant to the point he is making or adding information to enhance a point. It is fascinating how the man shapes his reality (and ours)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2018, 11:17:55 AM
Quote
Bankrobber, huh? I was a bankrobber when I was a kid, yeah, I was, eh, twelve years old at the time. Yeah, I used to rob five banks a day, six days a week.

Tommy Flanagan, SNL character, or Donald Trump?

The more accurate term for Trump isn't excessive exaggerator or truthful hyperbolist, it is pathological liar.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on November 19, 2018, 12:01:59 PM
I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as an acceptable for any leader. But that me.

Quote
But also others have mentioned, watching it through live TV coverage and confusing one detail about the memory 10+ years later…
If this was isolated failure to remember correctly I might agree, personally to me If Trump is not intentionally ling, misleading, exaggerating or remember wrong it suggests a mental issue.
I’m ok with miss-remembering however Trump other character traits of not apologizing or acknowledging mistakes makes it difficult to determine when he’s "just" discarding information he does not consider relevant to the point he is making or adding information to enhance a point. It is fascinating how the man shapes his reality (and ours)

And we are back to:
1) Yes, Donald Trump is a garbage fire.
2) Yes, I still consider him an improvement over Hillary Clinton.
3) Yes, I would prefer any option better than either of the two mentioned above.
4) I'm afraid the Democrats are going to provide me with an option that would make me prefer Hillary over them, and that means Trump will remain preferable to the major alternative.

All we're effectively doing here is critiqing the qualities of the burning refuse.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on November 19, 2018, 01:08:46 PM

 Please pack up your claim that it’s misleading to say that you witnessed something on television. If you can’t find a federal rules of evidence, I’d be happy to provide a link.
That link would be greatly appreciated, along with where to find evidence supporting your particular claim, that seeing something on TV is witnessing the event itself, not witnessing the TV broadcast of the event itself.

Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on November 19, 2018, 01:18:11 PM
Quote
“So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!”

Donald Trump, November 18, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1064216956679716864)

Technically false.  The Senate unanimously confirmed Mueller as FBI director on August 2, 2001, voting 98–0 in favor of his appointment.

But more important, misleading, in that Special Counsel does not require confirmation by law, so bringing it up implies that Mueller is somehow illegitimate for that reason.

The Special Prosector's Office is not subject to Senate Confirmation, so it would be correct to state that Bob Mueller wasn't approved by the Senate for carrying out the role of Special Prosecutor.

And if you're going to pull out Mueller's Senate Confirmation in 2001 as Director of the FBI, then Trump should be able to bring up Whitaker's appointment to the US Attorney's office in 2004, and the requisite Senate Confirmation that happened then. Heck, for that matter, he was reviewed by the Senate Confirmation Committes more recently than Mueller has been. :)

I know that isn't the point you're trying to make, but the arguments you're attempting to make also happen to need some work.

Thank you for the new information. Whitaker was indeed confirmed by the Senate as U.S. Attorney.

However, that does not make Trump's statement about Mueller any less false.  Nor does it make it any less misleading.

I would appreciate the opportunity to clarify or correct my arguments, but I can't do that if you don't provide any details on the shortcomings you see. 
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on November 19, 2018, 01:51:25 PM
Quote
I'm afraid the Democrats are going to provide me with an option that would make me prefer Hillary over them

It will be interesting who is chosen but I'm not holding my breath. Looks like they are going with Nancy Pelosi as speaker and that woman is out of touch. IMO. Meaning the DNC will remain stuck doing the same things the same ways as they have always done them and that are no longer effective. (if they ever were)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2018, 01:53:10 PM
I think you have a much more narrow usage of the word witness than is generally accepted in colloquial english, velcro.

Moon landing memories (https://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2014/07/moon_landing_memories.html)

Quote
We want to hear from those who witnessed the moon landing. Where were you? Were you watching it on television? Who was watching with you? Did you find it inspiring? Where does it fall on the spectrum of your experiences you have had in your lifetime?

Although at least one person agrees with you.

Quote
Audrey Raines: Yes, I witnessed the moon landing. I was standing right there on the moon, and those guys straight up landed on it.

You can find innumerable other such uses when describing or asking about historical events.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on November 19, 2018, 02:03:48 PM
Quote
I'm afraid the Democrats are going to provide me with an option that would make me prefer Hillary over them

It will be interesting who is chosen but I'm not holding my breath. Looks like they are going with Nancy Pelosi as speaker and that woman is out of touch. IMO. Meaning the DNC will remain stuck doing the same things the same ways as they have always done them and that are no longer effective. (if they ever were)

If Hillary is still at the helm of the DNC by next election it may not go well for them. No one will ever know if she is or not, and the only reason we know she ever was was due to Wikileaks. Her MO seems to be that the President should serve the interests of Wall Street and military industry, and whoever they prop up like that (a 'neo-liberal') may well be unlikeable. I do think they have some viable options that are more charismatic but they will not be for that kind of agenda, so I worry that this will disqualify them out of the gate. We'll see the DNC cares more about representing the people and winning an election, or about furthering old agendas that are out of touch.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Pete at Home on November 19, 2018, 02:36:12 PM
I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as an acceptable for any leader. But that me.

Good luck with that.  Me, i’m a 4.5 year recovering alcoholic In my continued Sebright he depends on my excepting reality as it is rather than as I wished it to be. Accept things I cannot change, etc.

I don’t like the fact that Hollywood writers went on strike many years ago and ended up creating a massive genre of reality television. But it happens.

I don’t like that reality television continue does it’s own genre after the writer strike end it. But it did

I don’t like that Jon Stewart retired

I don’t like that Donald Trump is turned into a celebrity and got his own show. But he did.

I don’t like the fact that you guys think that this is important.  Maybe this is one of those things I can change.   Can you anyone explain to me how the question of whether Donald Trump watched the 9/11 attacks on television or actually saw them through binoculars or saw them standing from another building makes 1 g of difference? Even the term “misleading “implies that something could lead us in the wrong direction. I don’t see how it makes any difference.  Is anyone hear denying that 9/11 occurred?

911 was an extremely trauatic event for me. And that’s one of the ways that we use the word “witnessed”.  It means that you saw in the you were affected by a Trumatic event that you took personally. If you say that a child went catatonic after he witnessed the in the brutal slaying of us parents , Nobody bitches in quibbles whether the child saw it in person or over a close circuit television set or on public television.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2018, 03:30:24 PM
It certainly seems that Trump doesn't see reality, and substitutes whatever he wishes it to be.

Is this one instance particularly egregious? No, probably not. But it is in a context of clearly false statements, particularly about 9/11. Relentlessly trying to place himself at the center of the action, hiring people to search, donating to help victims, watching Muslims celebrate, etc.

His failed credibility should be a concern for everybody. When he tells us we are going to war, would you believe anything he says? What about when he tells us elections are all rigged, and he won't abide by the result? And when he tells us the Chinese are paying tariffs, when it is American importers who are doing so? Some of his supporters overlook all this because, well, Hillary woulda been worse for the country. Right now, among other things, we need to see Republican challengers in the mix for President. We need for people to have an option that isn't Trump and isn't the Democrat, that most Trump voters couldn't fathom voting for no matter which part of the party they come from.

It is important to remind ourselves that this is not okay, what he is doing. That we don't accept it as "normal" or "not that bad".
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on November 19, 2018, 05:24:56 PM
Quote
I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as acceptable for any leader. But that’s me.

Good luck with that… excepting reality as it is rather than as I wished it to be…

That’s the thing I’m not sure if Trump can except reality as it is or if he’s caught up life time attempts to reshape his reality into what he wishes it to be. (How he manipulated Forbes richest list was brilliant, I mean he made people believe it and used it as collateral!)   All politicians do this at some level however I’m not sure Trump knows the difference anymore or even if he’s doing it. The 9/11 examples aren’t troubling in and of them selves but as TheDrake points out as a pattern of reshaping reality it should be concerning.
 
I can’t find it right now but there was an interesting paper on Putin and his ability to “shape” reality. It isn’t actually that difficult to do if your the right guy as most leaders can’t get away with it for long. Something different about men like Putin that his supporters are willing to accept what they are fed.  Saudi Arabi Crown prince tries, but he sucks at it.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on November 19, 2018, 07:30:41 PM
I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as an acceptable for any leader. But that me.

Good luck with that.  Me, i’m a 4.5 year recovering alcoholic In my continued Sebright he depends on my excepting reality as it is rather than as I wished it to be. Accept things I cannot change, etc.

I don’t like the fact that Hollywood writers went on strike many years ago and ended up creating a massive genre of reality television. But it happens.

I don’t like that reality television continue does it’s own genre after the writer strike end it. But it did

I don’t like that Jon Stewart retired

I don’t like that Donald Trump is turned into a celebrity and got his own show. But he did.

I don’t like the fact that you guys think that this is important.  Maybe this is one of those things I can change.   Can you anyone explain to me how the question of whether Donald Trump watched the 9/11 attacks on television or actually saw them through binoculars or saw them standing from another building makes 1 g of difference? Even the term “misleading “implies that something could lead us in the wrong direction. I don’t see how it makes any difference.  Is anyone hear denying that 9/11 occurred?

911 was an extremely trauatic event for me. And that’s one of the ways that we use the word “witnessed”.  It means that you saw in the you were affected by a Trumatic event that you took personally. If you say that a child went catatonic after he witnessed the in the brutal slaying of us parents , Nobody bitches in quibbles whether the child saw it in person or over a close circuit television set or on public television.

Pete,

You convinced me.  No sarcasm here.  Trump saying he "witnessed" and "saw" people jumping out of a building 4 miles away is not definitively false, if you widen those terms to include watching it on TV.  So I acknowledged he "witnessed" it on TV.

But look at the context.  Since he only witnessed it on TV, what he actually said is completely misleading.

Quote
"Many people jumped and I witnessed it, I watched that. I have a view -- a view in my apartment that was specifically aimed at the World Trade Center,"

Since he was watching it on TV why would the next words out of his mouth describe the view from his apartment?  Can any of his defenders address that?

Is this particular misleading statement all that important?  Not in and of itself.  But if he is willing to mislead about this, is there anything he is not willing to mislead about?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: scifibum on November 20, 2018, 01:17:29 PM
Litigating the details of a particular false claim kind of misses the point - which is that he makes hundreds of false claims, some big, some small, some believable to most people (if they aren't paying attention to who he is), some believable only to people who have sold their souls to Sean Hannity.

Putin successfully created an authoritarian regime where what is objectively true isn't as important as what he declares is true. This sort of thing is happening elsewhere, and Trump is trying to make it happen here. It's incredibly important, and I think it's morally reprehensible to minimize it.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on November 20, 2018, 02:45:37 PM
Putin successfully created an authoritarian regime where what is objectively true isn't as important as what he declares is true. This sort of thing is happening elsewhere, and Trump is trying to make it happen here. It's incredibly important, and I think it's morally reprehensible to minimize it.

I'm not exactly going to contest this, but on the other hand I'd like to point out that the idea of trusting what politicians say is a relatively new one. Pre-WWII it was taken for granted that they all lied and you couldn't trust them. Post WWII this changed and I think there have been on-and-off again periods of trust and distrust. But for my part, and certainly since I've been more aware of things for the past ~15 years I haven't taken seriously claims made by high government officials on any controversial matter. I agree that Trump takes this to another level because he distorts reality even in trivial matters. I mean, it's understandable from a realpolitik point of view to lie about Benghazi or Iraq 2.0 (just as theoretical examples) because they are major issues; but there's seemingly little to gain by making stuff up about matters that are hardly consequential but end up subverting even the most basic level of trust in public statements. So things are worse now than before, BUT as I don't care about the trivial matters as much as the great ones I don't think things are materially worse in that department than they have been since W took office. Actually compared to that Presidency I'd say even this is an improvement...
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: scifibum on November 20, 2018, 02:58:59 PM
Trump didn't start a war in Iraq, so it's going to be hard to match W for direct harm until he does start a war.

I think what gets me so upset with Trump is how many lies he's getting away with - he doesn't have to rely on faulty intelligence reports or anything to convince a large contingent of Americans to believe a large number of false things. All while directly and consistently trying to undermine the press.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on December 02, 2018, 09:40:02 AM
Donald Trump, on the Moscow Trump Tower project. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-one-departure-27/)

Quote
... a project, which was essentially, I guess, more or less of an option that we were looking at in Moscow. Everybody knew about it. It was written about in newspapers. It was a well-known project.

...a project that everybody knew about. I mean, we were very open with it. We were thinking about building a building.

...This deal was a very public deal. Everybody knows about this deal. I wasn’t trying to hide anything. Okay.

It was not covered in any newspaper until well after the election, August 2017. (https://www.factcheck.org/2018/11/trumps-sketchy-cohen-claims/)

Quote
The fact that the Trump Organization was negotiating for the development of a Trump Tower in Moscow even during his presidential campaign wasn’t publicly known until Aug. 28, 2017, seven months into Trump’s presidency. As the Washington Post reported at that time, Cohen reached out to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s personal spokesman in mid-January 2016 with an email seeking to revive stalled negotiations over the project.

It was known that Trump was generally interested trying to make deals in Russia for decades.  It was not known that he was trying to make a deal during the campaign of 2016.

Trump is giving the impression that , during the campaign, people knew about the deal.  That is misleading.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on December 02, 2018, 02:01:24 PM
Because business enterprises make a habit of publicly advertising business deals that are in active negotiations and may or may not reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Usually the ones that publicly announce such things(Like Amazon) are looking for public handouts/subsidies "to make the deal" or are otherwise reliant on hype in order to potentially "fake it until they make it."

Most reputable companies which are NOT seeking public subsidies tend to be very quiet about the specifics of what they're up to until the final paperwork is ready to begin printing. It is particularly common in real estate to advertise "grand vision" (tower in Russia) while keeping quiet as to details until there actually are details to divulge.

So I am going to give this a half-valid rating. From Trump's point of view "common knowledge" of his groups interest in placing a Tower in Russia is coverage of the matter, even if the press lacked specific knowledge at the time. It is how the industry works in general. Negotiations "fall through" all the time, even the ones that were about to become legally binding.(And even many that were binding)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on December 03, 2018, 08:09:22 PM
I think I was not particularly clear.

There was general knowledge that Trump wanted to build in Russia for decades.  There was no knowledge that any specific deals were being discussed.  There was no public information that there were active discussions during the campaign.

Newspapers did not cover "the project".  Nobody knew about "the project".
The deal was not "a very public deal".

Quote
From Trump's point of view "common knowledge" of his groups interest in placing a Tower in Russia is coverage of the matter, even if the press lacked specific knowledge at the time. It is how the industry works in general. Negotiations "fall through" all the time, even the ones that were about to become legally binding.(And even many that were binding)

From Trump's point of view, exercise is bad for you, so that particular line of reasoning doesn't carry much weight.

From a rational person's point of view, the specific deal had no coverage.
From a rational person's view, Trump's statements give the clear impression that there was plenty of coverage on a specific deal.
Therefore, his statement is misleading.

How the industry works, and whether negotiations "fall through" have nothing to do with the statements above, or whether Trump was misleading.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on December 03, 2018, 10:24:22 PM
A little more context:

Quote
Well I told you, General Flynn obviously was dealing [with Russia]. So that’s one person. But he was dealing, as he should have been. . . . Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years. Don’t speak to people from Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.”

— President Trump, in a news conference, on Feb. 16, 2017

About 16 months earlier (October 2015), he signed a letter of intent for the Russia project.  About 8 months earlier (June 2016) his lawyer was still working on the deal.

Technically, at the time he said it, nobody was actively working on a Russian project, that we know of.  But what he said is misleading. He never said "nothing anymore" or "nothing recently". He never was forthcoming about what he had done in the recent past, the specific "deal" that nobody knew about.

His statements strongly imply he had no recent dealings.  His statements are misleading.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 04, 2018, 09:53:42 AM
I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as an acceptable for any leader. But that me.

Then you live in the wrong country.  As far as I can tell every election since I've been born has been the 'most important of our lifetimes' with the 'fate of the country in the balance' and every time the other party has left office, they have 'ruined the country and that's why our results are so poor.'   I mean the Republicans want to kill old people, kill immigrants and kill the poor, the Democrats want to impose communism, open the borders to anyone that can get there and impose Sharia law and make it illegal to be a Christian.

Seriously.  Trump is a crass braggart, but the rest are braggarts and exaggerators of a slightly higher "class," that's the only difference.

Quote
I’m ok with miss-remembering however Trump other character traits of not apologizing or acknowledging mistakes makes it difficult to determine when he’s "just" discarding information he does not consider relevant to the point he is making or adding information to enhance a point. It is fascinating how the man shapes his reality (and ours)

As far as I can tell, Bill Clinton (and if I'm remembering correctly Jimmy Carter) are the only recent Presidents that admit mistakes.  Carter is remembered as a bumbler, and Clinton was the master of the televangelical apologetic reformed sinner style.

I do agree Trump takes that trait to an extreme.  But if you think it's unusual, take a look at Obama's admission of mistakes during his Presidency.  If you find him apologizing, he's usually apologizing to the world for America's past (whether we wanted him to or not).  The biggest difference is the media aggressiveness on "fact checking" the two.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on December 04, 2018, 11:49:33 AM
I’m not sure when were talking about the same thing when talking about the idea of character.  Based on the philosophy books and such that I have read the idea of Character and Integrity are import attributes of Leader. You don’t need Character, as argued by Aristotle and the like, to be successful at gaining power or making money, but that’s a difference in definition of success and leadership. 

I was watching 60 minutes piece on the death of George Bush. What struck me was how often the ideals of integrity of Character were mentioned.  It wasn’t that he always lived up to those ideals, and perhaps in many cases he was fooling himself, yet it was important to him and those that worked for him. (Perhaps they too were only fooling themselves… we are all fools).
Still all the past presidents mention the importance of the maintaining the integrity of the office and being representative of American morality. (whether they met that challenge or not.) They believe that how a President represented the office was important to American success. They missed the point that a transnational world view where success is defined by economic gain Character and morality does not matter. Not in the short run anyway. My opinion, such “leadership” sows the seed to its own destruction.

My view is that History has shown that Character and integrity does matter and that what we model to our children matters. You may be ok defending and supporting bad/poor Character and integrity with the excuse that all leaders fail to live up to this standard, however to me that is a shallow and lazy argument. 

Trump has your support because he is Republican and you approve of his economic, domestic and forging policy and that’s fine.   That does not require a defense of Trump Integrity or Character. Yet any other Republican President would likely have set the same economic policies into motion. I don’t know, I guess I’m old fashioned and the world has move past me, I believe that who we select to represent us does reflect on who we are, and the message will be heard by our children. Trump is about transactions, he is about money… he is about what’s in it for me…. And those are the values America has chosen to define success and for our children to follow.   

When its Trump time to lie in state no one is going to use words relating to the ideals of character or integrity. His Legacy will not be kind in that regard
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on December 04, 2018, 12:37:10 PM
Quote
The biggest difference is the media aggressiveness on "fact checking" the two.

I think part of this is how really easy it is to point out Trump's error/dishonesty compared to Obama.

For example, when Obama used a number, it was usually more hypothetical than historical, but when he did use one it was typically vetted pretty carefully and not off by an order of magnitude.

He also didn't fundamentally misunderstand/misrepresent things like when Trump says that China is paying tariffs, when it is US importers that pay tariffs.

He also avoided definitive statements using words like "the best in this country's history" that lends themselves to easy debunking when you can easily trot out that such things did happen before. Obama might be cheerleading as well, but has learned to say "one of the best in this country's history" that allow outs.

I'm not going to rehash all of the various claims about Trump in this light, but I think it is worth thinking about. Obama and other career politicians protect themselves from this sort of criticism/abuse, for better or worse. One could certainly argue that subtle propaganda is worse than easily recognized propaganda.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 04, 2018, 12:53:44 PM
I’m not sure when were talking about the same thing when talking about the idea of character.  Based on the philosophy books and such that I have read the idea of Character and Integrity are import attributes of Leader. You don’t need Character, as argued by Aristotle and the like, to be successful at gaining power or making money, but that’s a difference in definition of success and leadership.

I think we are talking about the same thing.  Where we differ is apparently the belief that we've had Presidents of Character and Integrity more routinely than not.  Trump is openly of low character, but was Clinton's and Kennedy's treatment of women of high character?  Was Bush's history with parties, drugs and alcohol of high character?  Obama's willingness to deride the history of the US and to pump up his own contributions?  My own experiences with politicians is that they tend towards being professional phonies, incredibly charming ones though. 

Quote
I was watching 60 minutes piece on the death of George Bush. What struck me was how often the ideals of integrity of Character were mentioned.  It wasn’t that he always lived up to those ideals, and perhaps in many cases he was fooling himself, yet it was important to him and those that worked for him. (Perhaps they too were only fooling themselves… we are all fools).

There are alternative views on Bush relating to his work with the CIA, was it reflective of a higher character or reflective of a flexible one.  That's not going to be talked about at the moment, but it certainly was in the past.
 
Quote
Still all the past presidents mention the importance of the maintaining the integrity of the office and being representative of American morality. (whether they met that challenge or not.) They believe that how a President represented the office was important to American success.

What troubles me about this though, is that one doesn't need actual character for this effect.  The media can sell the story when they want to (by covering up serial cheating for Clinton and Kennedy) and blow it apart whenever they feel so inclined.  Can you distinguish between actual character and the appearance of it?

Quote
My view is that History has shown that Character and integrity does matter and that what we model to our children matters. You may be ok defending and supporting bad/poor Character and integrity with the excuse that all leaders fail to live up to this standard, however to me that is a shallow and lazy argument.

I'm honestly not okay with bad character.  My choice in the last Presidential election was of two candidates with no character.  I literally took the least bad option. I still believe that honestly that Clinton's character is worse than Trump's. 

Quote
Trump has your support because he is Republican and you approve of his economic, domestic and forging policy and that’s fine.

I defend Trump because the attacks are completely partisan and in most cases don't meet even a minimum burden of proof.

I support a number of his policies.  I do think his record at carrying out his campaign promises, or trying to do so, is pretty exceptional.  If one were to evaluate character based on doing what a politician said he was going to do - a reasonable metric - you'd be hard pressed to make the claim that Trump is of lower character than our other national politicians.

I'm still not seeing really good policy based arguments against Trump's positions. 

Quote
Yet any other Republican President would likely have set the same economic policies into motion.

I disagree completely.  Tax reform maybe, but not as much of a corporate rate fix as Trump got.  No chance they actually try to fix immigration, that's been left open for decades by both parties.  Similarly, no chance they would actually have attempted to fix trade imbalances.  He's also remarkably opposed to foreign intervention (I mean that's one possible fix on immigration, if Hondoras is really so dangerous that anyone that leaves it is entitled to asylum we could impose our will there for safeties sake).
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 04, 2018, 12:58:03 PM
For example, when Obama used a number, it was usually more hypothetical than historical, but when he did use one it was typically vetted pretty carefully and not off by an order of magnitude.

He also didn't fundamentally misunderstand/misrepresent things like when Trump says that China is paying tariffs, when it is US importers that pay tariffs.

Most of the evidence is that Obama knowingly lied about the impact of Obamacare to get it passed.  Repeatedly lied, knowing that the population wasn't in any position to understand the lies.  That - to me - is far more deliberate and manipulative than what Trump's generally charged with.

He also quite literally put forward members of his administration who were not knowledgeable so they could lie with plausible deniability (think Rice on Benghazi).

I'm really not sure that this game of which side lies is worthwhile, just pointing out that we all seem to inexcusably ignore the conduct of our "own" side in these debates, which drives the otherside nuts.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on December 04, 2018, 02:07:53 PM
As in many discussions today we are at an impasse. I can’t debate character or integrity without having to defend past leader’s actions that failed to live up to their ideals and so showed poor character. Philosophically I’m not sure that’s a valid argument though Politically maybe it is. Perhaps that’s where we differ?

It feels to me that dialog with regards to integrity and character is dead. Unless we have a saint that never faulted that we can all agree  as an acceptable base line we can use anyone failure as an excuse for the character of another. And whatever you say it’s an excuse we create so that we can live as we want/are and not as we could be.  What comes first? A failure to hold ourselves to a standard of integrity or failing to hold our leaders to a standard. I suspect both failures are intertwined eventually become an excuse for both.

For me Character shows it self not by our failures to live up to our ideals but by being accountable and striving to do better.  I think we all know what we are doing when we support leaders with the values of a Trump. We can dress it of as politically necessity or whatever. But when we say yes to a man of Trump’s integrity and transactional perspective we know what we are saying Yes to. We might not like to believe that it reflects our personal values… and that the stink won’t touch us but… at some level we know  it's a lie we are telling ourselves.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on December 04, 2018, 02:15:23 PM
If he did lie about Obamacare impact, he had CBO backing him up along with a lot of other independent assessments, as well as many who were saying he understated it. There's also a lot of factors that could cause legitimate underestimates. Estimates aren't facts yet, so the only way such things are lies is if there's a little more of a smoking gun. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt when error is a reasonable explanation, which is why I never got on the "Bush lied" bandwagon about WMD.

Your second point is kind of what I said in the last post - there are lies, fact checks, and other kinds of deception. It's common practice to not tell people certain things and let them mislead the public - press secretaries in particular.

I'm just saying I'm in favor of subtle lies and manipulation rather than Trump's blatant misstatements followed by doubling down.

Washington post (as a 'friendly' source) calls some out, like “We signed into law the biggest middle-class tax cut in history”, which is uncharacteristically able to be pinned down. This friendly source that supposedly gives Obama passes rated it out as four pinocchios on their scale, and beat him up pretty good on it. I'm sure we could generate another thread for him, and I'd agree with some and reject others.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 05, 2018, 09:53:29 AM
As in many discussions today we are at an impasse. I can’t debate character or integrity without having to defend past leader’s actions that failed to live up to their ideals and so showed poor character. Philosophically I’m not sure that’s a valid argument though Politically maybe it is. Perhaps that’s where we differ?

Maybe I'm coming off too strongly on this.  Morality is important but the question can only be considered in the context in which it presented itself.  If you go back an look, you can see that I've been stating for years (I think even before the last Presidential election) that in the election of Trump vs. Clinton a voter who was primarily concerned with morality had no candidate.  But morality is still only part of an equation.  Voters still needed to decide which of the two candidates would be better and worse for the country.  Saying Trump is immoral is not decisive when he was running against Clinton.

But I think too the idea that morality is the only important trait is also false.  Voting for a moral person who would lead the country into war or ruin doesn't make sense, even if your other choice is an immoral person.

I do object to raising morality as a tactic, which is how if feels when it's raised out of context.   If the Dems nominate a clearer more moral person (like, as far as I can tell, Bernie Sanders) that's a point in their favor, but his policies, would in my mind be such a disaster that I still couldn't vote for him.  If they were to nominate someone like an Avenatti (who seems to be similar to Trump on the morality scale) then they'd lose that point.

I'm also cognizant that the media goes out of its way to pretend that every Republican nominated is evil incarnate.  They did it to Dole, to both Bushes, to Trump (notwithstanding they loved him when the exact same guy was a media figure and Democrat), heck they even did it to Romney.  Similarly they bury the facts on Democrats, they pretended Obama was a blank slate despite a history of extremely questionable associations (the kind they would have played over and over if they were associated with the other side), they not only hid, they went out of their way to try and discredit evidence of B. Clinton's infidelities and even potentially of assaults, they buried as much as they could H. Clinton's role in slut shaming those women (and almost completely buried the affairs she's purported to have had).

Quote
For me Character shows it self not by our failures to live up to our ideals but by being accountable and striving to do better.  I think we all know what we are doing when we support leaders with the values of a Trump. We can dress it of as politically necessity or whatever. But when we say yes to a man of Trump’s integrity and transactional perspective we know what we are saying Yes to.

Well I think this criticism is just as fair if you replace Trump with Clinton.  That's what's galling about it.  Effectively everyone in the two party system supported one of the two as a leader, which literally means this applies to everyone.  Why do you think it's an effective  hammer if you were as guilty as those you oppose?  It's seems far easier, and requires less moral courage, to call out the other side than to demand your own side admit the fault and make changes.

I'm also aware that focusing on Trump when Congress is full of equally as scummy people is a misfocus.  Trump's drain the swamp slogan was powerful for a reason.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on December 05, 2018, 10:36:23 AM
Quote
Well I think this criticism is just as fair if you replace Trump with Clinton

The reliance on the argument that b is worse then a, or just as bad, so you can’t criticize or hold anyone accountable. The debate is deflected and degenerates to who did what and what is worse. (It’s a very effective if lazy method to derail a debate). Worse the argument excuses our choosing to support leaders that are not worthy of our support. And we do so thinking that what we support with regards to character (and you and I are not taking about the same thing) does not reflect back onto our values and the values we want to model for our children.

I get it, you win, the debate is over, we are all hypocrites, so we can’t demand better of our leaders or ourselves. 
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on December 05, 2018, 11:03:55 AM
Quote
Well I think this criticism is just as fair if you replace Trump with Clinton

The reliance on the argument that b is worse then a, or just as bad, so you can’t criticize or hold anyone accountable.

I think you're missing the point on this particular issue. If you want to criticize Trump for various reasons, what's your goal? Just to vent? To make people impotently angry? In general it seems to me that when people argue what's wrong with Trump the general tenor of the argument rests on "how could you elect him?" And if that is the goal of the criticism then it's 100% relevant to bring in what the alternative would have been, because if the other person was equally bad then it's just blowing smoke to ask how could we elect this guy. If Bernie had won the nomination and people had elected Trump over him then I would agree there would be a real argument there, since voting for Trump would definitively mean they had picked a shifty guy over a decent guy. But as that was not the case, I would certainly ask what the intent of the criticism is, if not to point out what could have been done better. I'm not saying this applies to you, necessarily, but I think Seriati's point is entirely fair for anyone basically arguing that better choices could have been made in the general election.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 05, 2018, 11:38:05 AM
I agree with Fenring's summation of what I was saying, but I'd like to add that I find it hard to parse good intentions from bad when you are criticizing the other side for conduct of which both sides are guilty.

If the point was to decry a lack of morality, then the case made against one's own side is stronger as it removes the partisan criticism that infuses the message.  If, however, you can only make it against the other side, then it comes off to me at least as just partisan noise.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on December 05, 2018, 12:26:51 PM
If I were to declare a goal, it would be vote in the damned primaries so I never again have to deal with a choice between two morally bankrupt individuals. Reminding people to pick a Sanders or literally any of the other 37 Republican candidates.

As for me, I had no trouble picking Johnson. You have to take an existentialist view of your vote, it ain't gonna get decided by your single vote. This frees you to stop voting for jackasses because you're trying to solve some Gordian Knot of policy vs integrity.

As for many Trump supporters (not any I've met here on Ornery), they didn't hold their nose to vote for him. They embraced his lack of integrity, just because it made other people so flipping angry. They put his most vile phrases on T-shirts and wallowed in the muck. That's something I didn't see from Obama supporters, doubling down on his "you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan" promises. It's something I didn't see from Bush supporters about WMD. It's something I didn't see from Clinton supporters about Monica.

My participation in this entire thread may just be cursing the darkness, but I'd like to think that this conversation and others like it that I've had in person might cause someone to pause and reflect. That somebody might at least acknowledge that Trump can't make an accurate statement to save his life, and that this is, all things being equal, A Bad Thing.

And that maybe, just maybe, a challenger or challengers can arise for 2020 that can defeat Trump, even if they support all the same policies as Trump. Because all things being equal, that would be A Good Thing.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on December 05, 2018, 12:56:15 PM
If I were to declare a goal, it would be vote in the damned primaries so I never again have to deal with a choice between two morally bankrupt individuals. Reminding people to pick a Sanders or literally any of the other 37 Republican candidates.

As for me, I had no trouble picking Johnson. You have to take an existentialist view of your vote, it ain't gonna get decided by your single vote. This frees you to stop voting for jackasses because you're trying to solve some Gordian Knot of policy vs integrity.

Do you think it's possible that the problem here is systemic, rather than being down to individuals making bad choices? If it's systemic then why not be upset at the system rather than at voters? Examples of "systemic" so I can clarify:

-Congressional lobbying, causing a conflict of interest in the representatives of the people.
-Both parties themselves being beholden to money interests.
-The banking system which governs the national economy largely being overseen by people who don't have a short-term interest in the well-being of average Americans.
-Private media companies whose goals don't necessarily include spreading truth and helping people.

I mean, if these problems could be at the bottom of present conditions when why rail against how voters vote anyhow? That's the last stage of derailment if anything, certainly not the first. Regarding your comment about people embracing Trump to give a middle finger to the system, maybe we should be considering why people are in the position where they want to give a middle finger to the system. Surely that should be blamed on previous leaders, not current ones?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 05, 2018, 01:25:32 PM
As for many Trump supporters (not any I've met here on Ornery), they didn't hold their nose to vote for him. They embraced his lack of integrity, just because it made other people so flipping angry. They put his most vile phrases on T-shirts and wallowed in the muck.

Over 60 million people voted for each of Trump and Clinton.  That's a lot more people than just the "morality" first voters.

I'm curious though what are the "most vile phrases" you saw on his supporters t-shirts.  The ones I recall, "make America great again," "drain the swamp," "build the wall," don't qualify as "most vile" in any way I can think of.  It was his enemies that wore "grab them by the p" shirts not his supporters.  The only one I can think of that could be close is "lock her up" and that's hardly vile.

Quote
That's something I didn't see from Obama supporters, doubling down on his "you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan" promises.

Obama ran and won on pure hype and excitement.  A real cult of his personal charisma, he was never really about the slogan resonating.

Quote
It's something I didn't see from Bush supporters about WMD.

No, but we did see Bush's opponents turn a mistake into a claim of a lie by repeating it over and over again.  We saw plenty of shirts with Bush's face with a Hilter mustache or the slogan Bush lied, people died.

Quote
It's something I didn't see from Clinton supporters about Monica.

I'm finding it really hard to parse what t-shirts you actually saw that would be equivalent to this.  I agree I didn't see the vile slogans that the Clinton's produced like Bimbo eruptions, or nuts and sluts on their supporters t-shirts, heck not even "blue dress."  Hard to see how their supporters would have used those.

Quote
That somebody might at least acknowledge that Trump can't make an accurate statement to save his life, and that this is, all things being equal, A Bad Thing.

Well again, the vast majority of what he says is accurate.  Of that which is inaccurate, again the vast majority is largely accurate with the disputes being quibbles.

Then of course there is the balance, where he got something wrong and won't back down, whether it's because he's deliberately lying (as many assume) or an arrogant guy (which is just a fact that he is), I can't parse.

Quote
And that maybe, just maybe, a challenger or challengers can arise for 2020 that can defeat Trump, even if they support all the same policies as Trump. Because all things being equal, that would be A Good Thing.

It would be a good thing if they became President.  It wouldn't be a good thing if they lost a winnable election.

Of course, at this point, it seems far more likely than not, that it will not be a winnable election (the Dems are still free to lose it of course).
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on December 05, 2018, 01:50:10 PM
Quote
If you want to criticize Trump for various reasons, what's your goal? Just to vent?

I’m not debating sides or policies or politics. My concern is with the man and “Character” in the classical Greek philosophical understanding of the importance of Character and Virtue.

Before Trump was President I regarded him as a man of having questionable morale virtue and Character. He was not a man I would do business with or want to emulate or like my children to emulate. (nor would I do business with Bill Clinton). What Trump values, which I acknowledge is a subjective judgment on my part based on what I know of his business practices and view on relationships, charity, compassion...) are the values America said yes to when he was elected. We become what we eat, or the wolf you feed wins, whatever metaphor works for you.   

I know it’s a difficult choice to have to chose between two leaders that one considers both of having low moral Character. (Might that be a false choice?) I understand reasoning behind making such a choice, however it is the failure to acknowledge that by making the choice you have said yes to those values and not demanding better that I find troubling.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on December 05, 2018, 02:02:01 PM
Quote
Well I think this criticism is just as fair if you replace Trump with Clinton

The reliance on the argument that b is worse then a, or just as bad, so you can’t criticize or hold anyone accountable.

I think you're missing the point on this particular issue. If you want to criticize Trump for various reasons, what's your goal? Just to vent? To make people impotently angry? In general it seems to me that when people argue what's wrong with Trump the general tenor of the argument rests on "how could you elect him?" And if that is the goal of the criticism then it's 100% relevant to bring in what the alternative would have been, because if the other person was equally bad then it's just blowing smoke to ask how could we elect this guy. If Bernie had won the nomination and people had elected Trump over him then I would agree there would be a real argument there, since voting for Trump would definitively mean they had picked a shifty guy over a decent guy. But as that was not the case, I would certainly ask what the intent of the criticism is, if not to point out what could have been done better. I'm not saying this applies to you, necessarily, but I think Seriati's point is entirely fair for anyone basically arguing that better choices could have been made in the general election.

First, you have to remember that Trump is not like any previous Republican President (or Democrat, for that matter).  I've seen enough Republican Presidents who I vehemently disagreed with over policy (Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush, and Ford and Nixon, although I didn't pay too much attention to those two at the time) to see that Trump is a different animal.  It appears to me that he hold everyone else in contempt--his opponents (obviously) and even his supporters (why else does he speak to them as if they were fourth-graders? ;) ).  And while every other President has lied, Trump does it so often, so easily, on matters both trivial and vital, that he obviously doesn't care if what he says is true or not.  He never corrects himself, that I recall.  He just denies he ever lied in the first place, and calls anyone who tries to correct him a liar!  ::)  This is behavior we wouldn't tolerate from a ten-year-old child.

Second, you must remember that his lies aren't harmless, because people believe him.  Certainly not all people, perhaps not even most.  But a significant number, perhaps a quarter of the population.  I had an emotional argument with a coworker about Trump separating immigrants from their children.  He argued vehemently that Trump was only following the law, that he had no choice in the matter, a lie that Trump made at the time.  And he believed Trump.  He believed that the only legal remedy to the situation would be legislation--an obvious lie.*  If a majority had believed him, it would still be going on.

Now while all of this was fairly obvious before the election, it should be painfully obvious by now, after two years of Trump continually lying to everyone at almost every opportunity and calling everyone else a liar.  Even Seriati, trying to say that the media reports his lies more than other Presidents, admits that he does lie.  We all realize it, especially those who resort to "whataboutism."  (After all, the premise of every "whataboutism" is that the charge is true, it is only the level of responsibility or punishment that is called for that is in dispute.  Otherwise, the person would be disputing the validity of the charge instead.)

Whether a better choice could have been made in the last Presidential election is debatable.  But now that he is President, why are people still tolerating him?  Why aren't people angry at him about lying to them?  Conservatives think it was a terrible crime that Obama and Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a videotape, even when they corrected themselves a week later.  Why is it no big deal when Trump says he can end birthright citizenship, even when it is spelled out in the Constitution that he can't?  ???

It's one thing to believe that the alternative candidate would have been just as bad, if not worse.  But then you have to admit that the current President is bad, and act accordingly.  You have to get angry at his lies, denounce them, or if nothing else, roll your eyes and say, "well, there he goes again..." You have to question every statement from the President and his spokespeople.  You have to hold them responsible for lying.  You have to admit when the President is lying, agree with those who point out the lies, admit that Trump is not trustworthy. You have say, repeatedly, that this is not right, that this is not normal, that Reagan and the Bushes were more trustworthy than him.  And commit to making sure our next President has more integrity and love of facts and the truth than Trump.

And if you don't, that simply means that his policies and "achievements" are worth more to you than facts and truth.  That you'd rather stand firm with a well-known liar than to admit to reality.  And then you'd better never criticize a Democrat or Liberal for not being factual or truthful ever again.  And keep quiet when we call you and yours out on being liars.  Because then that will be the truth.

*Anyone who believes that Trump was only following the law when separating immigrants from their children, doesn't that mean he is breaking the law now that he stopped it?  Why haven't I heard you loudly complaining about that??
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on December 05, 2018, 02:16:29 PM
I'm finding it really hard to parse what t-shirts you actually saw that would be equivalent to this.  I agree I didn't see the vile slogans that the Clinton's produced like Bimbo eruptions, or nuts and sluts on their supporters t-shirts, heck not even "blue dress."  Hard to see how their supporters would have used those.

Grab em by the.... 


Quote
Well again, the vast majority of what he says is accurate.  Of that which is inaccurate, again the vast majority is largely accurate with the disputes being quibbles.

Numbers are not open for debate. Thousands vs millions, surplus vs deficit, 5% vs 3%, bigger vs smaller, and so on. That's just for starters.


Then of course there is the balance, where he got something wrong and won't back down, whether it's because he's deliberately lying (as many assume) or an arrogant guy (which is just a fact that he is), I can't parse.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 05, 2018, 02:43:54 PM
Are you then claiming that Trump supporters were wearing that slogan in numbers?  The only people I'm aware of that used that slogan were his opponents.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on December 05, 2018, 02:49:36 PM
I never claimed there were droves of Trump supporters wearing them. It wasn't like a MAGA hat. But, they existed. People were interviewed wearing them. Many more verbally expressed their delight. Even more were dismissive of it. That is only one example of them not only not caring about his behavior, but celebrating it.

Go ahead and google it, you'll find them readily enough.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 05, 2018, 03:35:32 PM
And while every other President has lied, Trump does it so often, so easily, on matters both trivial and vital, that he obviously doesn't care if what he says is true or not.

I think he tends to say things he believes are true, which implies he does care.  Certainly, nothing that would lead me to conclude that he's following a specific strategy to repeat a lie so often that it comes to be believed.  You would think an egomaniac would care a bit more about saying things that can be easily demonstrated as incorrect.

Still, most of the "lies" are quibbles, and many are just antagonistic interpretation.  I mean it's getting rare that people even try to cite to the lies themselves, they just cite to the meme "Trump lies."

Quote
He never corrects himself, that I recall.  He just denies he ever lied in the first place, and calls anyone who tries to correct him a liar!  ::)  This is behavior we wouldn't tolerate from a ten-year-old child.

I agree with this in part.  I think those who "correct" him rarely do so in good faith, and often include their own false interpretation in the correction, with which no one need agree.

Quote
I had an emotional argument with a coworker about Trump separating immigrants from their children.  He argued vehemently that Trump was only following the law, that he had no choice in the matter, a lie that Trump made at the time.

There's a reasonable basis for that claim.  If you start with a change in policy, that those seized illegally crossing will no longer be released into the US on their own recognizance, it leads to the necessary conclusion - by law - given our current holding facilities that their children have to be separated.  How could it not be when the Flores decree limits the time they could be held?  The law literally requires the separation, if you refuse to release the parent (as the law also permits).

In fact, if we were enforcing our laws, we'd deporting far more people.

Quote
And he believed Trump.  He believed that the only legal remedy to the situation would be legislation--an obvious lie.*  If a majority had believed him, it would still be going on.

Well, there were always other legal remedies.  The idea that the only workable solution is to continue to ignore the actual law and release people into the country who never show up again is also an "obvious lie."

Quote
Even Seriati, trying to say that the media reports his lies more than other Presidents, admits that he does lie.

True he does lie.  I think what the media focus does is actual overstate the rate and the impact of his lies.  It also converts every mistatement into a "lie."  The media then creates the choice for Trump of admitting the "lie" and letting the media crucify him for lying while selling their own lie about the truth, or acting like, well, Trump.

I'd love, if just for a week, if the media flipped their 90/10 treatment on Democrats and Republicans.  I honestly believe it would give some of you some much needed perspective.

I'm going to act as if these questions are in good faith:

Quote
Whether a better choice could have been made in the last Presidential election is debatable.  But now that he is President, why are people still tolerating him?

Because his actions in office have generally been favorable ones, and his most egregious errors (separation of children) were backed off and have actually done more to move the needle on resolving issues that voters have wanted resolved for decades than other Presidents. 

Quote
Why aren't people angry at him about lying to them?

Because I've been watching the left lie for decades and his lies don't seem remotely to that level or in as bad faith.  Because he's carried through on his campaign promises, including the big ones, at a rate to me that other politicians never do.  Our politicians say things all the time, and then never do them.

It was in both parties plank to move the Embassy to Jerusulem for forever.

The Republicans put forward Obamacare repeal after repeal when they knew it wouldn't be signed.

Democrats were against open borders before they got a sense of the electoral impact.

Every vote should count, while every politician runs a campaign designed to encourage the other side not to vote.

Quote
Conservatives think it was a terrible crime that Obama and Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a videotape, even when they corrected themselves a week later.

They lied to your face and knew it was a lie for nothing but their own gain.  How does citing to this not prove that your "outrage" is false?

Quote
Why is it no big deal when Trump says he can end birthright citizenship, even when it is spelled out in the Constitution that he can't?  ???

This isn't a lie.

There's a reasonable legal case that Birthright Citizenship is not required by the language of the Constitution.  In fact, birth tourism is almost certainly not a constitutional requirement.  Even illegal aliens are almost certainly subject to the jurisdiction of another country - or do you believe they are not entitled to consular help if arrested? - which makes the case colorable.

The real issue is that the President acting alone is not the one that should decide that.

Quote
It's one thing to believe that the alternative candidate would have been just as bad, if not worse.  But then you have to admit that the current President is bad, and act accordingly.  You have to get angry at his lies, denounce them, or if nothing else, roll your eyes and say, "well, there he goes again..."

No.  I don't "have to do this."  The primary motive in what you are demanding is to undermine the policies that Trump supports, and those policies are not ones that should be undermined.  They generally are better for the country than the policies of the prior administration and those that the left apparently desires to restore.

I no more have to act against my interests than the voters of NJ had to do the "right" thing and replace Menendez, you know how the voters in Alabama did with Moore.

Quote
You have to question every statement from the President and his spokespeople.  You have to hold them responsible for lying.

Well I don't think it's reasonable to parse every sentence and statement against the standard of whether there is any possible quibble, which is what is happening.  Accordingly I don't feel a need to, or that it's appropriate to, question every statement.  I haven't found his "lies" to be material to the extent you seem to want to imply.

Meanwhile, I've found almost no interest on the left is considering whether those who are examining him are pushing their own "lies," which they frequently are.

Quote
You have to admit when the President is lying, agree with those who point out the lies, admit that Trump is not trustworthy.

It's not irrational to think Trump is trustworthy, if you believe that he has the country's best interests at heart.  I would not however ever use him as a source for the proof of a fact.

Quote
You have say, repeatedly, that this is not right, that this is not normal, that Reagan and the Bushes were more trustworthy than him.  And commit to making sure our next President has more integrity and love of facts and the truth than Trump.

You really are harping a lot on what I must do.  Even though I don't have to do any of it.  I don't have to refuse to normalize someone, who for the most part is normal.

I also don't remotely believe that you'll hold yourself or your side to the same standard, so I'm at a  loss as to why I "must" do it.

Quote
And if you don't, that simply means that his policies and "achievements" are worth more to you than facts and truth.

Well, it depends on the goals.  Do you recall the responses that people had on this board when Obama declared that he did not support gay marriage?  People openly acknowledged it was a lie that had to be told to not alienate certain voters.  Is that the standard that still applies?

Long and short, I think the "lies" are less material than you do, in fact, far less material.  I have no presumption that they are made in bad faith.  I have verified to my own satisfaction that many are only lies in the bad faith estimation of his opponents.

Quote
That you'd rather stand firm with a well-known liar than to admit to reality.  And then you'd better never criticize a Democrat or Liberal for not being factual or truthful ever again.  And keep quiet when we call you and yours out on being liars.  Because then that will be the truth.

Nonsense.  You can't possible be on a high horse from the open and notorious position of the professional liars on the left.  At worst, Trump is an average representative of the left.  I suspect that if he were a Democratic President, he'd hardly be considered a liar at all.

When his lies hurt the country for his own benefit, come back to me.

Quote
*Anyone who believes that Trump was only following the law when separating immigrants from their children, doesn't that mean he is breaking the law now that he stopped it?  Why haven't I heard you loudly complaining about that??

As I suggested above, he can be following the law in both cases.  Once a discretionary judgment is made the legal consequences follow as a matter of law.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on December 05, 2018, 03:44:28 PM
I know it’s a difficult choice to have to chose between two leaders that one considers both of having low moral Character. (Might that be a false choice?) I understand reasoning behind making such a choice, however it is the failure to acknowledge that by making the choice you have said yes to those values and not demanding better that I find troubling.

I'm still not quite sure you understood my question. I meant, literally, what goal do you have for making the complaints about what is obvious (that Trump isn't that desirable a President)? Is the goal "get him impeached"? Is it to cause those who voted for him to regret it? I'm not asking what your problem with him is, that's clear.

From the quote I included in my reply it sounds like you have a problem with voting a "yes" for something not commendable. If so then we're actually in full agreement. Do you, as I do, hold to the position that not voting at all is preferable to voting for one of two choices when you like neither?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on December 05, 2018, 04:02:59 PM
Second, you must remember that his lies aren't harmless, because people believe him.

I don't really believe that any lie is harmless, so I'm with you there.

Quote
We all realize it, especially those who resort to "whataboutism."  (After all, the premise of every "whataboutism" is that the charge is true, it is only the level of responsibility or punishment that is called for that is in dispute.  Otherwise, the person would be disputing the validity of the charge instead.)

You are right that whataboutism and deflection are not good in and of themselves in addressing an ill. But I do think they're useful in establishing whether discourse is being done in good faith. So while they don't shed light on the subject, they do shed light on the speakers. It's not conducive to getting to the bottom of things if one side (or both) are using a double standard in language or values. It basically makes true communication and agreement impossible. So from that standpoint I do think they're useful insofar as establishing a common language is far more important than establishing "agreement" between two people who are speaking past each other.

Quote
Whether a better choice could have been made in the last Presidential election is debatable.  But now that he is President, why are people still tolerating him?

What do you mean by "tolerating him"? I can only assume you mean impeachment, right? Because as far as I know there's no other way to un-tolerate a President. Maybe you can protest in D.C. or something, I guess. Well I would ask to this whether you'd be have been as receiving of calls to impeachment if Hillary had won, for reasons that, to the other side, were equally as compelling as yours are to you.

Quote
You have to get angry at his lies, denounce them, or if nothing else, roll your eyes and say, "well, there he goes again..." You have to question every statement from the President and his spokespeople.

I agree with you. But what if it's the case that I've been doing that nonstop for years already? What's new on that front? This isn't a deflection; it means that assuming one agrees with you that it sucks to have to second-guess every public statement made, my question is "so what else is new?" And this isn't a brush-off, I really do care about it. But it's not a new concern, is my point. And frankly it's nothing compared to what went on during Bush 43's Presidency.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on December 05, 2018, 04:21:10 PM
Quote
what goal do you have for making the complaints about what is obvious

Its the not asking for better that bothers me...
my goal is I'd like to see both sides start asking for better and not using "whataboutism" arguments to deflect responsibility of doing so. 
I'd also like each person to be aware that not asking for better is creating a new acceptable normal with regards to morels values and that this failure reflects their own values whether they will or can admit it or not. If you’re not asking for better your implying its ok.

I was particularly disappointed in the Evangelist Christian early support of Trump. Without it Trump may not have made it past the primaries. (any Republican was going to beat Clinton so there was a different choice being made in saying yes to Trump)
I really feel that the Christian Church needs to take a good hard look at what their values really are and the foundation on which they are building. As Trump likes to warn you shouldn’t be surprised or even angry when you invite a snake into your home and you get bit. (By the way if his snake story wasn't the 'shadow' unconsciously revealing itself...  people are going to look back and like the woman in the story say how did this happen and it was right there he told them exactly what he was.)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: D.W. on December 06, 2018, 09:16:52 AM
Quote
(any Republican was going to beat Clinton so there was a different choice being made in saying yes to Trump)
To be fair to the Trump supporters, I think he was, as crazy as it sounds, the only one on the field capable of beating her.  An amazing thing really as she was, IMO, the candidate the Democrats could select to be most likely to lose. 

When you believe deeply in smaller government, flipping the bird to the whole system and throwing a wrench in the gears sounds quite appealing.  Why wouldn't they support Trump?  It's not like they want someone who embodies what they claim to be their values.  They want someone who dislikes/hates what they hate.  Government interference in both business and culture. 

I would say they actually want preferential treatment for their religion/culture, but that's not accurate.  They have that now.  They want to stop it from changing. 

Trump makes sense if you felt that even moderate Republicans were not restraining the fearsome beast of progress.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on December 06, 2018, 10:09:00 AM
Quote
what they claim to be their values
that's the key for me. when the values we claim are not the values we support. When you make that type of choice you have to be very careful and be prepared to ask yourself some hard questions about what you really value.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on December 06, 2018, 11:08:57 AM
Quote
what they claim to be their values
that's the key for me. when the values we claim are not the values we support. When you make that type of choice you have to be very careful and be prepared to ask yourself some hard questions about what you really value.

Brainwashing is too strong. Even the best cannot avoid it completely. Eventually you're ready to fight for what they tell you you believe. Separating "my values" from "the group's values" from "fashionable values" and even more categories than this is nearly insurmountable.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 06, 2018, 12:16:13 PM
So if the values we claim are not the ones we support its time to rethink?

So if the left claims to support free speech, yet supports campus speech codes and the suppression of speech they find discomforting, isn't it time to rethink?

If they claim to support civil rights, but have no problems with people being terminated from jobs for taking unpopular positions (unless of course they are teacher, then they can never be terminated no matter what they say - even if's racist - unless it's right wing, then of course they should be fired).

I know that's the infamous "whataboutism."  But the charge here is ridiculous.  You're not speaking from a position of knowledge.  Neither Clinton nor Trump was excessively moral.  But Christians come in a million varieties and only for a tiny subset would either of them be considered irredeeamable.  In fact for nearly all of them repentance and foregiveness are there for either Clinton or Trump simple as a matter of honestly asking for it.  Your problem isn't that Christians are not honoring their values, it's that they don't seem to believe exactly what you demand they believe.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on December 06, 2018, 02:02:40 PM
Quote
So if the left claims to support free speech, yet supports campus speech codes and the suppression of speech they find discomforting, isn't it time to rethink
Always love engaging in whataboutism arguments :(

Yes the left should rethink their claims of free speech when they try to use government to force their values of what counts as free speech on others. IMO they are making the same error of those they oppose.

I become uncomfortable when groups left or right want to use government to enforce values.  Not that it isn't sometimes necessary to insure everyone is treated equally however we should be very careful.

Anyway we are definitely not talking about the something with regards to 'character' however I'm to poor of a communicator to explain why I think that
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on December 06, 2018, 06:13:00 PM
Quote
I think he tends to say things he believes are true, which implies he does care.

You are equating two different things, belief and care.

I'm sure he believes the things he says at the time he says them.  But he doesn't care if they are true or not.  He doesn't even care if everyone believes him.  He knows enough people will believe him to make it immaterial whether everyone believes him, or if it is factually true.

After all, if push comes to shove, he has lawyers to prove that anything he said was true. :)

Quote
Quote
I had an emotional argument with a coworker about Trump separating immigrants from their children.  He argued vehemently that Trump was only following the law, that he had no choice in the matter, a lie that Trump made at the time.

There's a reasonable basis for that claim.  If you start with a change in policy, that those seized illegally crossing will no longer be released into the US on their own recognizance, it leads to the necessary conclusion - by law - given our current holding facilities that their children have to be separated.  How could it not be when the Flores decree limits the time they could be held?  The law literally requires the separation, if you refuse to release the parent (as the law also permits).

I see.  So by choosing a policy that happens to require you to separate the children from their parents, it is the law that is at fault, not your policy.

What a weaselly, stupid excuse.

I suppose you would say it would be the law's fault for separating children from their parents if some local sheriff decided to arrest every moving violator in front of a school, instead of giving them a ticket.  After all, if the law wasn't there, he could keep the children locked up with their parents for as long as it was necessary, right?  If you don't like it, change the law. It's not the policy's fault!  ::)

Quote
The idea that the only workable solution is to continue to ignore the actual law and release people into the country who never show up again is also an "obvious lie."

There is no "actual law" that says you have to lock up people for a misdemeanor, even this misdemeanor.  That was Trump's policy.

And do some research.  What percentage of people released show up for their hearings?  It might surprise you.

Quote
Quote
Conservatives think it was a terrible crime that Obama and Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a videotape, even when they corrected themselves a week later.

They lied to your face and knew it was a lie for nothing but their own gain.  How does citing to this not prove that your "outrage" is false?

We're not talking about my outrage.  I can assure you, it is real.  We're talking about Trump's supporters lack of outrage.

And remember, Obama and Hillary lied for exactly the same reasons that G.W. Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.  So why weren't there million-dollar hearings about that?  Why aren't Conservatives still outraged about that?

Quote
Quote
Why is it no big deal when Trump says he can end birthright citizenship, even when it is spelled out in the Constitution that he can't?  ???

This isn't a lie.

There's a reasonable legal case that Birthright Citizenship is not required by the language of the Constitution.  In fact, birth tourism is almost certainly not a constitutional requirement.  Even illegal aliens are almost certainly subject to the jurisdiction of another country - or do you believe they are not entitled to consular help if arrested? - which makes the case colorable.

Wow, you'd make a great Democrat (as Republicans say they are).  In spite of the plain language in the Constitution, and at least one Supreme Court ruling, you still think there is a "reasonable case" that it "is not required."

I would love to have you argue that the Second Amendment is not absolute in regards to personal firearms.  The militia clause should be sufficient to make it "colorable."  Not to mention the various jurisdictions that have banned guns over the history of our country.

And "birth tourism" is not the reason for Trump's assertion, and you know it.  If it were only birth tourism, I would probably support it.  No, it is to take away the citizenship of people born in this country and have lived here all their lives.  The ones who are "taking away jobs" from "real" Americans.  Birth tourism may sound good, but if it were limited to that, it would never get support from the Republicans.

Quote
Quote
It's one thing to believe that the alternative candidate would have been just as bad, if not worse.  But then you have to admit that the current President is bad, and act accordingly.  You have to get angry at his lies, denounce them, or if nothing else, roll your eyes and say, "well, there he goes again..."

No.  I don't "have to do this."  The primary motive in what you are demanding is to undermine the policies that Trump supports, and those policies are not ones that should be undermined.  They generally are better for the country than the policies of the prior administration and those that the left apparently desires to restore.

No it's not.  My primary motivation is that Trump is undermining the principles and unwritten rules of American government and democracy.  Lying about being able to ignore the Constitution; lying about the reasons he separates children from their parents; lying about what he says and the power that he has; these are the things that break democracies.  People no longer will have faith in our government and institutions.  And into the vacuum will come fascism and tyranny.  The rule of law is at stake.  Because without facts, there can be no law.  Without our government officials being held to their words, there cannot be rule of law.  Because those in charge can then make the rules say whatever they want to at the time.

You can't tell me that when you perceived Democrats doing these things you weren't up in arms.  That when Obama lied, you weren't angry.  That when Obama seemed to ignore the Constitution, you weren't ready to impeach him.  But now when Trump is doing these things, the anger is gone.  And while your perception of Obama may have been wrong, I think what Trump is doing is real.  And that frightens me to the bone.

Yes, I don't like Trump's policies.  I didn't like Reagans, or the Bushes.  I lived with them.  But Trump is different.  He is attacking our American institutions with his lies.  He is undermining our faith in our government, our system of government, and democracy itself with his lies.  And if enough people keep believing his lies, and defending his lies, he will bring this country down.

My primary motivation is not policies.  It is the nation itself.  And it should be your primary motivation, too.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on December 07, 2018, 11:41:51 AM
Quote
The primary motive in what you are demanding is to undermine the policies that Trump supports.
Actually, for me anyway, that’s not true. I’m not a fan of Trump economic and foreign “gut” policies however that’s a difference of opinion that in a democracy I accept. In a democracy I don’t expect to like every decision my government makes. In most cases all decisions will/should involve compromise so never make everyone happy.  If your happy about everything it might not be democracy

I think this is where we differ. Your arguing that questioning Trumps character and method of leadership is the same as undermining his policies? Your concern is policy not the character or values of the leader or how that reflects on the country or yourself? Or in other words the ends justify the means? (which is a personal value statement)

If so fair enough – however this is implying that values of leadership don’t matter… and historically that doesn’t end well.   And philosophically a view that goes against the classical understanding of good leadership.   

Democracy requires a leader capable of compromise and looking at the big picture and sometimes that might require personal sacrifice, making decisions that might cost them. I don’t believe Trump is capable of of sacrifice or seeing the big picture.  His idea of what makes America Great, which I’m not sure he can articulate, but based on his method is becoming clearer should be troubling for everyone. Make America Great Again is a value statement so asking better from Trump with regards to his character/method is saying yes to his values and views on that Makes America Great.  Its not policy that made America Great however we might disagree on that. 

To avoid any counter ‘Whataboutism’ argument. I’m a hypocrite, I fail to live up to my values. I have supported leaders that I was not comfortable with, with regards to character. However, it did make me question my own values and I won’t do it again. At least I hope not
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 07, 2018, 03:26:57 PM
What a weaselly, stupid excuse.

I suppose you would say it would be the law's fault for separating children from their parents if some local sheriff decided to arrest every moving violator in front of a school, instead of giving them a ticket.  After all, if the law wasn't there, he could keep the children locked up with their parents for as long as it was necessary, right?  If you don't like it, change the law. It's not the policy's fault!  ::)

Not sure why you'd use that example.  Kids are removed from their US parent's custody all the time when that person is placed in jail.  Often they have other parents or responsible adults that can take them, but when they don't they go into foster care.

In what way are the children of illegal immigrants being treated differently than the children of US citizens held in jail?  Answer, they aren't.

One could just as easily choose to release all US citizen parents accused of a crime on their own recognizance so that they could retain custody of their children.  It's only a "weaselly" choice that we elect not to do so, right?

Quote
Quote
The idea that the only workable solution is to continue to ignore the actual law and release people into the country who never show up again is also an "obvious lie."

There is no "actual law" that says you have to lock up people for a misdemeanor, even this misdemeanor.  That was Trump's policy.

And there is an actual law that makes it illegal to cross our borders.  I find it offensive that you find enforcing the law more problematic than breaking it.  Fix the law.  In the meantime, it's blatant hypocrasy to call out Trump for doing his constitutional duty to enforce the laws as written, while simultaneously calling him out for perceived unConstitutional and autocratic acts.

Quote
And do some research.  What percentage of people released show up for their hearings?  It might surprise you.

Here's the most in depth analysis I've seen, and it didn't surprise me.  It may surprise you.  https://cis.org/Report/Courting-Disaster (https://cis.org/Report/Courting-Disaster)  The actual failure to appear rate could be anywhere from 25% to over 50% of those released on their own recognizance.  It's the US court with the worst rate of appearance (it even beats the court that processes traffic tickets).  For something this significant that is truly horrendous.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Conservatives think it was a terrible crime that Obama and Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a videotape, even when they corrected themselves a week later.

They lied to your face and knew it was a lie for nothing but their own gain.  How does citing to this not prove that your "outrage" is false?

We're not talking about my outrage.  I can assure you, it is real.  We're talking about Trump's supporters lack of outrage.

You weren't, and still aren't, outraged that Obama and Hillary lied about Benghazi.  As far as I could tell from the thread you still didn't believe it even after the emails showing came to light.

Quote
And remember, Obama and Hillary lied for exactly the same reasons that G.W. Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.

I don't recall G.W. Bush lieing about WMD in Iraq, let alone because he was at risk of loosing an election to Mitt Romney and needed to appear to not be a failure.

Quote
So why weren't there million-dollar hearings about that?  Why aren't Conservatives still outraged about that?

I think there were not even more hearings on WMD in the Bush admin than there were because, unlike you, members of Congress saw the same intelligence that the Bush admin did.  They are fully aware that the case you're making is false and that the actual records of what Bush knew don't support the Bush lied meme.  No more than they support the "Senate lied" meme when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of action against Iraq.

What should Conservatives be outraged about?  Oh yeah, I'm still outraged that the left used the Big Lie propaganda to sell a false narrative that a mistake was a lie.  I'm still outraged about that, and I'm still opposing rewriting history to sell it.

Quote
Quote
There's a reasonable legal case that Birthright Citizenship is not required by the language of the Constitution.  In fact, birth tourism is almost certainly not a constitutional requirement.  Even illegal aliens are almost certainly subject to the jurisdiction of another country - or do you believe they are not entitled to consular help if arrested? - which makes the case colorable.

Wow, you'd make a great Democrat (as Republicans say they are).  In spite of the plain language in the Constitution, and at least one Supreme Court ruling, you still think there is a "reasonable case" that it "is not required."

"[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

It's really just an interpretation of what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.  You could actually read up on the debate instead of just being snarky.  I mean honestly, using quotes to pretend words are not reasonable? 

We already know that children of non-US diplomats born in the US are not US citizens.  They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (notwithstanding that in some cases they be subject in reality).  The traditional interpretation of meaning on that clause would have been that the person in question was not subject to the jurisdiction of another sovereign (they were mostly concerned about divided loyalty).

There's literally no reasonable basis for believing that a birth tourist is not subject to the jurisdiction of another soveriegn (though they are subject to US jurisdiction, their sovereign has specific rights over them and on their behalf as well).  The children they bear will absolutely have conflicted loyalties. This is the kind of abuse that should be "clear" but has not because of the bigger picture way we've interpretted the clause to provide for birth right citizenship.

Illigal immigrants are in the grey area as well.  They can be deported and are entitled to their sovereigns protections.  They can't legally be drafted, or made to comply with the burdens of citizenship (other than tax, but that's true for non-illegal immigrants and temporary residents as well).  Could you legally prevent them from returning to their own country? 

Quote
I would love to have you argue that the Second Amendment is not absolute in regards to personal firearms.

The right to bear arms predates the Constitution.  There's no basis for that argument.

Quote
The militia clause should be sufficient to make it "colorable."

The arguments are textual.  The 2nd amendment text doesn't support your interpretation.  It would actually be contrary to the way those phrases are interpretted in other places in the Constitution to read it that way, and contrary both to the common and legal understanding.

I guess interpretation is going by the wayside, this is the same country where some are interpretating  the right to free speech as permitting one person to ban another person's speech they find hateful. 

Quote
Not to mention the various jurisdictions that have banned guns over the history of our country.

Mostly a mishmosh of poorly understood case law.  I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in our history that legally criminalized the ownership of a firearm.  This is mostly a bed time story the left tells itself to justify lying about the actual history.

Quote
And "birth tourism" is not the reason for Trump's assertion, and you know it.  If it were only birth tourism, I would probably support it.  No, it is to take away the citizenship of people born in this country and have lived here all their lives.  The ones who are "taking away jobs" from "real" Americans.  Birth tourism may sound good, but if it were limited to that, it would never get support from the Republicans.

Again, I didn't say it was a good idea, and specifically said I don't think it's up to a President to decide.  That changes nothing about whether the Constitution requires it, which I don't believe it does.  No matter what though the interpretation of the Constitution that it is required is very long standing and not something that would be lightly overturned.

I think the case  is very strong for birth tourism.  Far less strong for legal or illegal immigrants that intend to stay.  Migrant workers?  Pretty strong there too.

Substantively, why should we give citizenship to persons whose primary loyalty is to another country? 

Quote
No it's not.  My primary motivation is that Trump is undermining the principles and unwritten rules of American government and democracy.

The anti-Trump movement is doing far far more to undermine the principles of American government and democracy than Trump.  Whether it be pretending an elections was stolen (it wasn't), undermining executive authority (which has been ongoing on multiple fronts), demanding district judges overrule legitimate executive actions (ongoing and wide spread), using the Justice Department and state AGs to pursue charges based in partisanship rather than fact, leaking constantly, it all adds up to a polity whose strongest message seems to be "it's only Democracy if our side wins."

Quote
Lying about being able to ignore the Constitution;...

Doesn't even make sense.  He never said anything matching that literally, and most everytime you've tried to demonstrate a failure to follow the Constitution it's been you that hasn't succeeded.

Quote
...lying about the reasons he separates children from their parents;....

Give you a maybe on this one.  Though the complaint is normally about lying about the justification not the reasons.  He didn't lie on the first, but I'm reasonably convinced he did lie about the second (it seems obvious that separation was intended to be a punitive discouragement).

Quote
...lying about what he says and the power that he has;....

Pretty vague, and mostly overstatement.

Quote
...these are the things that break democracies.

On what basis do you make this conclusion?  Pretty sure that corruption is what breaks Democracies, and the left is engaging in that wholesale so long as they think the target is Trump.  Pretty sure demonizing your opponents and trying to delegitimize elections in which you lose, is what break Democracies, and again the left's engaging in that wholesale.

Pretty sure they end when you elect a Dictator, for which all the whining on the left Trump has not been.  He hasn't failed to listen to the courts, even when the courts were grossly exceeding their authority.  I'm not happy that he's increasingly used executive orders to implement things, but that was something that you literally cheered for when it was Obama.  So yes, our Democracy is threatened, but it's not me or mine that are making the threats.  It's not the conservatives who are the thought police suppressing contrary opinions, its not the Conservatives that are the brown shirts using violence to shut down speech.

Quote
You can't tell me that when you perceived Democrats doing these things you weren't up in arms.

The Democrats are literally doing these things.  Everyday and constantly.  Your anger is misdirected.

Quote
That when Obama lied, you weren't angry.

Offended, not angry.  Mostly disappointed in the unthinking support he received.

Quote
That when Obama seemed to ignore the Constitution, you weren't ready to impeach him.  But now when Trump is doing these things, the anger is gone.

Trump is skirting an executive authority border that Obama trampled.  That's the difference to me.

As in all things in this country, those on the right face far more restrictions on actions.  Trump has a special prosecutor (literally a witch hunter for all the justification that's been provided) looking at him, state AG's trying to find evidence of crimes (which flips due process on its head), and a media that digs into every single word he says.  Even in Congress he's not well loved because he's a dramatic break from their culture of corruption.

Obama?  Absolutely controlled his DOJ, faced no serious investigation of partisan attacks fomented through the IRS, EPA, the FBI and the DOJ.  Congress, no brakes on him at all.  Media?  Actively excused his conduct.

Quote
And while your perception of Obama may have been wrong, I think what Trump is doing is real.  And that frightens me to the bone.

All I can recommend is taking a step back.  Take a break from the hype and the media analysis and look at what's actually getting done.  A heck of a lot of it is positive, most of it risks no long term harm.

Even on the most dangerous stuff it's not things that Trump gets to decide unilaterally and it is things that have been open sores for decades because other politicians refuse to address them.

Quote
My primary motivation is not policies.  It is the nation itself.  And it should be your primary motivation, too.

It is, Trump is doing much good, and I weigh his actual harms as less than those of Obama.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on December 07, 2018, 03:48:03 PM
Quote
It is, Trump is doing much good, and I weigh his actual harms as less than those of Obama.

I think your going to find yourself on the wrong side of history on that one and that the Simpson's prediction on Trumps Presidency is a very possible outcome. :)
Hoping your right and I'm wrong

Its a interesting tension your holding though. Trumps policies verses the damage many people think he's doing to the office and democracy itself. I know you don't agree that his character can have such a impact and again I hope your right - but don't think so. 
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 07, 2018, 03:51:08 PM
Quote
The primary motive in what you are demanding is to undermine the policies that Trump supports.
Actually, for me anyway, that’s not true. I’m not a fan of Trump economic and foreign “gut” policies however that’s a difference of opinion that in a democracy I accept. In a democracy I don’t expect to like every decision my government makes.

This one is interesting  While I think Trump's turned out to be right on some of his foreign trade stances, I'd like to go on record and say that NO President should have the unilateral authority to create tariffs and completely upend foreign trade that he has demonstrated.  The level of power the President has exercised here is stunning to me and something I honestly didn't realize a President could do.  This is an area where we might consider doing something.

Of course I'm just as concerned about the unilateral power of the Fed and the CFPB neither of which is remotely accountable to the electorate.

Quote
In most cases all decisions will/should involve compromise so never make everyone happy.  If your happy about everything it might not be democracy

Our best legislation is compromise.  You can't get it when either, or even both, sides are nothing but hardcore extremists.

Quote
I think this is where we differ. Your arguing that questioning Trumps character and method of leadership is the same as undermining his policies?

No, I'm just of the view that the call to condemn him is really about trying to get people to oppose him.  Opposition is all about the policies, otherwise it would be a nonsensical call to do "the wrong thing" just because a bad guy is doing the right thing.

Quote
Or in other words the ends justify the means? (which is a personal value statement)

No.  The ends doesn't not justify the means.  Trump's character is not a means. 

Trump is not violating the law with his actions, at least so far, he's been more within the wheelhouse of legitimate executive authority than his predecessor. 

Most of his character defects are not the means by which policy is implemented.

Quote
Democracy requires a leader capable of compromise and looking at the big picture and sometimes that might require personal sacrifice, making decisions that might cost them. I don’t believe Trump is capable of of sacrifice or seeing the big picture.

I find this troubling.  The objective evidence is that Trump is not only interested in compromises but actually seeks them out.  He wants to close deals and evidence is that he moves off of his positions in the compromise (of course he then claims that was his position all along to save face).  This stands in stark contrast to President Obama, who thought a compromise is meeting himself halfway to a position he once held.  I don't see any objective way to look at Trump and Obama and come out where you did on this.

Quote
To avoid any counter ‘Whataboutism’ argument. I’m a hypocrite, I fail to live up to my values. I have supported leaders that I was not comfortable with, with regards to character. However, it did make me question my own values and I won’t do it again. At least I hope not

Too much is being made of "whataboutism."  Comparisons are usefull specifically because the inconsistencies they expose show that our underlying principals may not in fact have been what we believed.  In fact, I think the recent criticism of whataboutism largely exists because people are finding it uncomfortable to reconcile what they've always said they believed about justice and the rule of law with the way they feel justified in ignoring those principals so long as they are "getting" Trump, cause "everyone knows he's guilty."
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 07, 2018, 03:57:21 PM
Its a interesting tension your holding though. Trumps policies verses the damage many people think he's doing to the office and democracy itself. I know you don't agree that his character can have such a impact and again I hope your right - but don't think so.

We may just be of different generations.  I still remember my grandmother in tears because she couldn't reconcile her respect for the office of the Presidency with the character of Bill Clinton in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal. 

I'm cognizant that the people in office are people.  I'm also very aware, as everyone should be in the #MeToo ere, that a significant chunk of our political, economic and entertainment leaders are men that have abused their power for decades.  I mean you see Trump as an outlier, when Clinton was an ally to Weinstein, woo'ed Trump as a donor and assisted her husband in turning women into laughingstocks.  Congress has a program to settle sexual harrasment claims paid by the government with the records sealed.  We had people win elections with credible accounts of domestic abuse, with a history of fraud and corruption and with allegations of soliciting underage prostitutes.

Yet somehow it's all Trump and his supporters?   
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on December 07, 2018, 06:00:34 PM
Quote
Not sure why you'd use that example.  Kids are removed from their US parent's custody all the time when that person is placed in jail.  Often they have other parents or responsible adults that can take them, but when they don't they go into foster care.

I used it since it seemed to be a fairly equivalent crime.

Both are misdemeanors.  Both usually haven't required the accused to the held in custody until trial in the past (although they can be if there are good reasons, like the parent is a danger to the child).  Both usually are sentenced with a fine and/or time served, and the person immediately released after trial.  Admittedly, people usually aren't deported for speeding, but I'm not saying they are exactly the same crime. :)

Also, a person can be arrested for both crimes, but usually are not.

Of course, my knowledge of crimes is limited.  Perhaps you could suggest a better comparison, one that fulfills my two criteria?

Quote
And there is an actual law that makes it illegal to cross our borders.  I find it offensive that you find enforcing the law more problematic than breaking it.  Fix the law.  In the meantime, it's blatant hypocrisy to call out Trump for doing his constitutional duty to enforce the laws as written, while simultaneously calling him out for perceived unConstitutional and autocratic acts.

When the person in charge says he is required to take someone into custody when the law only stipulates that he has the option, and the person blames the law for requiring him to do so, that is my definition of "weaselly."  There is a difference between enforcing the law and using enforcement as punishment in lieu of the actual sentence.  Which is what Trump is doing.

One of the basic principles of the law is minimization of punishment, AKA "let the punishment fit the crime."  We don't shoot jaywalkers for jaywalking.  We shouldn't separate children from their parents unless there is a very good reason for it.  Committing a misdemeanor doesn't fit that bill.

I would also remind you that Trump separates children from immigrants who lawfully present themselves to the authorities and ask for asylum, not just "illegal immigrants."  So those who haven't even committed a crime are punished.

Quote
Quote
And do some research.  What percentage of people released show up for their hearings?  It might surprise you.

Here's the most in depth analysis I've seen, and it didn't surprise me.  It may surprise you.  https://cis.org/Report/Courting-Disaster  The actual failure to appear rate could be anywhere from 25% to over 50% of those released on their own recognizance.

You misread your own source.  It says:

Quote
Over the last 20 years, 37 percent of all aliens free pending trial failed to appear for their hearings.

That means 63 percent appeared.  Per Politifact (https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26/wolf-blitzer/majority-undocumented-immigrants-show-court-data-s/):

Quote
According to Justice Department data from the last five available years, around 60 to 75 percent of non-detained migrants have attended their immigration court proceedings.

Quote
You weren't, and still aren't, outraged that Obama and Hillary lied about Benghazi.  As far as I could tell from the thread you still didn't believe it even after the emails showing came to light.

Of course not.  It was a) based on information they got from the CIA, b) was corrected in about a week after the initial utterance, and c) had no bearing on attack in Benghazi or the response.  While they took the easy route, it wasn't that important.

Quote
I don't recall G.W. Bush lying about WMD in Iraq, let alone because he was at risk of loosing an election to Mitt Romney and needed to appear to not be a failure.

The Bush Administration lied about there being WMD in Iraq because the CIA told them there were and because it suited his agenda, just like Obama and Hillary lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack because the CIA told them it was one of the reasons and because it suited their agenda.

Quote
Again, I didn't say it was a good idea, and specifically said I don't think it's up to a President to decide.  That changes nothing about whether the Constitution requires it, which I don't believe it does.  No matter what though the interpretation of the Constitution that it is required is very long standing and not something that would be lightly overturned.

Fine.  We can both agree that the President lied when he said he could take away birth citizenship.

Quote
The anti-Trump movement is doing far far more to undermine the principles of American government and democracy than Trump.  Whether it be pretending an elections was stolen (it wasn't)...


Trump repeatedly states that there were 5 million illegal votes in his Presidential election without proof, throwing the whole election into doubt.  And you're worried about a few Democrats bemoaning that the Electoral College may be out-of-date?

Quote
...undermining executive authority (which has been ongoing on multiple fronts)...


Something that has been going on for years on both sides of the aisle.  Meanwhile, Trump routinely tries to extend executive authority...

Quote
...demanding district judges overrule legitimate executive actions (ongoing and wide spread)...


When you challenge an action, you usually start at a district judge, don't you?  Or do you think that no one should ever challenge an executive action?

Quote
...using the Justice Department and state AGs to pursue charges based in partisanship rather than fact...

IIRC, the Justice Department is under the White House control.  If he can't keep his own Justice Department honest, what good is he?

And the courts get to decide whether the charges have merit.  You belief that they are only based on partisanship is simply an opinion.

Quote
...leaking constantly...


There are more leaks from the White House itself than from any anti-Trump forces.  Unless, of course, you think the President, who surrounds himself with "the best people," has surrounded himself with anti-Trump forces.  Of course, it may be that the two are connected... ;)

Quote
it all adds up to a polity whose strongest message seems to be "it's only Democracy if our side wins."

Challenging policy we disagree with and what is perceived illegal actions is hardly "only if...our side wins."  Calling anyone who does so a liar, traitor and "enemy of the people" is far more harmful to democracy.

Quote
Trump has a special prosecutor (literally a witch hunter for all the justification that's been provided) looking at him...

In your opinion.  There was enough contact with Russia and questions to justify looking into it for me.

Quote
...state AG's trying to find evidence of crimes (which flips due process on its head)...

Mainly because the President has stated he can pardon himself.  And why can't states investigate crimes again?

Quote
and a media that digs into every single word he says.


Which President didn't have this?

Obama?  Clinton? For a second opinion, you should ask them. ;)

Quote
Even in Congress he's not well loved because he's a dramatic break from their culture of corruption.

Working on a new culture of corruption.  Or haven't you noticed how many members of his Administration have been charged, or resigned in disgrace?  His Administration makes Obama's look like it was filled with angels.  ;D
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 07, 2018, 07:02:36 PM
Quote
Not sure why you'd use that example.  Kids are removed from their US parent's custody all the time when that person is placed in jail.  Often they have other parents or responsible adults that can take them, but when they don't they go into foster care.

I used it since it seemed to be a fairly equivalent crime.

You think a moving violation is "fairly equivalent" to illegal border crossing?  You understand the later carries, for a first offense up to 6 months in prison, and the person in question is also subject to deportation as they have no entitlement to be here (that's not a consequence of the illegal act, that's a consequence of their presence).

Quote
Both are misdemeanors.

Most moving violations are not misdemeanors, it would depend on the state.  Silly to claim that all misdemeanors are the same.

Quote
Of course, my knowledge of crimes is limited.  Perhaps you could suggest a better comparison, one that fulfills my two criteria?

To what end?  No matter the crime, whether misdemeanor or not, if a US citizen is held in jail their children will be separated.  Do you not have any explanation for why this is okay, while separating an illegal immigrants children is not?

Quote
When the person in charge says he is required to take someone into custody when the law only stipulates that he has the option, and the person blames the law for requiring him to do so, that is my definition of "weaselly."

Goal post move?  The law required the children could not be held, the law permits the adult to be held.  There's no legitimate reason to act as if the default is to release people who committed a crime.

Quote
There is a difference between enforcing the law and using enforcement as punishment in lieu of the actual sentence.  Which is what Trump is doing.


Give them the option of being released into their country of transit or origin.  Deportation is the law not a punishment.  No one is required to stay in custody, well unless they apply the penalty for the illegal crossing and imprison them for 6 months.

Quote
One of the basic principles of the law is minimization of punishment, AKA "let the punishment fit the crime."

That's not remotely a principal of law.  I think you're misconstruing proportionality, which is not minimization.  But even proportionality is only part of the measurement, as it's often weighed against the probability of being caught - that's why fines are often grossly out of line with the offense that generates them.

Quote
We don't shoot jaywalkers for jaywalking.

True, we also haven't been shooting people for illegal immigration.  We are however, entitled to detain and deport (which again is not a punishment) those who come illegally.

Quote
We shouldn't separate children from their parents unless there is a very good reason for it.  Committing a misdemeanor doesn't fit that bill.

Lol.  There's a very good reason to detain those that have no right to be here.  Again, happy to let them be released out of the country at their own election.

But it's a false statement to claim that the children are being separated because their parents committed a misdemeanor.  The children are released because it is illegal to detain them, and specifically legal and proper to detain their parents.

Quote
I would also remind you that Trump separates children from immigrants who lawfully present themselves to the authorities and ask for asylum, not just "illegal immigrants."  So those who haven't even committed a crime are punished.

Detention isn't legally punishment in this context.

Quote
You misread your own source.  It says:

Quote
Over the last 20 years, 37 percent of all aliens free pending trial failed to appear for their hearings.

No I actually read my source, which is why you seem to have found it confusing.  Take a closer look and you'd have seen it pegs the actual rate of no shows - by year - at between 25 and I believe 59%. 

Quote
That means 63 percent appeared.  Per Politifact (https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26/wolf-blitzer/majority-undocumented-immigrants-show-court-data-s/):

Well it depends on which source you use.  What I cited to, showed why the official record was misleading (specifically it counted as "shows" people that were being detained and accordingly had no ability to abscond).

But more significantly, 63 percent is an absolutely *censored*ing terrible show rate.  Acting like that is demonstrating a good fact is completely ridiculous.

Quote
Of course not.  It was a) based on information they got from the CIA, b) was corrected in about a week after the initial utterance, and c) had no bearing on attack in Benghazi or the response.  While they took the easy route, it wasn't that important.

The emails proved they - Hillary at least - knew the same day the attack was planned and not a reaction to a video.  The drafts proved that they knew the story was a lie way before they sent Rice out to spread it.  They didn't "correct" their story they flat out got caught with a lie that fell apart.

They lied.  Period end of story.  They literally got caught it in with their own emails.

Quote
Quote
I don't recall G.W. Bush lying about WMD in Iraq, let alone because he was at risk of loosing an election to Mitt Romney and needed to appear to not be a failure.

The Bush Administration lied about there being WMD in Iraq because the CIA told them there were and because it suited his agenda, just like Obama and Hillary lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack because the CIA told them it was one of the reasons and because it suited their agenda.

I see now.  You wanted to line it up so you draw the false equivalence.  My answer is no.  There is no legitimate parallel.  It's patently obvious that the Bush admin believed they would find WMD.  Heck, even the 20/20 analysis only disputes nuclear WMDs, there's no dispute that I'm aware of about chemical and biological WMDs which even the doubters expected to find.  Your lying to yourself if you think these were the same things.

Quote
Quote
Again, I didn't say it was a good idea, and specifically said I don't think it's up to a President to decide.  That changes nothing about whether the Constitution requires it, which I don't believe it does.  No matter what though the interpretation of the Constitution that it is required is very long standing and not something that would be lightly overturned.

Fine.  We can both agree that the President lied when he said he could take away birth citizenship.

No.  I said I don't think he can do it.  That doesn't make him thinking he can do it a lie.

Why the desperate need to make things into what they aren't?

Quote
Trump repeatedly states that there were 5 million illegal votes in his Presidential election without proof, throwing the whole election into doubt.  And you're worried about a few Democrats bemoaning that the Electoral College may be out-of-date?

Lol, cause its so much better to throw the election into doubt by claiming that Russian FB messages read by tiny fraction of the voting public "stole" the election.  sarcasm off.

This is no moral high ground for democrats on this issue.  There is no way in our system to vet out the number of illegal votes cast, and the Dems actively work to prevent any efforts - no matter how reasonable or safe - to ensure that votes are legally cast.

Quote
Quote
...undermining executive authority (which has been ongoing on multiple fronts)...


Something that has been going on for years on both sides of the aisle.  Meanwhile, Trump routinely tries to extend executive authority...

You think I'm talking about Congress?  Those useless fools are the biggest accomplises in increasing executive authority as they dump more and more of their power into the executive branch. 

The bureaucracy is the real underminer as they leak, slow walk, obstruct and generally do everything they can to increase their own power.

90% of claims that Trump tries to extend executive authority are bunk.

Quote
Quote
...demanding district judges overrule legitimate executive actions (ongoing and wide spread)...


When you challenge an action, you usually start at a district judge, don't you?  Or do you think that no one should ever challenge an executive action?

And?  The power of the courts was constitutionally limited to deciding the matter with respect to the parties in front of it.  Not to the whole country.  Not to a national injunction.  Talk about Constitutionality, it's not remotely clear that a national injunction is legal let alone Constitutional.  There's certainly no basis for a judge to overrule express executive authority provided in the Constitution.

But this is one of those topics where results oriented minds grossly fail to see the risks of this trend.  I'll just put it out there, much how I did when Obama was grossly expanding executive power, you will not like how this power is used by the other side in the future. 

Quote
IIRC, the Justice Department is under the White House control.  If he can't keep his own Justice Department honest, what good is he?

The DOJ is not remotely under White House control.  The DOJ is running itself and protecting its own illegality.  Congress won't let the President get it under control.

Quote
And the courts get to decide whether the charges have merit.  You belief that they are only based on partisanship is simply an opinion.

I don't expect the courts to play a big role with Mueller.  He's clearly angling for impeachment, for which there will be no legal protections as the court would apply them.  Merit of the charges won't matter, only whether they sound bad.

Quote
Challenging policy we disagree with and what is perceived illegal actions is hardly "only if...our side wins."

I agree with this.  Of course, that's the minority of what's going and hardly the basis for the quote.

Quote
Calling anyone who does so a liar, traitor and "enemy of the people" is far more harmful to democracy.

If you believed that you'd have a different tone when you speak of Trump and those who support him.  Or is it only harmful when it's applied to your side?

Quote
Quote
Trump has a special prosecutor (literally a witch hunter for all the justification that's been provided) looking at him...

In your opinion.  There was enough contact with Russia and questions to justify looking into it for me.

Yes it's my opinion.  Contact with Russia is not illegal.  They haven't presented evidence of criminal activity that justifies the appointment (that is just a fact, they literally haven't shown the cards).  You assume they have it, I'm still waiting to see if they have it.

Quote
Quote
...state AG's trying to find evidence of crimes (which flips due process on its head)...

Mainly because the President has stated he can pardon himself.  And why can't states investigate crimes again?

There's nothing but partisanship behind the MD and NY AG offices.  I find it troubling that on the one hand you can complain about Trump degrading the Rule of Law, the Constitution and abusing power, and on the other ignore far more clear abuses of power just because they are done by your side of the spectrum.

Quote
Quote
and a media that digs into every single word he says.


Which President didn't have this?

Obama?  Clinton? For a second opinion, you should ask them. ;)

Obama literally did not.  Second Clinton did not (heck they let her get away with scripting her "interviews" and not talking to them for 9 months).  You literally have to be joking.

Quote
Quote
Even in Congress he's not well loved because he's a dramatic break from their culture of corruption.

Working on a new culture of corruption.  Or haven't you noticed how many members of his Administration have been charged, or resigned in disgrace?

How many of them exactly have been charged with a crime of corruption?  I think we're up to zero now.  How's that a culture of corruption?

In fact, several of the charges only exist because legal conduct was investigated.  Flynn for example, convicted of lying about something that wasn't illegal, because of what he said in an interview where no one thought he was lying.  Yep, quite the culture of corruption.

Quote
His Administration makes Obama's look like it was filled with angels.  ;D

The media will certainly tell you that.

Interestingly, quite of few of those angels have been granted immunity deals, or managed to plead the fifth and walk away, and some of them got caught in lies to Congress (Brennan, for example) and yet for some reason the DOJ doesn't seem interested in putting them in jail and ruining their lives.

Oh yeah, it's the Trump administration that's causing us to fall into corruption.  sarcasm off.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on December 07, 2018, 07:12:52 PM
Quote
The law required the children could not be held, the law permits the adult to be held.  There's no legitimate reason to act as if the default is to release people who committed a crime.

The question is whether his hand was forced. Technically, marijuana is still federally schedule 1. Does the law also require him to dispatch the FDA to the Colorado State House?

Selective enforcement of everything has always been on the table, more or less. Choosing not to prosecute, choosing not to enforce regulations, etc. Pretending that there wasn't any choice is disingenuous.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: DonaldD on December 08, 2018, 08:48:53 AM
Quote
They haven't presented evidence of criminal activity that justifies the appointment (that is just a fact, they literally haven't shown the cards).
This is just silly - by this standard, every single investigation throughout the history of humanity was a witch hunt at the time investigators began investigating, with the possible exception of those investigations that were initiated by the culprit initiating the process by pre-emptively confessing.

Of course, there have already been dozens (hundreds?) of indictments and charges resulting from this supposed witch hunt - including against, what, 27 Russian nationals for the actual interference? One of the defining attributes of "witch hunts" is that witches do not actually exist - 27 people charged in federal court would seem to belie the primary attribute of the witch hunt claim...   

And one has to be willfully ignorant of the recent court filings by the special counsel to believe that there has been no evidence yet provided of "links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."  Also, note that the order appointing the special counsel does not limit the investigation to only "criminal activity" - that seems to be a pretty common and convenient misrepresentation of the scope of the investigation.

So we have
1. Evidence of Russian interference - check
2. Evidence of links between the Russians charged with interference and members of the Trump campaign - check

Is anything proven?  No.  Is there evidence? Unquestionably.  Will that stop people from parroting Trump's "witch hunt" characterization?  Almost certainly not.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on December 08, 2018, 09:22:46 AM
Quote
Still, most of the "lies" are quibbles, and many are just antagonistic interpretation.  I mean it's getting rare that people even try to cite to the lies themselves, they just cite to the meme "Trump lies."

You do know that this is a thread devoted to citing the false and misleading statements themselves.

You do know that even if most of the "lies" are just quibbles, there are a large number that have significant impact.

For example:
Trump claiming to have evidence that Obama "tapped my phones", but never providing it.
Or claiming to have evidence that 3 million illegal votes were cast, but never providing it.

This is a pet peeve, claiming to have evidence without providing it.  Which brings me to this thread, back around November 11.

Seriati:
Quote
Of course, I recommend the original NYT article, in which it is very clear that it's not just "two" occasions.  https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html

...Now that said, it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not, but it certainly sounds possible given the number of times he spoke on the issue, the impression given and his deliberate stories about "when we came back."

As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate [finding only two occasions], or this just a false representation.

Velcro:
Quote
If you can find a third case, please show me the source.  As far as I can tell, it is not the New York Times article you posted. 
I know that you are busy, and so if you can provide the source for the third case you insist exists, I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice.  Really
.

You must have missed that.  The offer stands for a week.

Am I trolling? Nope.  You made a very explicit claim that I think is false, based on the sources I have found and linked to, and I am asking you to prove it. 

Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 09, 2018, 12:39:02 AM
President retweets false claim that Paris rioters 'want Trump'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-retweets-false-claim-paris-rioters-want-trump-221039307.html

Washington (AFP) - Why have French rioters been battling police in Paris? Because they want to be led by Trump, according to a theory retweeted by the president himself Tuesday and subsequently debunked.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there's another Trump lie right there. He just can't help himself. They don't want Trump. They want to sacrifice their money on the altar of climate change and man made global warming in the form of much higher gas prices. Oh wait, they don't actually. They'd rather burn Paris to the ground than sacrifice a little bit of money to save the planet. The prefer Trump's energy policy instead, apparently. They didn't specifically say they want to be led by Trump so that part is most likely false but their actions are speaking louder than any words.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: DonaldD on December 09, 2018, 07:56:23 AM
cherrypoptart, you realize the protests initially triggered by the tax increase that negatively affected lower income percentiles, are now being driven primarily by income disparity and a desire for higher wages for the poor, lower taxes for the working classes, better pensions, easier access to university and in many cases the resignation of the president.

Aside from maybe that last point, I don't think these are goals of Trump policy.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: D.W. on December 10, 2018, 09:38:53 AM
While all that is true DonaldD, it WAS kicked off by a tax hike on fuel.  Something that seems inevitable under policies combating climate change... 

The statement that they "want Trump" (or his policies) is a distortion to be sure, but the people certainly flinched when asked to walk the walk of the international goals and trend setting.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on December 10, 2018, 11:24:14 AM
While all that is true DonaldD, it WAS kicked off by a tax hike on fuel.  Something that seems inevitable under policies combating climate change... 

Not at all inevitable. There are a lot of policies that can combat climate change that don't involve regressive taxes that impact people directly. This was pretty universally recognized as a very inflammatory way to implement policy. Most nations understand that invisible taxes are the best, ones that don't show up at the register.

Trump suggesting that people in paris were chanting "we want Trump!"

I quite enjoyed a response from Joachim Son-Forget,

Quote
Donald le Gâteux, est atteint d’incontinence cérébrale... comme un “gâteux” souffre d’incontinence d’urine voire de matières fécales et “gâte” ses draps. DON’T INSULT MY COUNTRY DOTARD. La 🇫🇷 kisses your ass. 😙 from french parliament “my friend”.

Cerebral incontinence. *chuckle*
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: D.W. on December 10, 2018, 11:34:12 AM
Sure you can bury the cost and hide it from the end consumer... but it's still going to cost.  It's still going to impact the way we live.  Most people want to feel like "WE" are "doing something", but don't want to pay for it out of their pocket or reduce their standard of living.  Heck, most want the standard of living for people to improve overall (including those who are already doing OK).
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on December 10, 2018, 11:56:21 AM
Those guys in France weren't climate change deniers, however. Nor were they demanding that China do their part or it shouldn't happen. Or anything else Trump-like.

Quote
But they may be seeing only what they want to see in the protests. The fact is, the yellow-vest demonstrations have never been against Macron’s climate-change policies in general; they have been against the fuel tax in particular, which they see as unfairly targeting lower-income households. “This is not the yellow vests against climate-change policies. It’s the yellow vests against the cost of living, the way politics are done, and how decision makers are doing policy,” says Pierre Cannet, the head of climate and energy at the French offices of the WWF, an environmental nonprofit organization. In other words, in a context of social unrest and economic instability, the Macron government didn’t sell its policy well enough to its citizens.

The policy wasn’t even a proper carbon tax: It was a plan to increase France’s version of the gas tax. Before the effort was suspended this week, France was set to increase the diesel tax by 6.5 Euro cents per liter and the gasoline tax by 3.9 cents per liter. (That’s a hike of 28 cents per gallon and 17 cents per gallon, respectively.) France had already increased its gas and diesel taxes by several cents this year, and the government paid little attention to explaining where these funds were going. That the shift came after years in which France, and Europe, had encouraged the use of diesel fuel as being better for the environment only served to infuriate voters further.

So, they want a broader tax, that's it (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/france-yellow-vest-climate-action/577642/).
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on December 22, 2018, 08:26:41 AM
Quote
Even President Ronald Reagan tried for 8 years to build a Border Wall, or Fence, and was unable to do so.
Donald Trump

False. (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/21/analysis-heres-what-reagan-actually-said-about-border-security/)

Quote
“Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit,”
Ronald Reagan

Quote
“There was not any discussion at the senior policy levels during the Reagan administration about fencing or a wall that I can recall,”
Doris Meissner, who was executive associate commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Reagan administration

Quote
“I don’t think a border wall as such was discussed at the time. Mainly because it hadn’t quite come to that,” “If there were other things contemplated, they were never really acted on.”
Clark Judge, a speechwriter and aide in the Reagan White House.

Quote
“I don’t remember Reagan saying we need a wall,” Simpson said. “Reagan was really sensitive to that stuff.”
Former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming and co-author of the 1986 immigration bill

You could argue that in today's environment Reagan would support a wall.  But that argument would not diminish the falsity of Trump's statement.

You could point out that "there were other things contemplated", which included a wall.  Contemplating is not "trying for 8 years" and being unable to do it.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on December 23, 2018, 01:52:51 PM
without addressing the immigration laws which seem to be the problem will the Wall make America more secure or is it just a 5 billion dollar illusion.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: DJQuag on December 23, 2018, 04:05:12 PM
Thing is, walls are two dimensional.

There are absolutely sections of walls at the border that are already there and have been there for a long time. The cartels/coyotes response?

Dig a tunnel under it.

This is really why although I understand and respect border security arguments, this religious devotion to a wall just makes me roll my eyes.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Crunch on December 24, 2018, 08:04:01 AM
So the argument is thst it won’t stop 100% of illegal crossings so let’s do nothing. Right. ::)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 24, 2018, 09:05:56 AM
Speaking of lies and Reagan we shouldn't forget the biggest lie ever told in our lifetimes which is a two-parter: one that after Reagan's amnesty for illegals our border would get secured and two that it would be the last amnesty ever. I agree that Trump was inaccurate about Reagan ever trying to specifically get a border wall or talking about it in those terms. Just imagine the bad optics of it after Reagan telling Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall." But we were promised border security for a one time amnesty. Did we get border security? Can you really have border security without some sort of physical barriers? I don't know. Maybe, but I highly doubt it. And we do have a lot of fencing that is basically a wall by another name. Although Reagan didn't fight for a wall per se he did promise border security and he never got it. If walls are a necessary and integral part of a comprehensive border security package, and there is a very good argument that they are, then Trump isn't totally wrong here because although a wall was never specifically mentioned by Reagan as far as I know, as a part of border security it is still greatly implied. He just couldn't say it outright because of what he said about the Berlin Wall.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on December 24, 2018, 09:50:03 AM
So the argument is thst it won’t stop 100% of illegal crossings so let’s do nothing. Right. ::)

Wrong.  Nobody said do nothing. They said don't do stupid useless expensive things when you can do smart, less expensive, useful things.

Let's enforce the laws against hiring undocumented workers so they have less incentive to come here.
Let's have a guest worker program so we can have a lot of people come in legally, but not stay.
Let's actually have Congress talk about immigration reform.
Let's work on helping other countries solve their problems so people will not come here to save their lives, or the lives of their children.

These are all things that rational people agree on.  Trumps new chief of staff is on record saying the wall is a bad idea.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on December 24, 2018, 09:58:02 AM
If walls are a necessary and integral part of a comprehensive border security package, and there is a very good argument that they are, then Trump isn't totally wrong here because although a wall was never specifically mentioned by Reagan as far as I know, as a part of border security it is still greatly implied. He just couldn't say it outright because of what he said about the Berlin Wall.

If you read the quote I provided, it was not "greatly implied".  It was specifically excluded.
Nobody has claimed Reagan tried to build a wall except for Trump.  Major advisors to Reagan on immigration policy are on record saying he never tried to build it.

Your response is in direct contradiction to the facts provided.

Trump's statement is misleading.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Pete at Home on December 24, 2018, 11:05:18 AM
 While we are judging presidents, does anybody hear remember what Reagan’s number one promise was during his election in the primary against bush and in the final election?

balancing the budget.

That’s a pretty epic fail if you ask me.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 24, 2018, 11:07:50 AM
Well, researching it a bit more in-depth just now I will say that you are entirely right on this one.

Reagan never even promised any real type of border security. He was delusional in thinking the way that he did about an amnesty and changing laws to make it easier for people to come here to work legally and then just go home when they wanted to would reduce illegal immigration instead of encourage it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/21/what-ronald-reagan-actually-said-about-border-security-according-history-not-donald-trump/?utm_term=.7ff494869bf4

“Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit,” he said. “And then while they’re working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back they can go back.”

“Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders,” Reagan said at the time, “and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people — American citizenship.”

With the 1986 immigration bill, the understanding was that amnesty could come in the context of greater border security enforcement, said Judge, who now serves as managing director of the White House Writers Group Inc. But the enforcement part never really followed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, so Trump was wrong about Reagan ever wanting a wall. In fact Trump is wrong about Reagan ever being serious about border security at all. It's actually kind of funny how conservatives look up to Reagan and he's such a hero when his failure to secure the border and his opening of the floodgates to illegals with his amnesty has most likely doomed our country.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: DJQuag on December 24, 2018, 07:08:04 PM
Doomed?

Really?

Holy hyperbole, Batman!
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Grant on December 25, 2018, 07:45:14 AM
Dooomed! 

I couldn't decide if a C3-PO gif or a Simpson's Bob Dole would have been better. 

We're doooooooomed!

Merry Christmas
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on December 25, 2018, 10:27:05 AM
Quote
his failure to secure the border and his opening of the floodgates to illegals with his amnesty has most likely doomed our country.

In 1986, 1.6 million people were apprehended at the southwest border of the US.
Last year - 300K.
Source (https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2017-Dec/BP%20Southwest%20Border%20Sector%20Apps%20FY1960%20-%20FY2017.pdf)

Open floodgates.  Huh.

To be fair, this is apprehensions.  There could be millions and millions getting through that we are not apprehending. Or it could be zero.
Until then, the data we have shows that the problem has dropped by about 80%.
Any data that shows different would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 25, 2018, 04:37:39 PM
It doesn't really matter if the numbers are going down. With ten million to thirty million already here, or who knows how many, that's already many million too many. Of course the open borders just makes a bad situation worse. We're doomed. Doomed I say. We're on the slow road to doom the way we see it happening in Europe which decided under Merkel's leadership to take the fast track. Definitions are always nice. By doomed I mean we're going to have a much lower standard of living than we otherwise would have, than we should have and our descendants deserve.

I mean we'll survive, but it's just not going to be as pleasant. More crime. More competition for jobs so lower wages and benefits, higher taxes to support the growing underclass, and the added problems that come with higher populations no matter how great the people are, meaning water shortages, brown-outs, traffic jams, more pollution, etc. One has to wonder if the depopulation of Japan might actually be going in the right direction and might actually increase their standard of living as more robots and automation do more jobs. Now I love babies and people raising their children and those children growing up to realize their full potential and going on to do great things. That's all great, but you have to look around and wonder if there is a tipping point where too many people actually reduces the ability of everyone to realize that full potential.

Otherwise it seems like the most over-populated parts of the world should be much better off than they are. Maybe we can do it better. Maybe we could have an American population of a billion people and it'd be great. Perhaps we won't fall into the Malthusian population trap, after all it was avoided for food production. But you look around and that just doesn't seem to be the case as our standard of living deteriorates and even with food production one has to wonder about the price with genetically modified and perhaps less nutritious food as a consequence of abundance.

Big picture, there just needs to be an orderly process to immigration. A million legal immigrants annually seems like that's quite enough.

Trump lied about Reagan wanting a wall but he's not wrong about the need to better control immigration and secure our border.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on December 26, 2018, 08:17:53 AM
Quote
But you look around and that just doesn't seem to be the case as our standard of living deteriorates and even with food production one has to wonder about the price with genetically modified and perhaps less nutritious food as a consequence of abundance.

Our standard of living is not deteriorating. Violent crime peaked in 1990 and has steadily fallen on a per capita basis to a little more than half that level. While median income has waffled back and forth, it is higher than ever before, at 53k in 1990 and 61k in 2016. Most Americans don't agree with you (https://news.gallup.com/poll/218981/americans-ratings-standard-living-best-decade.aspx). Rating of standard of living as polled by Gallup is reported at +54, and has been on a steady year by year rise since 2008.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 26, 2018, 08:39:56 AM
Why specify violent crime?

Are child molesters considered violent criminals? What about drunk drivers? Or burglars? Or identity thieves? Or drug dealers? Or users of illegal drugs? Or pimps?

I'm not going to have some website I can point to and say the quality of life in America is deteriorating but I can look around and see it for myself. I can watch the news and see it there too. Anecdotal for sure but quality of life is probably determined subjectively anyway. Look at Europe with masked soldiers carrying fully automatic weapons on the streets even in Paris. For all I know statistically violent crime is down in France but I would say their quality of life has severely deteriorated nevertheless. Maybe violent crime is up there; I don't know and if it is up then that's a warning too.

An example in America would be children waiting for the school bus in the morning or getting off it in the afternoon. When most of us were growing up there were just kids there and that was fine. Nowadays there are parents on guard both ways. That's a deterioration in the standard of living and it probably won't show up in any statistics.

When I think about how Trump lied about Reagan wanting a wall and how Reagan was actually a miserable failure on border security and reducing illegal immigration I wonder if Trump may have been the greater victim of a misleading characterization about Reagan as some sort of great conservative when in fact whatever good he did on taxes and foreign policy has been countered and diminished by not only his failure to address illegal immigration in a way that would discourage it but in fact his mass amnesty was counter-productive by offering the promise of another mass amnesty in the future, a promise on which Obama delivered. Illegal immigrants now are counting on being able to benefit from the next one, and Democrats seem to be intent on making their dreams come true. Trump is pretty much the only one who seems to be serious about breaking the cycle.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 26, 2018, 10:39:47 AM
Wrong.  Nobody said do nothing. They said don't do stupid useless expensive things when you can do smart, less expensive, useful things.

Not sure sure $5 billion expenditure is really expensive for a country with our budget.  It's also hard to imagine it's "useless" given the actual history of walls and their effectiveness at keeping large numbers of people out.  Can they be breached?  Sure.  Totally possible, but unless its a major breach it's going to require secrecy, which turns a flood into a trickle.

Given that you can see the caravan members stopped by a guarded wall at the border crossing, where did you get the idea that they don't work?

Quote
Let's enforce the laws against hiring undocumented workers so they have less incentive to come here.
Let's have a guest worker program so we can have a lot of people come in legally, but not stay.
Let's actually have Congress talk about immigration reform.
Let's work on helping other countries solve their problems so people will not come here to save their lives, or the lives of their children.

You know what's missing from you list?  Deporting people.  Approve an expedited deportation process and we can skip the wall and pretty much the rest of the reforms.

But that said, all for enforcing the laws on hiring undocumented workers.  Hey, wouldn't it be nice if we had a mandatory identification system, maybe we could use it for voting.  Then you could require the mandatory id be presented and verified in connection with employment.  Deport anyone that doesn't have it, you could also deport every person that tries to access any government function without presenting it.

I mean if the idea of coming for work is the "problem" as you imply, is not also the idea of coming for free public education in a first world country not also the problem?  Deport anyone who shows up without proper id.  Hospitals, public benefits?  Heck, we could easily resolve the problem.

Solving other countries problems is not an easy task.  Many of them are inherent in the decisions they make, are you going to unwind the socialist decisions that destroyed their economies?  Or do you just mean to flush them with even more cash to prop them up?  Or do you mean we should resolve their gang violence?  (maybe by building a wall to make it harder to smuggle the drugs that fuel it?)  Do we invade them, or just send a boat of cash to so the local government can suppress the gangs (and it's politicial enemies)?  Do you not get that increases the violence and makes even more refugees?

The only way I know to make their situation better is to be cultural exporters, which everyone labels as American arrogance, and to bring them back to a market economy with local opportunity.  But you have to have a lot of other things to make that work, a culture that respects the rule of law, a culture that believes in service (our army, our police and our politicians started out that way, though our politicians seem to have lost their way).


We do need a better immigration system.  We an intelligent one, where we choose who comes in as an immigrant.  That's the right of every nation.  We can choose to bring in the poor and desparate if we want, and that will be our choice, we can choose as most countries do to bring in those who benefit us the most, and that also would be a choice.  The inaction and incompetence of our political class for decades has robbed us of having a choice.  I find it ridiculous to complain about the first real action to create a choice in decades because 'it could be done better.'  No *censored*, let you in on a secret though, it's not going to be.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: NobleHunter on December 26, 2018, 11:59:06 AM
Mandatory ID strikes me as too close to "Papers, please" to work in the US. Not to mention the constitutional problems with instituting it nationally and implementation problems if you leave it up to the states.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 26, 2018, 12:35:17 PM
But see, some how private employers are supposed to be able to detect illegal aliens against a backdrop without a mandatory government issued (and government guaranteed) identification system?

Is it my imagination, or are these smart practical, solutions 'we all agree on,' not actually all that easy or practical?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: DJQuag on December 26, 2018, 12:39:16 PM
Cherry

"Look at Europe with masked soldiers carrying fully automatic weapons on the streets even in Paris."

Don't know if they're actual soldiers in France, but in the UK they're police.


Regardless, I have to say it's pretty damned ironic for a conservative to point to law enforcement carrying guns as a sign of the apocalypse.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: DJQuag on December 26, 2018, 12:48:00 PM
Quote
his failure to secure the border and his opening of the floodgates to illegals with his amnesty has most likely doomed our country.

In 1986, 1.6 million people were apprehended at the southwest border of the US.
Last year - 300K.
Source (https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2017-Dec/BP%20Southwest%20Border%20Sector%20Apps%20FY1960%20-%20FY2017.pdf)

Open floodgates.  Huh.

To be fair, this is apprehensions.  There could be millions and millions getting through that we are not apprehending. Or it could be zero.
Until then, the data we have shows that the problem has dropped by about 80%.
Any data that shows different would be appreciated.

I think the whistle you're not hearing is that those illegals from the 80's had kids, and they're *definitely* citizens, and it's "doomed" the country because...reasons.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 26, 2018, 01:32:20 PM
Not sure if whistle is the right term.  I think the truth is that if illegals have been here 30 years they're going to be a net benefit to the economy at this points, so are their kids.  But they still set a terrible precedent.  It's also 30 years of services, including public education of those kids to get them there.

If on the other hand, we'd chosen the immigrants 30 years ago, and focused on educated individuals that brought needed skills, they'd still have had kids here, who'd still be a net gain to the economy, but the lag period while there was a drain would have been non-existant.  Resources expended on entire school systems to retro train English could have been avoided, if we'd been able to favor those with English skills.  Public health systems wouldn't have been overwhelmed, health centers the same.  Not to mention, we'd not be facing new influxes of some diseases that were eradicated.  You could have avoided importing drug gangs into some communities, killed off a huge black market and smuggling apparatus.

Really, it's not about thinking people are not worthwhile, it's about recognizing there is a substantial cost associated with bringing in impoverished, unskilled migrants, without disease screening, without any plan for their upkeep and without any real attempt to integrate them into our culture.  It's almost like you could not envision a worse immigration plan.  That's what's being defended (the only worse plan, would be to import convicted criminals, and people hiding from war crimes tribunals).  We could choose to bring in the impoverished, but if we do so, it's a horrid failing as a people and a country to do so in the negligent manner we're doing so today.  The first step has to be getting control of the situation, and then building out intake centers, that screen for communicable diseases, retro train for items important to integration - basic communication and needed skills, and yes, screen for views that are unacceptable in modern society - anti-women, anti-gay, racist views.

I get the fear, the idea that once we get control, we'll shut down to everyone not "like us," but it's nonsense.  We're too diverse to every adopt that policy.  But we do have a right to choose whether we want a maximally open legal immigration system or one tied to our benefit.  And I all I hear from the protests and complaints is a denial of the right to have a choice. 
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on December 26, 2018, 02:21:10 PM
If on the other hand, we'd chosen the immigrants 30 years ago, and focused on educated individuals that brought needed skills, they'd still have had kids here, who'd still be a net gain to the economy, but the lag period while there was a drain would have been non-existant.

Actually, I think the economy in general probably needs more unskilled workers. While the children had to have their education paid for, remember that those parents working mostly manual labor did not have to have their education paid for. People born in America with school training, especially in good school systems, are likely going to look for something better.

An economy has to get its janitors, housekeepers, field workers, construction workers, and landscapers from somewhere after all. And highly educated people from Colombia aren't the ones who are going to uproot, and they certainly aren't likely to take those jobs.

I'm setting aside the mechanism of how people get chosen, vetted, etc, and just saying bringing in highly skilled people is important too, but not the whole story of why immigrants are valuable as part of the economy in the US.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 26, 2018, 03:22:33 PM
First, I'm not sure its true that we had to import unskilled workers.  I think part of that belief is based on a system where allowing them to come in unmonitored subsidized a system that exploits the unskilled.  There are so many jobs that have been "priced out" as a result of our system, that I'm not entirely convinced would have been priced out with less manipulation of the economy and better controls on immigration.  Our system is currently replacing more unskilled jobs than ever.

But even if we accept that argument.  There's absolutely no reason we should prefer unskilled immigrants who can't speak English.  There's no reason, we shouldn't have had a choice about whether someone had the moral character to be here, or whether someone deserved to be here more.  There's no reason we shouldn't have screened them for illness and disease, and even allowed or required them to bring their families.  They should never have been off the books or on the black market, which destroyed any ability to enforce our labor laws, our safety regulations and wage rules.  There's no justification for that.  Exploiting the illegal system is what makes all those abuses possible.  It's just bad policy.

Get control, then have a real debate about who should be allowed to come in.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on December 31, 2018, 09:07:18 AM
For the record, I am fine with a merit-based immigration policy.  Did congressional Republicans ever submit a bill for that?  Did Democrats ever vote against it?

Also, I am fine with voter ID, as long as it is not implemented in a way that disadvantages certain groups, or makes it more difficult to vote.  If a new voter ID law requires a 95 year old woman, who has been voting for 70 years, to travel 50 miles to get a valid ID, then I have a problem with that.  If the office is only open every 5th Wednesday and they require a notarized birth certificate, and it cost $25, even worse. But if 70% of those who will have difficulty voting are Democrats, and Republicans are on record saying the new law will help them politically, that is worse still.  And finally, if the law fixes the non-existent problem of in-person voter fraud, but does not address the much larger issues of absentee ballots, it is despicable.

cherrypoptart:
Quote
I'm not going to have some website I can point to and say the quality of life in America is deteriorating but I can look around and see it for myself. I can watch the news and see it there too. Anecdotal for sure

My opinion is that studies and surveys based on tens of thousands of people are a good way to determine the situation for the country as a whole.  Others seem to believe that their individual feelings, and the experiences of their friends as reported on Facebook is a better way.  I guess we will agree to disagree. 

Back to false and misleading statements:

I think it has been firmly established that there is no evidence that Blumenthal made more than the two statements about Vietnam that I quoted.  More importantly, there is absolutely zero evidence, from anywhere in the world, ever, that he made the statements attributed to him by Trump.  Pending any new facts, it is undeniable that Trump's claims about Blumenthal are false.

On to the latest from the Military Times (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/12/27/in-iraq-visit-trump-makes-false-claim-about-military-pay-again/):

Trump speaking to troops stationed in Iraq:
Quote
“You haven’t gotten one in more than 10 years. More than 10 years!” he told a crowd of applauding service members during his remarks at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq on Wednesday. “And we got you a big one. I got you a big one.”

“[People said] we could make it 3 percent. We could make it 2 percent. We could make it 4 percent," he told the troops. “I said, ‘No, make it 10 percent. Make it more than 10 percent.’ Because it’s been a long time. It’s been more than 10 years. That’s a long time.”

The truth:
Quote
Trump has repeatedly claimed that troops hadn’t seen a pay raise during President Barack Obama’s time in the White House. In fact, troops have seen a pay raise of at least 1 percent every year for more than 30 years.

The president also appeared to claim he pushed for a 10 percent pay raise in 2019, even though the actual rate his administration publicly supported and eventually got approved was only 2.6 percent.

Trump’s initial pay raise proposal for 2018 was only 2.1 percent, which would have matched the final pay raise passed during the Obama administration. Lawmakers overrode that proposal by Trump, approving the higher 2.4 percent mark.

Utterly false.
False about the first raise in 10 years.
False about asking for more than 2.6 percent for 2019.
Misleading, since in 2018 he asked for 2.1% and Congress raised it to 2.4%.

The sad part is, all the soldiers there know that they got raises every year, and that Trump was not telling the truth. And next year, they will find out that he was not telling the truth about  their raises for 2019.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 31, 2018, 10:19:47 AM
I think it has been firmly established that there is no evidence that Blumenthal made more than the two statements about Vietnam that I quoted.  More importantly, there is absolutely zero evidence, from anywhere in the world, ever, that he made the statements attributed to him by Trump.  Pending any new facts, it is undeniable that Trump's claims about Blumenthal are false.

You are a literal broken record.  Trump made up stories about Blumenthal - or at least I haven't seen the sources from which they arose.   But this is Blumenthal's problem, not of Trump's making, as you implied.

There's no reasonable basis against the evidence on record to repeat your false claim that Blumenthal only made those claims on two occasions.  It's a reading comprehension fail on your part nothing more. 

"Absolutely zero evidence"  lol.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 31, 2018, 11:58:32 AM
Lol, so the 'fact check" that started this thread still continues today, with multiple instances of false claims of lies, yet, the total number keeps getting cited as if it itself is a fact by some on this board.  So, let's let at a few more.  Here's one that's on their front page today:

Quote
Any deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly the fault of the Democrats and their pathetic immigration policies that allow people to make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally. They can't. If we had a Wall, they wouldn't even try!”

And here's their "fact check":

Quote
Families were separated because of a "zero tolerance" policy from the Trump administration dating to April 2018. No law, whether passed by Democrats or otherwise, required these separations. Trump signed an executive order to end family separations shortly after saying it couldn't be done through an executive order.

There's nothing about what they provided that shows what he said was false or misleading.  In fact, what he said is literally true, families are making a dangerous trek because they've been told, and seen through our past in action and lax enforcement that getting into the country is the primary part of the battle, even getting in illegally.

Then they threw in the separation point - which has zero relevance to the claim they are "refuting" as a dog whistle.  There's nothing about separation that's caused deaths, there's nothing about being in custody that caused deaths.

In fact, this is a prime example of pure spin.  Those deaths are properly laid at the feet of those who refuse to make any rational (or to use the gun control lobby's term "common sense") changes to our border enforcement, or to even allow us to actual enforce the laws that Congress has passed.

More media propaganda than anything, and the whole site, in my view, only exists to give the left a "study" to cite too, to "prove" their claims without actually having to demonstrate them.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 31, 2018, 01:27:13 PM
Here's some info on military pay raises.

https://www.federalpay.org/military/raises

Year    Raise    
2018    2.4%    
2017    2.1%    
2016    1.3%    
2015    1.0%    
2014    1.0%    
2013    1.7%    
2012    1.6%    
2011    1.4%    
2010    3.4%    
2009    3.9%    
2008    3.5%    
2007Apr   1.2%    
2007Jan    2.2%    
2006    3.1%    
2005    3.5%    
2004    4.6%    

So yeah, not seeing how Trump told the truth on that one so I agree he wasn't accurate. Happy holidays.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on December 31, 2018, 04:07:45 PM
Here's some info on military pay raises.

https://www.federalpay.org/military/raises

Year    Raise    
2018    2.4%    
2017    2.1%

. . .    

So yeah, not seeing how Trump told the truth on that one so I agree he wasn't accurate. Happy holidays.

In the category of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" it should be pointed out that 2.1% rate of increase being bumped up to 2.4% year over year is a better than 10% increase to the rate of increase. 2.1+0.21=2.31 while the actual increase was 2.4

And as to the "Congressional intervention" it is possible that Trump was part of those negotiations and did actually back the increase above what his initial budget proposal offered. It also is entirely possible he had nothing to do with it, and is taking credit for the work of others, as he is also known to do. Particularly as he was "the one to sign it into law." So his role was "important"
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on December 31, 2018, 04:16:33 PM

Quote
Any deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly the fault of the Democrats and their pathetic immigration policies that allow people to make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally. They can't. If we had a Wall, they wouldn't even try!”

There's nothing about what they provided that shows what he said was false or misleading.

The deaths of children at the border are strictly the fault of the Democrats?

Nothing to due with parents who took risks to give their children better lives.
Nothing to do with bad luck.
Nothing to do with being separated from parents who might care for them.
Nothing to do with lack of sufficient facilities.
Nothing to do with the previous state of health for the children.

Strictly Democrats, who as of now have absolutely no government power, other than preventing some bills from passing the Senate.

That is what Trump is saying.  Strictly means "no more than, purely".    So "strictly the fault of Democrats" means there are no other factors.

You are really claiming that Trump's statement is true?  Really?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: velcro on December 31, 2018, 04:35:05 PM
Quote
There's no reasonable basis against the evidence on record to repeat your false claim that Blumenthal only made those claims on two occasions. 

You are right, I can't prove that he only made two claims.  I can't prove a negative.

But you said he made three claims.  It is monumentally trivial to prove that.  You have declined, repeatedly, without any real justification.

I think your actions speak very clearly to anyone who reads the thread, as do mine.  I will leave it at that.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on December 31, 2018, 05:59:20 PM
Yes they do, I put almost 2 pages down on why the NYTs article shows that it was more than two.  The idea that I need to provide recordings from campaign events from over a decade ago to "win" the battle, when you have a reporter that made clear it was not an unfrequent occurrence, speaks volumes to what you're really looking for in the citation demands.  There's no plausible read of that article that even remote supports your claim.  I said, if you did the research you would have seen that he made the claims more than twice.  I did some very basic research and demonstrated that.  What then, am I to make of you repeating the claim that is now either refuted or dubious?


Quote
Quote
Any deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly the fault of the Democrats and their pathetic immigration policies that allow people to make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally. They can't. If we had a Wall, they wouldn't even try!”

There's nothing about what they provided that shows what he said was false or misleading.

The deaths of children at the border are strictly the fault of the Democrats?

Did I miss where their quote showed this?  Or is this one of those cases where the source doesn't show what you want so we'll argue substance instead?

The language is clear hyperbole.  However, it's not unfair to put the blame at the feet of those who refuse to fix the border situation, it's not like the media did not openly run with a story that border agents killed a little girl out of neglect (which turned out to be flat out false).

So at this point, we know that desparate people are crossing the desert with children, because there's no wall blocking their access and they have been correctly told that if they "make it" they can stay in the US.  Who is defending that policy, and refuses to either stop them from coming, expedite them being deported or shut down their access to the country?  That would be the Democrats.  So yes, it is their policies that are drawing people, including children, to their deaths in the desert.

Quote
Nothing to due with parents who took risks to give their children better lives.
Nothing to do with bad luck.
Nothing to do with being separated from parents who might care for them.
Nothing to do with lack of sufficient facilities.
Nothing to do with the previous state of health for the children.

That's where you're going wit this?  Here I thought you were trying for substance, but it appears that argument wasn't there for you either, so you're criticizing hyperbole for speaking in absolute terms?

I note your silence when Democrats claim Trump is "destroying the country" or a "racist," or really a million other literal false bits of hyperbole, which your happy to explain away as true in some context (see your defense of the wiretapping bit for some "context").

Quote
Strictly Democrats, who as of now have absolutely no government power, other than preventing some bills from passing the Senate.

Since fixing it requires a change to law, or ceasing the Democratic resistance through injunction, yes they are responsible for refusing to fix it.

Quote
You are really claiming that Trump's statement is true?  Really?

Nice goal post move, lol.  You find it offensive that I say you claim Trump lies (which is actually what you're doing), because you use "false or misleading" as a term, and now when I showed the statement is neither false or misleading (after I showed that nothing in the "proof" provided by the fact checker even spoke to the question), you ask that I prove it true?  Knowing full well that you're playing the literal absolutist game on hyperbole?  Which means the expectation would be that I would have to show that there is 100% absolute certainty without any possibility of equivocation that there is no other possible interpretation?

Lol.  I do agree with you on one point, everyone can see how we are each "playing the game," and who is being fairer and reasonable.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Pete at Home on January 01, 2019, 02:27:04 AM
 I don’t think that a person can be “a false or misleading “in the same sense that this statement is false or misleading.   I think that that equivocation in and of it’s self is false and miss leading, but the person that makes it is not in and of themselves balls or misleading.  They are a real person making a false statement . I’m speaking in the generic sense here, not even pay attention to who said what.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 01, 2019, 08:33:37 AM
"President and Mrs. Obama built/has a ten foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The U.S. needs the same thing, slightly larger version!" - Trump via tweet.

Contradicting Trump, Neighbors Say Obamas Definitely Don’t Have A '10-Foot Wall'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/contradicting-trump-neighbors-obamas-definitely-062547395.html

Neighbors of the Obamas have since refuted Trump’s claim. One neighbor, described as a longtime resident of the Kalorama neighborhood where the former first couple now lives, told The Washington Post on Monday that Trump “has a very active imagination.”

“There’s a fence that goes along the front of the house, but it’s the same as the other neighbors have,” the neighbor said. “It’s tastefully done.”

According to the Post’s Fact Checker, the Obamas’ home ― described as a nine-bedroom mansion and not a “compound” contrary to Trump’s description — has additional security fencing in the front and back, as well as a guard booth. There is “not a ten-foot wall around the house,” however, and the front steps of the home remain open to the sidewalk.

The home is “100 percent visible from the street,” a second neighbor told the paper.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a nice picture.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/31/trump-claims-theres-foot-wall-around-obamas-dc-home-neighbors-say-theres-not/?utm_term=.84eea18da8e8

Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on January 01, 2019, 07:29:11 PM
Here's a nice picture.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/31/trump-claims-theres-foot-wall-around-obamas-dc-home-neighbors-say-theres-not/?utm_term=.84eea18da8e8

Ok, so it might actually be 8 feet tall instead of 10 feet, and its a iron fence with brick posts for inter-ties. Not a wall. :)

I also enjoyed the meme a relative posted on Facebook quoting the Pope about how "Christians don't build walls" and then shows a photograph of the 40 foot high wall surrounding the Vatican.  8)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Crunch on January 02, 2019, 09:21:40 AM
It’s now to the point where we have to define “wall” as narrowly as possible so the left can make the claim that Trump is dishonest. It’s a lot like trying to talk to a 8 year old that’s in trouble and trying to get the whole story.

It’s an 8 foot barrier with bars and guard booths, specifically designed to prevent unauthorized intrusion. That is a wall.

Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on January 02, 2019, 10:59:37 AM
So, Crunch, if your neighbor said "hey, come check out my new wall!" and then you saw he put up a picket fence, you wouldn't rib him about it?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on January 02, 2019, 11:08:57 AM
So, Crunch, if your neighbor said "hey, come check out my new wall!" and then you saw he put up a picket fence, you wouldn't rib him about it?

I think his point is that the definition of "wall" in context of the discussion is a "guarded security barrier designed to keep people out." Whether the wall can be seen through, or is taller versus shorter, seems beside the point. I don't think the Trumpian position of having a wall on the border hinges on it "looking like a wall" but is about having a secured barrier. In the case of the Obama house it looks like they wanted people to be able to see it; a public exposure decision. Many houses with an actual picket fence - and thus not typically very secure - have them mostly to keep people from looking in, to carefully demarcate property boundaries, and maybe to keep out kids and such. But much of the appeal of a 'fence' is aesthetic and feel-good, whereas the concept of a wall is security. Are you really arguing that the Obama's 'fence', as you call it, is not chiefly for security?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: NobleHunter on January 02, 2019, 11:45:38 AM
Both walls and fences can be about security. A knee-high wall is still a wall even though it does little more than demarcate a line. A fence topped with razor wire shows more concern about security than a simple wall of equal height.

Neither, of course, provide much security on their own. If the democrats really wanted "open borders" they'd pay for the wall and then deduct the cost out of funds for border security; "why are we spending so much on border cops if we have a wall?"
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on January 02, 2019, 11:54:28 AM
I'm not arguing anything, other than the fact that words have actual meanings. Wall and fence are not synonyms. A wall is a type of barrier, and a fence is a type of barrier. If I ask a contractor to build me a wall, and they build a fence, I'm going to be upset. If I ask for a fence, and get a wall, I'm going to be even more irate.

As to what Trump meant by wall during his campaign...

Quote
To be classified as a “wall” rather than a “fence,” the barrier must also be a continuous, non-porous construction. This distinction might seem purely semantic, but Trump has made himself very clear on the matter, saying, “A wall is better than fencing, and it’s much more powerful. It’s more secure. It’s taller.” So we’ll take him at his word: He wants to build a wall.

link (http://www.nationalmemo.com/an-engineer-explains-why-trumps-wall-is-so-implausible/)

There are many barrier options, but it is clear that Trump had always envisioned "a big beautiful wall" with or without a Night's Watch.

That said, I don't think anyone should criticize him for taking a more viable and less costly option than the one that originally arose from his fevered imagination.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on January 02, 2019, 12:06:42 PM
I'm not arguing anything, other than the fact that words have actual meanings. Wall and fence are not synonyms. A wall is a type of barrier, and a fence is a type of barrier. If I ask a contractor to build me a wall, and they build a fence, I'm going to be upset. If I ask for a fence, and get a wall, I'm going to be even more irate.

This is technically accurate, and I don't think anyone's arguing that Trump doesn't exaggerate (sometimes greatly) to make a point. The point of his tweet seems to me that the Obamas understand the need for security using a barrier, as they have at their house, and the U.S. needs the same. This is not in itself an irrational argument, and although it's completely fair play to call him out on using "wall" somewhat prejudicially in his tweet, since "fence" wouldn't match exactly his 'build a wall' motto, by calling him "incorrect" on account of him saying wall instead of fence is surely misleading reporting designed to make him look bad rather than address his actual point. I will note that the response to the tweet seems to bypass the point that on one level or another no one really disputes that barriers are necessary; the question is only what they are necessary for.

Articles like the one calling him "wrong" about the claim that they have a wall seem to me not to actually address issues but to drum up more press mostly designed to inflame one side against the other and make governance even more impossible to conduct.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on January 02, 2019, 12:16:25 PM
I'm not arguing anything, other than the fact that words have actual meanings. Wall and fence are not synonyms.

Challenge accepted ;p  https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/wall (https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/wall)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on January 02, 2019, 12:23:14 PM
I'm not arguing anything, other than the fact that words have actual meanings. Wall and fence are not synonyms.

Challenge accepted ;p  https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/wall (https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/wall)

Ha, ha, now I've made a false or misleading claim of my own!
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on January 02, 2019, 12:28:05 PM
Challenge accepted ;p  https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/wall (https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/wall)

Ha, ha, now I've made a false or misleading claim of my own!

Hah! But to be fair, the thesaurus doesn't list equivalent, but only related words. If they were equivalent then they'd be interchangeable, and if so then you could say the same about the words on the list. That would lead us to conclude that "rampart" and "dam" mean the same thing, which they don't. Despite this amusing riposte (re-post?) I would agree that wall and fence aren't identical in connotation.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Seriati on January 02, 2019, 12:37:38 PM
Fen, it literally labels them as synonyms, hence the humor.

I agree that usage is context dependent and that they may or may not mean the same thing.  For example "fencing them in" is not an expression that refers to a porous fence, which would be synonomous with "wall them in."  On my own property, the wall is only 3 feet, can easily be jumped, while the fence is 6 feet and could be knocked down - without knocking it down it's not at all porous.

While Trump waxed eloquent about his big beautiful wall, the real point is about a secured border.  Grammar attacks by the media/left are designed to avoid addressing the actual issues.  I don't know if you saw the write up on the tear gas use at the border, but the government release expressly stated that when tear gas came out the immigrants pushed minors to the front while media that was waiting and ready took pictures.  Selling a "story" should not be the goal of the media or either political party.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on January 02, 2019, 01:13:48 PM
Fen, it literally labels them as synonyms, hence the humor.

Is a thesuarus actually good for anything other than helping students writing essays, and for the occasional desperate writers and poets? It's useful to find "like" words, but I've never accepted it as providing literally equivalent meanings. There actually shouldn't be many word usages that are equivalent, hence why they are different words. A thesaurus is like an Amazon ad telling you that 'if you like this word, you may also like..."
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on January 02, 2019, 01:45:50 PM
Words are never truly interchangeable, I think it is always about the degree of difference in context. It is the only source for defining synonyms, however. Usually it is about finding a better word for your context than the one you are thinking of. If Trump typed in "wall", he might see the word "barrier" and make a switch. :)

He already knows all the synonyms for biggest, including:

huge, enormous, tremendous, massive

Those words are much harder to separate. Why use enormous vs huge? They are what I normally think of as synonyms. That comes down to emotion and connotation. Huge is more of an interjection, while enormous is more awestruck.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on January 02, 2019, 03:41:11 PM
I'm not arguing anything, other than the fact that words have actual meanings. Wall and fence are not synonyms. A wall is a type of barrier, and a fence is a type of barrier. If I ask a contractor to build me a wall, and they build a fence, I'm going to be upset. If I ask for a fence, and get a wall, I'm going to be even more irate.

Ok, the Berlin Wall had many sections of it which were comprised of razorwire and other defenses but actually failed to meet your definition of "Wall" even though it was identified as such. Do we need to go back and revise all history books to make it read "Berlin Border Fence" instead?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on January 02, 2019, 03:45:19 PM
I have a theory that a politician whose grammar and or accent that often confuses, intentionally or intestinally, are more likely to get away with making statements that aren’t precise.

I’m not sure why… perhaps it creates an opening to look past what is being done and what we want to believe. It’s amazing to me how willing we are to excuse ignorance of language. 
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Fenring on January 02, 2019, 03:47:45 PM
I’m not sure why… perhaps it creates an opening to look past what is being done and what we want to believe. It’s amazing to me how willing we are to excuse ignorance of language.

Even if you're right, is it your supposition that Trump's general manner made it particularly difficult to parse what he was trying to say in this particular tweet?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on January 02, 2019, 05:45:26 PM
Just a general statement on a personal theory.
I was thinking of other politicians who's language skills were less then great.
Watched a documentary on Canadian PM Chretien who primary language was french. He admitted to sometimes exaggerating his English syntax and such to confound the media and it worked.
The media fell over themselves debating what he 'really' meant as his supporters used his language 'failings' as a defense. Everyone would eventually get tired and give up. Chretien used it selectively where I would argue Trump use of language is intention as it works for him and or was never asked to learn to do better.


As for parsing Trumps tweets. I don't bother anymore. Even if you get it right he will tweet something else a few moments latter and keep the game going. Its a excellent method of keeping everyone off balance and from looking at whats happening behind the curtain. The strategy is all outlined in his Art of the Deal. Its good for Trump but proved bad for most of those doing business with him which so many associates learned the hard way even though the evidence was right in front of them. The man is a genius in the art of self promotion and illusion.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on January 04, 2019, 03:54:38 PM
Quote
Asked if that was a threat to Democrats, Trump replied, "I never threaten anybody, but I am allowed to do it -- call a national emergency."

It is a false or misleading statement by Trump that he never threatens anybody.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on January 04, 2019, 04:14:22 PM
A Classic Trump-ism - the Backhanded threat, Backhanded compliment, Backhanded insult.

Quote
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?"

 
"I never threaten anybody" by itself is a out right lie. One of Trumps primary negotiation practice is to threaten.
However his defenders will argue that in context to Threatening to call a national emergency it possible he has never made such a threat before.
He is a master word smith as he never means what he says unless he means what he says and never held accountable
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on January 16, 2019, 12:02:29 PM
Hahaha dumbest one yet.

Trump bragged about serving Clemson 300 burgers to reporters just prior to the visit, then tweeted later about having over 1000 hamberders.

I think it makes clear that numbers don't mean anything to Trump. Whether its hamberders or any of his other wild claims.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on February 14, 2019, 02:35:15 PM
Yep, Trump is definitely numbers-challenged.

Trump said that Beko O'Rourke got only "200-300 people" while he crammed 35,000 people in a stadium which should only hold 6,500. (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/feb/12/donald-trump/did-beto-orourke-attract-only-200-or-300-people-hi/)

And then he talked about how much better the economy was because of him... :)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on February 14, 2019, 03:59:41 PM
And then he talked about how much better the economy was because of him... :)

Kind of? It was more that he wasn't either Hillary or Obama.

Obama was a boat anchor on the economy, preventing it from going anywhere with any kind of speed.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on February 14, 2019, 05:15:36 PM
No boat anchor for Trump, just full throttle right into a wake. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvEE3_mBzi8)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on February 14, 2019, 05:43:38 PM
Quote
Obama was a boat anchor on the economy, preventing it from going anywhere with any kind of speed.

Is that true? I know it wasn't "quick" however over the eight years it was a consistently headed upwards. Personally I prefer slow and steady

With regards to the economy Trump did not inherit a mess though he would argue differently - Obama inherited a mess

Note that in 2018 the last quarter was not great. For a "hot economy" that last quarter doesn't make mush sense - There has been some bounce back however trump is having a odd affect with regards to volatility.

Also interesting to note that at the end of a GOP administration the economy is usually at a down turn if not some type of crises 
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on February 14, 2019, 11:37:13 PM
It's pretty much a universal constant that "it's the economy, stupid" which swings election outcomes when it turns sour. There aren't any examples in the U.S. that come to mind of an in-power Administration having its party do well during an economic downturn. It just also happens the Republicans have had the bad luck of being both the Presidential office holder and presiding over a soured economy when a Presidential Election year is going on. But that comes with Republicans have held the Presidency for all but 20 of the past 50 years. (And the economy wasn't great for Carter in 1980 to my understanding--while it was decent for Reagan's last year, getting Bush41 into office)

Lukewarm economies favor the incumbent, but that doesn't always translate well in transition years(as witnessed in 2000 and 2016), but can be pointed at where a true incumbent is in play(2004, and 2012) although 2012 has Superstorm Sandy as well as Ohio to be pointed at, Ohio's economy was doing better than the National Average, and voted for the incumbent(Obama) and essentially is held to have decided that race.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on February 15, 2019, 08:10:21 AM
I continue to believe that it is ridiculous to correlate economic performance as a whole to Presidential terms. Many of the policies can take more than a full term to bear fruit. As an example, let's say we believe that Trump's tariffs will create more jobs. It can take many years before a greenfield manufacturing build out takes advantage of that change and translates into measurable job growth.

This isn't to say that Washington policy can't have profound effects on the economy, but rather that everything is so averaged out when we talk about GDP, unemployment, and other aggregate metrics along with the time delay for impact that the signal is buried in the noise.

Clinton presided over one of the most dramatic economic growth periods in our history, much faster than Trump, but I wouldn't praise his wonderful policy for that.

This doesn't stop voters from blaming and praising on that basis, nor from politicians claiming credit when it rises and blaming someone else when it drops.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on February 15, 2019, 09:40:58 AM
Quote
I continue to believe that it is ridiculous to correlate economic performance as a whole to Presidential terms

I was looking a trends that in general after a eight year GOP administration the economy tends to be on a down swing or crises.
Personally I think the GOP tax and regulation philosophy has something to do with it. The policy feels good in the short term but generally at a cost in the long term, mostly to the middle class as the division of wreath gets larger and larger.

Its odd but in a way the Liberal economic theory tends to be more conservative then the conservative economic theory.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDrake on February 15, 2019, 12:45:43 PM
Quote
I continue to believe that it is ridiculous to correlate economic performance as a whole to Presidential terms

I was looking a trends that in general after a eight year GOP administration the economy tends to be on a down swing or crises.
Personally I think the GOP tax and regulation philosophy has something to do with it. The policy feels good in the short term but generally at a cost in the long term, mostly to the middle class as the division of wreath gets larger and larger.

Its odd but in a way the Liberal economic theory tends to be more conservative then the conservative economic theory.

So your data set is... how many samples of 8 year GOP adminstration?
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on February 15, 2019, 01:12:42 PM
Republicans accept the Boom/Bust cycle as part of the economic cycle. It's how innovation happens. Ironically, those bust cycles would be where social safety nets are most needed.

Democrats support economic theories that have the general idea that they can do away with the boom/bust cycle through the right combination of regulation and fiscal policy. Or at least, abolish the extreme swings between booms and busts.

Republicans favor allowing the boom/bust cycle more freedom to operate because they believe that the long-term average growth(over decades) is better.

Meanwhile the other theory thinks the by removing the extreme swings, they ameliorate the suffering of those who would be harmed by a bust cycle. Of course, their trade off is slower rates of growth in general. IIRC, I don't think they even try to make any claims as to "Long term outcomes" being better with their method, only asserting it's more stable and predictable.

Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: TheDeamon on February 15, 2019, 01:28:22 PM
So your data set is... how many samples of 8 year GOP adminstration?

Probably one 12 year period and a 8 year period against two 8 year terms. I would be surprised if he looked at the 70's and earlier.

This also ignore that boom/bust cycles have a habit of running on a 2 to 6 years time frame. IIRC, prevailing view was we were supposed to enter a period of economic contraction sometime around 2016, as we'd never truly hit a period of negative growth since shortly after Obama took office. So in many respects its amazing the US economy grew at all after Trump took office, unless you decide to describe Obama's Administration as having been a "boat anchor" that had been holding things back, something Trump stopped once in office. Leading to the pent up economic activity taking place as quickly as the market could bear until it had played out, at which point the "bust"/consolidation/reorganization cycle is starting to take hold for a time causing growth to slow or even contract before heading into a normal boom/bust cycle.

Trump came in on the coat tails of perhaps one of the largest government induced market distortions ever seen, trying to make sense of a market returning to natural operation after such a state was achieved is going to be difficult at best.
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: rightleft22 on February 15, 2019, 01:46:43 PM
It was a while since I looked at the data, however the data when back to the 1910 -

It was a general observation I noted and put down to party philosophy more then about being about a particular president. 
And I'm not saying if its a good thing or bad thing, just a observation. I'm conservative by nature and the GOP economic philosophy is not a Conservative long term/forward thinking philosophy.
Its all about getting it now... :)

I won't be surprised if there is a major financial melt down by the end of Trumps second term. 
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: Wayward Son on February 15, 2019, 03:25:43 PM
Just for clarification, and not to interrupt the economics conversation, but I was primarily referring to his abysmal counting of the number of people in his rally and O'Rourke's rally. :)

In other news, Trump states that "I never said, ’I’m going to build a concrete--,' I said I was going to build a wall." (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-cnn-reporter-in-testy-wall-confrontation_us_5c301fd7e4b073352832e380)  He goes on to man-splain why steel is a better construction material than concrete.

I guess all those conversations we had here about the concrete wall, the cost of the concrete wall, the materials needed for a concrete wall, they were all "fake news."  Every person who thought they heard Trump talk about a 20-foot, 30-foot, 40-foot concrete wall doesn't remember the speeches correctly.  When Trump said, "On the fence--it's not a fence. It's a wall," he was comparing a steel structure to chicken wire.  When he tweeted, "An all concrete Wall was NEVER ABANDONED..." he didn't mean concrete, he meant...bah, who knows what he meant.  ::)  Obviously he didn't mean concrete when he used the word "concrete."

At least, for now.  ;)

Perhaps it is the meaning of words that aren't "concrete" to him. :)
Title: Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
Post by: D.W. on February 15, 2019, 03:35:38 PM
If numbers don't matter to the man, why would building materials?  Quit being so nitpicky.