Misleading or False Claims by Trump

[Grant]

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

[velcro]

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

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[TheDrake]

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. 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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Seriati]

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?

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[Seriati]

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?

[DJQuag]

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.

[DJQuag]

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

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.

[Seriati]

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. 

[TheDrake]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[velcro]

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:

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:

Trump speaking to troops stationed in Iraq:

“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:

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[Seriati]

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:

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":

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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"

[velcro]

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?

[velcro]

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.

[Seriati]

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?

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.

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").

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.

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.

[Pete at Home]

 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.

[cherrypoptart]

"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

[TheDeamon]

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. 

[Crunch]

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.

[TheDrake]

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?

[Fenring]

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?

[NobleHunter]

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?"

[TheDrake]

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...

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

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[Seriati]

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

[TheDrake]

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

Ha, ha, now I've made a false or misleading claim of my own!

[Fenring]

Challenge accepted ;p  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.

[Seriati]

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.

[Fenring]

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..."

[TheDrake]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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?

[rightleft22]

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. 

[Fenring]

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?

[rightleft22]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[rightleft22]

A Classic Trump-ism - the Backhanded threat, Backhanded compliment, Backhanded insult.

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

[TheDrake]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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.

And then he talked about how much better the economy was because of him...

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDrake]

No boat anchor for Trump, just full throttle right into a wake.

[rightleft22]

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 

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[rightleft22]

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.