Misleading or False Claims by Trump

[velcro]

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.  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.

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".

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.

[TheDrake]

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...

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:

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:

“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:

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.

[velcro]

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.

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

"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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[velcro]

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:

Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California - so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias - big problem!

Link

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.

[Lloyd Perna]

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

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.

[velcro]

While I'm here:

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, 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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[velcro]

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,

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.  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,

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:

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.

[Wayward Son]

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?  Do you still think he is justified in complaining about voter fraud?

[velcro]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[Wayward Son]

He also adds 10-20% to the poll numbers because "you can't trust the lying media" or somesuch.

[D.W.]

Given the conditions of his win, can you blame his attitude regarding polls?   

[TheDeamon]

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. 

[cherrypoptart]

“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.

[velcro]

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.

[velcro]

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 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.

[Wayward Son]

Then there's Trump latest tweet:

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?

[velcro]

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.)

[velcro]

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

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.

[velcro]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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/

 

[velcro]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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.

[velcro]

Cherrypoptart got me thinking.  In the speech where he mentioned the height of his building, Trump said

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.

"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.

[Fenring]

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.

[DonaldD]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/trump-puerto-rico-death-toll/index.html

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

[TheDrake]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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? 

[Fenring]

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? 

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[TheDrake]

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...

[velcro]

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.

[TheDrake]

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."

[Wayward Son]

Best of all, with global warming (which he would deny is happening, of course), he would be correct more often than usual. 

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[yossarian22c]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[yossarian22c]

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.

[velcro]

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.

“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

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.

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.

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[rightleft22]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[rightleft22]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[Fenring]

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?