Misleading or False Claims by Trump

[velcro]

Sorry, I decided to post more, about President Trumps rationale for having a political rally after the Pittsburgh shooting.

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

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

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

Except they didn't open the next day. Or the day after, or the day after.  It was not until September 17.
And all sports teams shut down for about a week.

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

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

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

Oh, and Dick Russell was a pro-segregation Senator from Georgia.  Dick Grasso was the head of the NYSE.  Easy mistake to make when you don't have anyone check your speeches for accuracy.

[D.W.]

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

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

You're framing almost makes it look like he couldn't resist an opportunity to lie.  What really happened was he couldn't resist an opportunity to paint himself as heroic and triumphant.  That a lie just sorta spilled out to achieve that doesn't matter to him.

[rightleft22]

You're framing almost makes it look like he couldn't resist an opportunity to lie.  What really happened was he couldn't resist an opportunity to paint himself as heroic and triumphant

Couldn't both be true? He can't resist a opportunity to lie or the opportunity to sing is own praises... which kind of the same thing... The man knows how to sell himself and speak to his followers. That an't now lie.

[D.W.]

At this point I don't think he lies deliberately.  Without getting into his unfitness for office, I don't think he understands these things aren't true.  Or slightly more generous, I don't think he understands why anyone cares whether they are true or not...

[TheDeamon]

IIRC, the biggest factor in the NYSE being shutdown for a week was it took that long to complete the cleanup of the surrounding area following the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, as well as implementing additional security measures in the aftermath of the attacks. (I also seem to recall a number of brokerages, and possibly NYSE hardware were present in those same towers, so they needed time to replace lost infrastructure)

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

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

[TheDrake]

IIRC, the biggest factor in the NYSE being shutdown for a week was it took that long to complete the cleanup of the surrounding area following the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, as well as implementing additional security measures in the aftermath of the attacks. (I also seem to recall a number of brokerages, and possibly NYSE hardware were present in those same towers, so they needed time to replace lost infrastructure)

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

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

Which doesn't justify trumps false statement right? The stock market was not open. He didn't make your well reasoned arguments as to why it was shut down for a week. You could say he misremembered it, but don't forget he has "one of the great memories of all time". So if you remembered it, surely he must have, or he was making a misleading statement about his memory.
😉

[DonaldD]

Not to mention he misremembered the name of his "friend", Dick Russell - seriously, if he was even slightly friendly with Dick Grasso, he wouldn't have made either of those mistakes.

[rightleft22]

Do Trump's Tariffs Actually Exist?

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

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

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

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

What is real?

[velcro]

This is not technically Trump, but Sarah Sanders.

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

There are links here, you can see for yourself.  Subtle, but doctored to make it look like a more violent motion, instead of a natural motion.

[D.W.]

It was too subtle for me...  Even in its "doctored" form, it didn't look like a big deal either way.

[Seriati]

I've looked at both versions the doctoring claim seems to be nonsense, it's totally designed to pull the focus off how inappropriate Acosta's behavior is in either video.

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

[Seriati]

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

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

At the time, Trump lived in Trump Tower. 

Trump Tower is 4 miles from the World Trade Centers.

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

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

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

Again, ridiculously uncharitable.  I have no doubt he saw portions out his window and portions on his tv, exactly what everyone else with a similar window view remembers.

[Seriati]

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

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

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

He's literally correct about what happened and why, why is this even on the list?

[Seriati]

This one is personal, malicious, and without any basis in reality.  Trump fabricates a situation that never happened, and says it over and over again.

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

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

Here is the reality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[yossarian22c]

"I don't know Matt Whitaker," Trump told reporters on Friday as he left the White House for a trip to Paris. "Matt Whitaker worked for Jeff Sessions. And he was always extremely highly thought of and he still is. But I didn't know Matt Whitaker." 

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

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

More pathological lying by trump.

[TheDeamon]

Context on the latter quote would be good. It is a common practice for High Profile persons to "talk up" others that they probably only met literally minutes before speaking about them, and possibly will never meet again.

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

Edit: Yes, Trump's defense of Kavanaugh can be called into question with that. However one thing that went VERY under reported with regards to Kavanaugh was that the Bush Family was working behind the scenes to support him and they backed him fully too. If George and Laura Bush hadn't supported him, many Republicans likely would have not backed the nomination. (Senator Collins in particular was cited as such a case)

[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.

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

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

Here is the reality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s start with the facts:

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

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

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

Now there is also this:

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

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

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

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

The Washington Post said that Trump’s claim was "littered with falsehoods that veer into ridiculous territory."
The Hartford Courant called it “utter nonsense”,  and “hogwash”. 
The New York Times said Trump was “embellishing the senator’s misdeeds far beyond the truth.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, Blumenthal said he misspoke about his service a “few” times.  Definition of few:

a small number, a handful, one or two, a couple, two or three;

Seriati said

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

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

Still waiting to hear your defense of these claims by Trump:
“And when he got out and when he apologized, he was crying. The tears were all over the place.”
Blumenthal “ actually dropped out of the race, and he won anyway because Democrats always win in Connecticut.”,
Blumenthal’s 12 point victory was “very close, probably the closest ever”

[velcro]

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

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

At the time, Trump lived in Trump Tower. 

Trump Tower is 4 miles from the World Trade Centers.

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

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

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

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

[velcro]

I've looked at both versions the doctoring claim seems to be nonsense, it's totally designed to pull the focus off how inappropriate Acosta's behavior is in either video.

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

I make no claim about Acosta's behavior.

The video was undeniably altered, speeding up certain portions and adding frames to make the motion more aggressive.

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

A frame-by-frame breakdown by Storyful, a social-media intelligence firm that verifies media content, found that the edited video included repeated frames that did not appear in the original footage. The repeated frames were shown only at the moment of contact and made Acosta's arm movement look more exaggerated, said Shane Raymond, a journalist at Storyful.

[velcro]

“So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!”

Donald Trump, November 18, 2018

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

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

I'm not sure how to categorize these Trump statements:

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

"little Adam Schitt(D)"

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

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

[TheDeamon]

“So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!”

Donald Trump, November 18, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

[Pete at Home]

“So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!”

Donald Trump, November 18, 2018

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

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

I'm not sure how to categorize these Trump statements:

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

"little Adam Schitt(D)"

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

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

Thanks for starting my day with a laugh. This is actually the first time in his entire life that Donald Trump has ever done something that made me laugh. I’ve had a number of short laughs At the media reaction to him.  Yes he’s a juvenile son of a bitch. Yes he’s the misogynist sick grandson of the pampers.   Best bars I see no ones died because he was pissed off are in a bad mood.  So I’m still inclined to conclude that Donald Trump has done less damage to the country as president then he did as a private citizen

[Pete at Home]

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

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

At the time, Trump lived in Trump Tower. 

Trump Tower is 4 miles from the World Trade Centers.

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

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

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

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

 Please pack up your claim that it’s misleading to say that you witnessed something on television. If you can’t find a federal rules of evidence, I’d be happy to provide a link.

[TheDrake]

I think it is clear from the context that Trump was describing seeing it with the naked eye, else why talk about his view? If you just take the verb in isolation, yes, I wouldn't hold someone to the fire for saying they witnessed something on live TV. It's a little sloppy but easy to do in off the cuff remarks. Describing a view that he absolutely didn't have would either mean that he has misled people, or that he is clairvoyant - which really would be some kind of news.

[TheDeamon]

Which isn't to mention Trump may very well have (had)  a telescope or set of binoculars in his office/residence at Trump Tower. While technically "with assistance" it would still be his own eyes seeing it through the viewfinder.

But also others have mentioned, watching it through live TV coverage and confusing one detail about the memory 10+ years later is small potatoes compared to, for example, stories of taking weapons fire at airport when no such contemporary accounts exist of such a thing having ever happened. (I could believe there were briefings about what to do in case of such a thing)

[Pete at Home]

 I agree that a lot of people might be confused from reading it. Particularly if they’re not aware that President Trump has a tendency to exaggerate. Nevertheless, I think I put that statement on the list of the top 10 least miss leading statements by Donald Trump

[rightleft22]

I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as an acceptable for any leader. But that me.

But also others have mentioned, watching it through live TV coverage and confusing one detail about the memory 10+ years later…

If this was isolated failure to remember correctly I might agree, personally to me If Trump is not intentionally ling, misleading, exaggerating or remember wrong it suggests a mental issue.
I’m ok with miss-remembering however Trump other character traits of not apologizing or acknowledging mistakes makes it difficult to determine when he’s "just" discarding information he does not consider relevant to the point he is making or adding information to enhance a point. It is fascinating how the man shapes his reality (and ours)

[TheDrake]

Bankrobber, huh? I was a bankrobber when I was a kid, yeah, I was, eh, twelve years old at the time. Yeah, I used to rob five banks a day, six days a week.

Tommy Flanagan, SNL character, or Donald Trump?

The more accurate term for Trump isn't excessive exaggerator or truthful hyperbolist, it is pathological liar.

[TheDeamon]

I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as an acceptable for any leader. But that me.

But also others have mentioned, watching it through live TV coverage and confusing one detail about the memory 10+ years later…

If this was isolated failure to remember correctly I might agree, personally to me If Trump is not intentionally ling, misleading, exaggerating or remember wrong it suggests a mental issue.
I’m ok with miss-remembering however Trump other character traits of not apologizing or acknowledging mistakes makes it difficult to determine when he’s "just" discarding information he does not consider relevant to the point he is making or adding information to enhance a point. It is fascinating how the man shapes his reality (and ours)

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

All we're effectively doing here is critiqing the qualities of the burning refuse.

[velcro]

 Please pack up your claim that it’s misleading to say that you witnessed something on television. If you can’t find a federal rules of evidence, I’d be happy to provide a link.

That link would be greatly appreciated, along with where to find evidence supporting your particular claim, that seeing something on TV is witnessing the event itself, not witnessing the TV broadcast of the event itself.

[velcro]

“So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!”

Donald Trump, November 18, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would appreciate the opportunity to clarify or correct my arguments, but I can't do that if you don't provide any details on the shortcomings you see. 

[rightleft22]

I'm afraid the Democrats are going to provide me with an option that would make me prefer Hillary over them

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

[TheDrake]

I think you have a much more narrow usage of the word witness than is generally accepted in colloquial english, velcro.

Moon landing memories

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

Although at least one person agrees with you.

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

You can find innumerable other such uses when describing or asking about historical events.

[Fenring]

I'm afraid the Democrats are going to provide me with an option that would make me prefer Hillary over them

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

If Hillary is still at the helm of the DNC by next election it may not go well for them. No one will ever know if she is or not, and the only reason we know she ever was was due to Wikileaks. Her MO seems to be that the President should serve the interests of Wall Street and military industry, and whoever they prop up like that (a 'neo-liberal') may well be unlikeable. I do think they have some viable options that are more charismatic but they will not be for that kind of agenda, so I worry that this will disqualify them out of the gate. We'll see the DNC cares more about representing the people and winning an election, or about furthering old agendas that are out of touch.

[Pete at Home]

I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as an acceptable for any leader. But that me.

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

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

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

I don’t like that Jon Stewart retired

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

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

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

[TheDrake]

It certainly seems that Trump doesn't see reality, and substitutes whatever he wishes it to be.

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

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

It is important to remind ourselves that this is not okay, what he is doing. That we don't accept it as "normal" or "not that bad".

[rightleft22]

I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as acceptable for any leader. But that’s me.

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

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

[velcro]

I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as an acceptable for any leader. But that me.

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

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

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

I don’t like that Jon Stewart retired

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

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

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

Pete,

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

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

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

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

Is this particular misleading statement all that important?  Not in and of itself.  But if he is willing to mislead about this, is there anything he is not willing to mislead about?

[scifibum]

Litigating the details of a particular false claim kind of misses the point - which is that he makes hundreds of false claims, some big, some small, some believable to most people (if they aren't paying attention to who he is), some believable only to people who have sold their souls to Sean Hannity.

Putin successfully created an authoritarian regime where what is objectively true isn't as important as what he declares is true. This sort of thing is happening elsewhere, and Trump is trying to make it happen here. It's incredibly important, and I think it's morally reprehensible to minimize it.

[Fenring]

Putin successfully created an authoritarian regime where what is objectively true isn't as important as what he declares is true. This sort of thing is happening elsewhere, and Trump is trying to make it happen here. It's incredibly important, and I think it's morally reprehensible to minimize it.

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

[scifibum]

Trump didn't start a war in Iraq, so it's going to be hard to match W for direct harm until he does start a war.

I think what gets me so upset with Trump is how many lies he's getting away with - he doesn't have to rely on faulty intelligence reports or anything to convince a large contingent of Americans to believe a large number of false things. All while directly and consistently trying to undermine the press.

[velcro]

Donald Trump, on the Moscow Trump Tower project.

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

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

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

It was not covered in any newspaper until well after the election, August 2017.

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

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

Trump is giving the impression that , during the campaign, people knew about the deal.  That is misleading.

[TheDeamon]

Because business enterprises make a habit of publicly advertising business deals that are in active negotiations and may or may not reach a satisfactory conclusion.

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

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

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

[velcro]

I think I was not particularly clear.

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

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

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

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

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

How the industry works, and whether negotiations "fall through" have nothing to do with the statements above, or whether Trump was misleading.

[velcro]

A little more context:

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

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

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

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

His statements strongly imply he had no recent dealings.  His statements are misleading.

[Seriati]

I find it difficult to accept the character trait of excessive exaggeration as an acceptable for any leader. But that me.

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

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

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

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

I do agree Trump takes that trait to an extreme.  But if you think it's unusual, take a look at Obama's admission of mistakes during his Presidency.  If you find him apologizing, he's usually apologizing to the world for America's past (whether we wanted him to or not).  The biggest difference is the media aggressiveness on "fact checking" the two.

[rightleft22]

I’m not sure when were talking about the same thing when talking about the idea of character.  Based on the philosophy books and such that I have read the idea of Character and Integrity are import attributes of Leader. You don’t need Character, as argued by Aristotle and the like, to be successful at gaining power or making money, but that’s a difference in definition of success and leadership. 

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

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

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

When its Trump time to lie in state no one is going to use words relating to the ideals of character or integrity. His Legacy will not be kind in that regard

[TheDrake]

The biggest difference is the media aggressiveness on "fact checking" the two.

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

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

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

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

I'm not going to rehash all of the various claims about Trump in this light, but I think it is worth thinking about. Obama and other career politicians protect themselves from this sort of criticism/abuse, for better or worse. One could certainly argue that subtle propaganda is worse than easily recognized propaganda.

[Seriati]

I’m not sure when were talking about the same thing when talking about the idea of character.  Based on the philosophy books and such that I have read the idea of Character and Integrity are import attributes of Leader. You don’t need Character, as argued by Aristotle and the like, to be successful at gaining power or making money, but that’s a difference in definition of success and leadership.

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

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

There are alternative views on Bush relating to his work with the CIA, was it reflective of a higher character or reflective of a flexible one.  That's not going to be talked about at the moment, but it certainly was in the past.
 

Still all the past presidents mention the importance of the maintaining the integrity of the office and being representative of American morality. (whether they met that challenge or not.) They believe that how a President represented the office was important to American success.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree completely.  Tax reform maybe, but not as much of a corporate rate fix as Trump got.  No chance they actually try to fix immigration, that's been left open for decades by both parties.  Similarly, no chance they would actually have attempted to fix trade imbalances.  He's also remarkably opposed to foreign intervention (I mean that's one possible fix on immigration, if Hondoras is really so dangerous that anyone that leaves it is entitled to asylum we could impose our will there for safeties sake).

[Seriati]

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

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

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

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

I'm really not sure that this game of which side lies is worthwhile, just pointing out that we all seem to inexcusably ignore the conduct of our "own" side in these debates, which drives the otherside nuts.