# New York Times : Trump lies at least daily, in public, about clearly verifiable facts **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 24, 2017, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761 "2017-06-24T16:11:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/61 "2017-06-25T15:18:56Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [Politifact](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/22/donald-trump/trump-still-wrong-his-claim-opposed-iraq-war-ahead/) What do you think “utterly unambiguous” means? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/62 "2017-06-25T15:32:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What do you think “utterly unambiguous” means? It means that it was uttered by Trump. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/63 "2017-06-25T15:44:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But Trump does not say “I was never in favor of the invasion of Iraq.” He says he wasn’t a fan, and didn’t want to go in, but he never says that he always held that view. Of course, his statement invites a conclusion that he always held that position, but if the standard is “utterly unambiguous,” then Trump’s statement is safely ambiguous. Perhaps he was speaking about the subsequent point when he wasn’t a fan, and didn’t want to go in. So, he was against the invasion of Iraq after it was clear to everyone what a fiasco it was, and now brags about it? Just the sort of bold leadership we’ve come to expect from Trump. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/64 "2017-06-25T15:46:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is that most people on this board are not inclined to give Trump a kind of a fair shake in evaluating lies against an “utterly unambiguous,” standard. And when you move from a generic agreement that Trump tells lots of lies to a specific contest in which lies are matched one-to-one, the person on the pro-Trump side would be a fool to accept the “perfectly clear to most people,” standard you propose. > > As long as the discussion remains in the general realm, then I think most people know the answer: Trump lies more blatantly and consistently than any other modern politician. But if you start issuing challenges that require counting, and make admissible only “utterly unambiguous” lies, then the participants should absolutely select an agreed-upon neutral arbiter ahead of time, lay out the mutually acceptable criteria, and agree to abide by the results. Like a Randi Challenge, “we’ll just know when we see it,” cannot be the rule in such a contest. If every Trump utterance was evaluated with such a strict standard, and it lead to 50% of them being identified as “ambiguous lies” vs. 50% remaining “unambiguous lies”, would giving Trump the benefit of the doubt in half the cases make him qualifiably less of a liar? Would you be justified in giving someone the benefit of the doubt if you knew that only 50% of his evaluated claims were “unambiguous lies”? What would be the rational for granting such benefit of the doubt and what useful outcome would it serve to conclude that such a person conclusively lies only half as much as you can reliably prove? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/65 "2017-06-25T16:00:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is that most people on this board are not inclined to give Trump a kind of a fair shake in evaluating lies against an “utterly unambiguous,” standard. And when you move from a generic agreement that Trump tells lots of lies to a specific contest in which lies are matched one-to-one, the person on the pro-Trump side would be a fool to accept the “perfectly clear to most people,” standard you propose. > > As long as the discussion remains in the general realm, then I think most people know the answer: Trump lies more blatantly and consistently than any other modern politician. But if you start issuing challenges that require counting, and make admissible only “utterly unambiguous” lies, then the participants should absolutely select an agreed-upon neutral arbiter ahead of time, lay out the mutually acceptable criteria, and agree to abide by the results. Like a Randi Challenge, “we’ll just know when we see it,” cannot be the rule in such a contest. Those same people you’re saying won’t give Trump a fair shake can lay out their views, and others can decide if they agree with them or not. Holding out for certain posters I shall not name to become fair judges makes about as much sense as those posters holding out with the hope that their right wing counterparts, who shall also go nameless, will relent and suddenly agree that Trump is terrible. The rest of us can simply sit and watch the spectacle without getting bothered that our political adversaries aren’t being fair, boo-hoo. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/66 "2017-06-25T16:08:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is that most people on this board are not inclined to give Trump a kind of a fair shake in evaluating lies against an “utterly unambiguous,” standard. And when you move from a generic agreement that Trump tells lots of lies to a specific contest in which lies are matched one-to-one, the person on the pro-Trump side would be a fool to accept the “perfectly clear to most people,” standard you propose. > … You’ve, of course, heard about the boy who cried wolf too many times? That’s how most oif us are seeing Trump’s veracity. We assume he’s lying, because, well, he’s earned that. > [@Bricker](#): > > As long as the discussion remains in the general realm, then I think most people know the answer: Trump lies more blatantly and consistently than any other modern politician. But if you start issuing challenges that require counting, and make admissible only “utterly unambiguous” lies, then the participants should absolutely select an agreed-upon neutral arbiter ahead of time, lay out the mutually acceptable criteria, and agree to abide by the results. Like a Randi Challenge, “we’ll just know when we see it,” cannot be the rule in such a contest. Isn’t there a jury instruction that reads something like this; If you find the witness lied about anything, you may assume he lied about everything? Are we really out of line here? ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/67 "2017-06-25T16:08:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Many of the statements in the linked NYT article are ambiguous. The very first lie they offer is Trump saying, “I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq.” Their rebuttal: _He was for an invasion before he was against it._ But this does not show a lie; in fact, it confirms he didn’t wan’t to go into Iraq at some point. Now, his statement implies by omission that he never held another view, perhaps, but it’s not “utterly unambiguous.” > … He made the statement that he supported invasion before we invaded. Unless he can show that he changed his mind _before we invaded_, the second part of his statement is an unambiguous lie, right? You can’t be for invasion and then be against going in after we’ve already gone in, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/68 "2017-06-25T16:10:35Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > So, he was against the invasion of Iraq after it was clear to everyone what a fiasco it was, and now brags about it? Just the sort of bold leadership we’ve come to expect from Trump. Yup. Or he took contrary positions so he could point to whichever one panned out. If Iraq had turned out well, he’d be pointing to his Howard Stern commentary to show how he supported it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/69 "2017-06-25T16:13:10Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > If every Trump utterance was evaluated with such a strict standard, and it lead to 50% of them being identified as “ambiguous lies” vs. 50% remaining “unambiguous lies”, would giving Trump the benefit of the doubt in half the cases make him qualifiably less of a liar? > > Would you be justified in giving someone the benefit of the doubt if you knew that only 50% of his evaluated claims were “unambiguous lies”? What would be the rational for granting such benefit of the doubt and what useful outcome would it serve to conclude that such a person conclusively lies only half as much as you can reliably prove? What do you think I am saying? These questions suggest you believe I am arguing Trump is NOT an untrustworthy lying liar of Lietown. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/70 "2017-06-25T16:14:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yup. Or he took contrary positions so he could point to whichever one panned out. If Iraq had turned out well, he’d be pointing to his Howard Stern commentary to show how he supported it. Right, but he didn’t take that contrary position, at least not publicly, prior to the invasion. Not that I can find, anyway. Let’s suppose he didn’t take that contrary position publicly – would you agree that the NY Times’ first example is an unambiguous lie? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/71 "2017-06-25T16:14:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Those same people you’re saying won’t give Trump a fair shake can lay out their views, and others can decide if they agree with them or not. > > Holding out for certain posters I shall not name to become fair judges makes about as much sense as those posters holding out with the hope that their right wing counterparts, who shall also go nameless, will relent and suddenly agree that Trump is terrible. > > The rest of us can simply sit and watch the spectacle without getting bothered that our political adversaries aren’t being fair, boo-hoo. That’s how a message board discussion works. That’s not how a contest works. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/72 "2017-06-25T16:19:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What do you think I am saying? These questions suggest you believe I am arguing Trump is NOT an untrustworthy lying liar of Lietown. You know, we’re going to turn you blue yet. ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/73 "2017-06-25T16:38:19Z")
45 (finally!!) getting called out on **all** his lies is probably one of the reasons the White House Press Corps is no longer allowed to record. ---
**Author:** ![SaneBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@SaneBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SaneBill)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/74 "2017-06-25T16:41:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is No, the problem is that Trump has lied so much that when he says something, the first assumption is that he is lying. Even if he magically started speaking only 100 % truths from tomorrow, we still would be suspicious about everything he says as long as he lives. Apparently he’s up to some HUGE lie that he really wants us to believe and is just smoothing the ground. In fact for some the situation is so bad that even confirming something a lie by research would feel embarrassing at this moment. Because checking out means you got half-fooled and with Trump there’s no more that half, you got totally fooled for believing one second that guy. I won’t berate Trump for something that’s not confirmed, but you’ll be damned if you think that I AM doing any research. Let the others do it for me and possibly be fools. What a nice Prez you have… _[Edit. damn this moves fast, this was in 65 or something when I started…]_ ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/75 "2017-06-25T16:43:19Z")
> [@SaneBill](#): > > No, the problem is that Trump has lied so much that when he says something, the first assumption is that he is lying. Even if he magically started speaking only 100 % truths from tomorrow, we still would be suspicious about everything he says as long as he lives. Apparently he’s up to some HUGE lie that he really wants us to believe and is just smoothing the ground. > > **In fact for some the situation is so bad that even confirming something a lie by research would feel embarrassing at this moment. Because checking out means you got half-fooled and with Trump there’s no more that half, you got totally fooled for believing one second that guy.** > > I won’t berate Trump for something that’s not confirmed, but you’ll be damned if you think that I AM doing any research. Let the others do it for me and possibly be fools. > What a nice Prez you have… Or you want to know the truth of whatever he was lying about. ---
**Author:** ![SaneBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@SaneBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SaneBill)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/76 "2017-06-25T16:48:04Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Or you want to know the truth of whatever he was lying about. That’s the easy part: it’s the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/77 "2017-06-25T16:56:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What do you think I am saying? These questions suggest you believe I am arguing Trump is NOT an untrustworthy lying liar of Lietown. I was a little surprised you’d suggest that a contest that judged _ambiguous_ vs. _non-ambiguous_ lies would be in any way useful in the case of the Liar in Chief. I guess it was the fact that you noted that Trump wouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt around here.; As though agent orange was deserving of such latitude. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/78 "2017-06-25T17:00:43Z")
> [@SaneBill](#): > > That’s the easy part: it’s the opposite. That’s true but there are still actual facts to be learned that give the complete picture. As an example, look at his claims for the size of his inauguration crowds. Those pictures, transit ridership numbers and crowd estimates give a much better picture than just the fact he lied. ---
**Author:** ![SaneBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@SaneBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SaneBill)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/79 "2017-06-25T17:30:26Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > That’s true but there are still actual facts to be learned that give the complete picture. > > As an example, look at his claims for the size of his inauguration crowds. Those pictures, transit ridership numbers and crowd estimates give a much better picture than just the fact he lied. Yes, some of it matters. If he says no-one is going to lose coverage, it’s probably a lie. It’s still good to know does it mean 1 Mil will lose or 20 Mil and who exactly are those people. But as I am not American, these nuances don’t really matter to me that much anymore. I read the headlines and some of the articles from the links you provide, but that’s pretty much it. Not fact checking, one link is enough, you be the fools on my behalf. And if I get fooled by the fake news ? Well, big deal on this stage, he asked for it. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2017, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761/80 "2017-06-25T17:52:16Z")
“Not going to cut medicare” = unambiguous lie. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-trump-lies-at-least-daily-in-public-about-clearly-verifiable-facts/789761.md?page=5)