Omitted with extreme prejudice, one might say.
Anyway, the stupidity of Starving Artist and Americans like him help ensure a healthy supply of parasitic entities like Trump to feed off that stupidity.
You know, this would be an interesting question if it weren’t for how utterly unambiguous literally any statement I reach for would be.
Trump supporters most literally do not care what the fuck he does or says, as long as the Republican agenda is being supported, and/or as long as those on the left are dumbfounded by his actions. In fact, no matter what his actions actually accomplish, the bigger the amazed incredulity of the left produced as a result of these actions, the greater the level of success a Trump supporter believes has been achieved. No matter what the actions/deeds/statements actually produce in reality.
BTW, anyone going to the link in the OP can see that the thread title is a lie. I’m shocked.
Trump is a disaster, and a liar. But why be like him in order to disparage him? It’s so easy to do so by just sticking to the facts.
Aye; that was the first thing I thought since I had earlier linked the same article in the Trump Administration Clusterfuck thread.
Yes. Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and Franklin Roosevelt all lied - a lot. But they at least did a good job at it. They would have a reason for telling a lie, they were aware they were telling a lie, and they kept their lies consistent.
Donald Trump tells lies like a four year old would.
Next post, just skip all this typing and cut right to telling us that the promised WMD was in fact found in Iraq.
They update that piece occasionally. In it, 45 is said to have averaged 2.1 “false statements” per day since January 20. They admit in some cases he might be merely mistaken, instead being an outright liar. (As in the Seinfield reference above.)
Just transcribe everything he says.
If he said water was wet, I’d have to touch some to verify it.
Wait, I’ve got it! Starving Artist can’t list Clinton’s lies, because he doesn’t know them. And why doesn’t he know them? Why, because the Liberal Mainstream Media has refused to report them, of course! There you go, proof that the media is suppressing stories about Clinton’s lies.
The fact that Bricker has to ask who decides if it’s a lie is the problem. The answer should be simple: a blind observer who is not told who said what. But we live in a world where the objective facts themselves can no longer be agreed upon.
This is why I say what I say about having to separate out the true believers from the more practical Trump voters. The true believers are a lost cause. You can’t make someone sit up and embrace reality. We have to appeal to the rest, before they also succumb to the father of lies, and we reach the point of one of those dystopian novels.
It may not be the exact method shown in 1984, but it is the same result if reality and facts are fluid, based on what your leaders tell you.
Good gawd Bricker, when 85% of what the hairy yam says is a lie, the odds are in your favor if you simply believe everything he says is a lie.
The vast majority of statements at issue are going to be unambiguously identifiable as coming from one speaker or the other other. In other words, your idea of a “blind observer,” would not be possible. Even if the blind observer is not told who said what, he can readily deduce that The gun industry is “the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability,” came from Clinton and “The coverage about me in the @nytimes and the @washingtonpost has been so false and angry that the Times actually apologized to its dwindling subscribers and readers," was a Trump claim.
Other statements will require knowledge of the speaker to determine the truth: “The Cuban-Americans, I got 84 percent of that vote.”
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.”
So you’re literally saying that you could offer up the requisite number of utterly unambiguous Trump lies? I don’t say it’s not possible, but I say it would require work, not just copy/paste from links such as the OP offered.
We’re really not concerned if he overstates Melania’s bra size or How much his evil empire is really worth. We could care less about those lies. We’re concerned about lies like this (again from twitter)
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. (quoting a Trump tweet)
Whether he knew that was false, or carelessly made up facts with deliberate disregard to their truthfulness is immaterial, it is a lie nonetheless.
Rather tepid support but support none the less.
No argument.
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.
bricker, this isn’t a courtroom in which we have to have an independent finder of fact. This is a message board, and sometimes the right answer becomes more clear to more people as the discussion simply proceeds. Just like in GQ: there’s a substantial number of wrong answers posted in that forum every day, and the mods generally depend on people who know the right answer to continue to post to neutralize the BS for most people. The mods do not even try to post some Mythbuster-like determination of who is right and who is wrong in the thread.
If this lie-by-lie challenge gets going, I think it would be perfectly clear to most people who has told the most lies, because at some point, we will be matching up “My huge net worth is partially based on my feelings that day” against “Hello Cleveland! What a great city!”
Sure. That is one I agree is an utterly unambiguous lie.
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.