• Trump Lie Count: 1950 false public statements over 347 days (avg 5.6 lies per day)
    50 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;53026586]Situations like this are different than a factually false claim, of which Trump does plenty of as well.[/QUOTE] Dude, that's not how you use 'of which.' I am pretty sure you'd say "of which Trump does plenty as well." I don't tend to talk like this unless in essays, but if you are trying to make your opinion have more credibility, make sure you understand the rules you're using. My punctuation and spelling is nowhere near perfect, but I don't know, it just feels like you're using a rule to make your sentence appear more credible. I find your posts so frustrating. I don't even know if it is worth responding to them anymore. [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;53026580]@Raidyr Here's part of the problem: with many of those statements you, and the WaPo, are looking at a statement made by Trump, extrapolating what he [I]really[/I] meant by the statement, and then calling the original statement misleading or false instead of going into the details of why he's generally dishonest on the topic. So, for example, take the stock market claim. Trump said that the stock market is at an all time high and continuing to grow. This is an indisputably true statement. The claim of it being misleading comes from his supposed inconsistent treatment of the stock market under Obama and the stock market under himself. You, and the WaPo, are claiming that the reason for growth in the stock market under both Obama and Trump is essentially equivalent, therefore it's misleading for Trump to praise his growth while down talking Obama's growth. The problem is that that is a nuanced political issue. I'm sure Trump would say that his economic polices have grounded the new growth far more than the growth under Obama. It has pushed a bubble into real, solid growth, and I'm sure you would respond that he's totally wrong.... and a political conversation, with detailed argumentation would follow. The problem is that we're taking a fairly nuanced political argument and pretending it's as simple as a 'true' or 'false' situation. Prove that Trump is wrong. I would endorse it completely, but can't take an entire political argument and turn in into a simple statement of calling something false.[/QUOTE] That stock market one was probably getting at how he was either lying then, or lying now. Does it really make a difference when? But, if you must know, it was then, as the stock market began doing pretty well just before the 2012 election, thank fuck. This is not at all nuanced. You are making it nuanced, like you do in every thread. I actually think ignoring you would be a mistake, as the political philosophy you are appearing to sponsor is really awful and I can't believe that anybody would support it at all, let alone elect them. You did vote for him, right? Or at least, you would have if you lived in the US? I presume you're not old enough to vote yet, anyway, at least I hope so. :P
[QUOTE=Dan The Man;53027665]Dude, that's not how you use 'of which.' I am pretty sure you'd say "of which Trump does plenty as well." I don't tend to talk like this unless in essays, but if you are trying to make your opinion have more credibility, make sure you understand the rules you're using. My punctuation and spelling is nowhere near perfect, but I don't know, it just feels like you're using a rule to make your sentence appear more credible. I find your posts so frustrating. I don't even know if it is worth responding to them anymore. [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] That stock market one was probably getting at how he was either lying then, or lying now. Does it really make a difference when? But, if you must know, it was then, as the stock market began doing pretty well just before the 2012 election, thank fuck. This is not at all nuanced. You are making it nuanced, like you do in every thread. I actually think ignoring you would be a mistake, as the political philosophy you are appearing to sponsor is really awful and I can't believe that anybody would support it at all, let alone elect them. You did vote for him, right? Or at least, you would have if you lived in the US? I presume you're not old enough to vote yet, anyway, at least I hope so. :P[/QUOTE] Do intend to actually contribute, or are you just here to post meaningless personal attacks? I've ignored your last few attempts, but it seems you have no intent to stop. I couldn't care less about what you think of me personally.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53026580]@Raidyr Here's part of the problem: with many of those statements you, and the WaPo, are looking at a statement made by Trump, extrapolating what he [I]really[/I] meant by the statement, and then calling the original statement misleading or false instead of going into the details of why he's generally dishonest on the topic. So, for example, take the stock market claim. Trump said that the stock market is at an all time high and continuing to grow. This is an indisputably true statement. The claim of it being misleading comes from his supposed inconsistent treatment of the stock market under Obama and the stock market under himself. You, and the WaPo, are claiming that the reason for growth in the stock market under both Obama and Trump is essentially equivalent, therefore it's misleading for Trump to praise his growth while down talking Obama's growth. The problem is that that is a nuanced political issue. I'm sure Trump would say that his economic polices have grounded the new growth far more than the growth under Obama. It has pushed a bubble into real, solid growth, and I'm sure you would respond that he's totally wrong.... and a political conversation, with detailed argumentation would follow. The problem is that we're taking a fairly nuanced political argument and pretending it's as simple as a 'true' or 'false' situation. Prove that Trump is wrong. I would endorse it completely, but can't take an entire political argument and turn in into a simple statement of calling something false.[/QUOTE] It seems to me that you're ascribing a nuance where Trump has presented none as a way to justify his flip-flop on the issue. Is there some sort of documented evidence that he is making the nuanced argument that you're describing. Otherwise, it's pretty transparent to me that he's simply playing up statistics where it benefits him and downplaying them when it doesn't.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53027740]Do intend to actually contribute, or are you just here to post meaningless personal attacks? I've ignored your last few attempts, but it seems you have no intent to stop. I couldn't care less about what you think of me personally.[/QUOTE] The thing is, you often ignore the premise of threads and just attack something irrelevant. I won't constantly call you out, or anything, but it just becomes infuriating sometimes and I cannot help but mention it. Can you at least agree that Trump has lied more than any other president, sgman?
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;53027787]It seems to me that you're ascribing a nuance where Trump has presented none as a way to justify his flip-flop on the issue. Is there some sort of documented evidence that he is making the nuanced argument that you're describing. [B]Otherwise, it's pretty transparent to me that he's simply playing up statistics where it benefits him and downplaying them when it doesn't.[/B][/QUOTE] That may very well be the case, and it probably is the case, but notice that even in your small post you've presented more of an argument than the WaPo did in their list. It would be fine if the WaPo was making a list of unsubstantiated claims. I would have zero issue with that, but that isn't what they're doing. They are making the positive claim that these are false or misleading. The burden of proof is on them to substantiate that these are false and misleading. They don't get to just say it's false because they say so. [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Dan The Man;53027902]The thing is, you often ignore the premise of threads and just attack something irrelevant. I won't constantly call you out, or anything, but it just becomes infuriating sometimes and I cannot help but mention it. Can you at least agree that Trump has lied more than any other president, sgman?[/QUOTE] 1) That isn't what you generally do. (like calling out typos, throwing out personal insults that are irrelevant to the topic, etc.) 2) Can you clarify how pointing out that many of the things in the list are falsely being call "false statements" is not directly on the topic in a thread about those false statements? It seems you would call anything less than a full anti-Trump circle jerk "irrelevant." [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] As a side note, I did not vote for Trump and despise him as a president, but that's irrelevant to whether what I'm saying is true or not.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53028016]That may very well be the case, and it probably is the case, but notice that even in your small post you've presented more of an argument than the WaPo did in their list. It would be fine if the WaPo was making a list of unsubstantiated claims. I would have zero issue with that, but that isn't what they're doing. They are making the positive claim that these are false or misleading. The burden of proof is on them to substantiate that these are false and misleading. They don't get to just say it's false because they say so.[/QUOTE] Honestly at the end of the day it's a judgement call and you're willing to give Trump a little more credit that WaPo is giving. Even if you hate the dude.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53028016]That may very well be the case, and it probably is the case, but notice that even in your small post you've presented more of an argument than the WaPo did in their list. It would be fine if the WaPo was making a list of unsubstantiated claims. I would have zero issue with that, but that isn't what they're doing. They are making the positive claim that these are false or misleading. The burden of proof is on them to substantiate that these are false and misleading. They don't get to just say it's false because they say so. [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] 1) That isn't what you generally do. (like calling out typos, throwing out personal insults that are irrelevant to the topic, etc.) 2) Can you clarify how pointing out that many of the things in the list are falsely being call "false statements" is not directly on the topic in a thread about those false statements? It seems you would call anything less than a full anti-Trump circle jerk "irrelevant." [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] As a side note, I did not vote for Trump and despise him as a president, but that's irrelevant to whether what I'm saying is true or not.[/QUOTE] I just find it weird how for someone who constantly says they're not pro trump, that you find a way to normalize everything he does, and make it WEIRD that people would be upset about such stuff. Like you're never not defending him, or protecting him from peoples statements, you're critical of him in so far as you say "I don't like him" but you spend a lot of time defending him from people and finding a way to make what he's doing normal. I mean this is just what it appears all people on the right have been doing for the last few months. Normalizing shit that isn't normal, and shouldn't be considered normal.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53028016] As a side note, I did not vote for Trump and despise him as a president[/QUOTE] Which is why you're always sticking up for him. Makes perfect sense to me! Seriously, I've never seen you unequivocally, unambiguously attack Trump. It's always some kind of defense with 'but really guys i hate trump' thrown in.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53028159]I just find it weird how for someone who constantly says they're not pro trump, that you find a way to normalize everything he does, and make it WEIRD that people would be upset about such stuff. Like you're never not defending him, or protecting him from peoples statements, you're critical of him in so far as you say "I don't like him" but you spend a lot of time defending him from people and finding a way to make what he's doing normal. I mean this is just what it appears all people on the right have been doing for the last few months. Normalizing shit that isn't normal, and shouldn't be considered normal.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot]Which is why you're always sticking up for him. Makes perfect sense to me! Seriously, I've never seen you unequivocally, unambiguously attack Trump. It's always some kind of defense with 'but really guys i hate trump' thrown in.[/QUOTE] It's the nature of the place we're at. This forum has a left leaning bias, and is therefore more likely to attack the right and less likely to call out the left (not that it never does). When someone on the right posts something dumb or wrong, people are quick to point it out. So there's often no reason for me to jump on the dogpile, but when someone on the left posts something dumb or wrong, it's often praised for a while before being critiqued. That's where I might jump in and post what I see as incorrect. If I were on a right leaning forum, then I'm sure more of my time would be spent pointing out things I see as incorrect from the right. [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] With that said, I've definitely critiqued things that people like Tudd have posted in the past. [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;53028036]Honestly at the end of the day it's a judgement call and you're willing to give Trump a little more credit that WaPo is giving. Even if you hate the dude.[/QUOTE] Generally, I don't even disagree with the points they're presenting. It's that they are presenting them in an, ironically, misleading fashion. Trump's statement about the stock market isn't false or misleading, factually. It's a true statement that, when taken on it's own, can't be refuted. The misleading part is how that statement fits into his entire argument based on flip-flopping and false assumptions. The goal of the list posted by BDA isn't to actually address the false and misleading ideas that Trump espouses, but to accumulate a big number so that they can throw around that big number in the exact way that BDA did for this thread. They ought to take his whole position on the stock market and show how it is misleading by nature, based on the real numbers and arguments. It isn't nearly sufficient to take each out of context statement, that are true on their own, and then call them all individually false or misleading based on an unsaid and un-evidenced argument about his entire concept of the stock market. That doesn't add anything to the conversation.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53028159]I just find it weird how for someone who constantly says they're not pro trump, that you find a way to normalize everything he does, and make it WEIRD that people would be upset about such stuff. Like you're never not defending him, or protecting him from peoples statements, you're critical of him in so far as you say "I don't like him" but you spend a lot of time defending him from people and finding a way to make what he's doing normal. I mean this is just what it appears all people on the right have been doing for the last few months. Normalizing shit that isn't normal, and shouldn't be considered normal.[/QUOTE] Honestly as much as I'd like it if there were more people on Facepunch that were skeptical of everything, sometimes we do need people like sgman that are immediately skeptical of anything left-leaning, because otherwise we may go for pages without left-leaning misinformation being corrected. Sometimes it does result in him doing what you're saying but we still need people like that for situations where something left-leaning is posted that is actually false.
I think sgman is right, purely from a practical perspective. If we want to convince people who are on the fence, one of the top priorities is to kill the fake news narrative. That Trump supporters can convince themselves the whole list is fake is one thing, but if they can point out that one of the supposed 'false statements' looks more like a political disagreement, then that gives them effective ammunition for their narrative. sgman isn't even saying they should necessarily leave out the subtler points, just that they should make sure that they can [I]prove[/I] that Trump is being misleading.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;53028388]I think sgman is right, purely from a practical perspective. If we want to convince people who are on the fence, one of the top priorities is to kill the fake news narrative. That Trump supporters can convince themselves the whole list is fake is one thing, but if they can point out that one of the supposed 'false statements' looks more like a political disagreement, then that gives them effective ammunition for their narrative. sgman isn't even saying they should necessarily leave out the subtler points, just that they should make sure that they can [I]prove[/I] that Trump is being misleading.[/QUOTE] I'm still not sure how the stock market thing is supposed to be indicative of a political disagreement and I think it's quite naive that even if you tailor-made the case against Trump and made it completely bulletproof and semantically correct that the vast majority of Trump supporters still wouldn't just call it fake news. I don't buy sgman's (and yours, I guess) argument that this is hurting the case against Trump at all. The amount of people who are still (somehow) on the fence regarding his presidency aren't going to quibble over things like whether Trumps dishonesty regarding his stock market comments are [I]technically[/I] misleading or [I]technically [/I]lies or [I]technically [/I]false.
I would still argue that the criticism is splitting hairs. The list is of false [I]or misleading[/I] claims. Even the economy example clearly fits the criteria of misleading in that he's implying it is because of his own policies, rather than a continuation of the same trend under Obama, which he criticised. It's a pretty straightforwardly misleading statement. They even elaborate on it in the article: [QUOTE]An astonishing 85 times, Trump has celebrated a rise in the stock market — even though in the campaign he repeatedly said it was a “bubble” that was ready to crash as soon as the Federal Reserve started raising interest rates. Well, the Fed has raised rates three times since the election — and yet the stock market has not plunged as Trump predicted. It has continued a rise in stock prices that began under President Barack Obama in 2009. Again, Trump has never explained his shift in position on the stock market.[/QUOTE] If Trump wants to make the argument that there is a difference between the growth under Obama vs. his administration, then he needs to explain that. Until then, the statement stands as a flip-flop, and is therefore misleading.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53028215] They ought to take his whole position on the stock market and show how it is misleading by nature, based on the real numbers and arguments. [/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/02/president-trump-keeps-celebrating-stock-market-highs-thats-a-big-flip-flop/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.414c0e23c444"]They did[/URL].
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;53028558]I would still argue that the criticism is splitting hairs. The list is of false [I]or misleading[/I] claims. Even the economy example clearly fits the criteria of misleading in that [B]he's implying it is because of his own policies, rather than a continuation of the same trend under Obama[/B], which he criticised. It's a pretty straightforwardly misleading statement. They even elaborate on it in the article:[/QUOTE] No, that's not what the statement is saying. His position, as a whole, is saying that. That one statement, by itself, is just a statement of fact. Only when you take that statement in context of everything else he's said does it become clear that his position, as a whole, is false and/or misleading. [QUOTE]If Trump wants to make the argument that there is a difference between the growth under Obama vs. his administration, then he needs to explain that. Until then, the statement stands as a flip-flop, and is therefore misleading.[/QUOTE] I agree completely. Trump should be challenged constantly, by the right and left, to substantiate his crazy claims, but this isn't a list of unsubstantiated claims. If it were, you wouldn't see me here making this argument. The WaPo is making a positive argument that it isn't just unsubstantiated, but that it is actually false and/or misleading. That claim requires evidence. [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;53028574][URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/02/president-trump-keeps-celebrating-stock-market-highs-thats-a-big-flip-flop/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.414c0e23c444"]They did[/URL].[/QUOTE] Cool, I'm glad they're also addressing his statements in a holistic way. I wish people were directed towards something like that instead of amassing a list of out of context statements. Sadly, I can't read it because they put it behind a paywall. (Interesting that they don't put the list of statements behind a paywall. It's almost like they know it's sensationalized and want to get clicks.)
[QUOTE=sgman91;53028627]No, that's not what the statement is saying. His position, as a whole, is saying that. That one statement, by itself, is just a statement of fact. Only when you take that statement in context of everything else he's said does it become clear that his position, as a whole, is false and/or misleading. I agree completely. Trump should be challenged constantly, by the right and left, to substantiate his crazy claims, but this isn't a list of unsubstantiated claims. If it were, you wouldn't see me here making this argument. The WaPo is making a positive argument that it isn't just unsubstantiated, but that it is actually false and/or misleading. That claim requires evidence. [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] Cool, I'm glad they're also addressing his statements in a holistic way. I wish people were directed towards something like that instead of amassing a list of out of context statements.[/QUOTE] It just kind of makes your defense of it all feel hollow when the thing you're attacking them for not doing, is something they already did. Trumps statements about the economy are a weird sticking point for you I guess, and I don't understand why. Trump claimed the economy under Obama was suffering. He assumes the presidency. Trump then claims the economy is great, because of his ascension to the role of President. It's weird that this is a point of contention at all.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53028645]It just kind of makes your defense of it all feel hollow when the thing you're attacking them for not doing, is something they already did. Trumps statements about the economy are a weird sticking point for you I guess, and I don't understand why. Trump claimed the economy under Obama was suffering. He assumes the presidency. Trump then claims the economy is great, because of his ascension to the role of President. It's weird that this is a point of contention at all.[/QUOTE] The stock market claim is just a stark example of a factually true statement being called misleading based on an underlying analysis and/or assumption. Here are the top 5 most repeated statements form the WaPo list: [QUOTE=Trump]“The stock market is at an all-time- high and continues to go up, up, up.”[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Trump]“That’s one of the reasons the stock market has done, you know, at a record level. It’s a record level. We broke it 84 times this year. The stock market hit a new high 84 times since we won the election on November 8th of last year.”[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Trump]“The Stock Market is setting record after record and unemployment is at a 17 year low.”[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Trump]“The stock market, as you see, it’s at an all-time high yet again. I think that’s 86 times since I got elected — 86 times. We’re at an all-time high.”[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Trump]“The stock market is at an all-time high and, just a little while ago, hit yet another all-time high - the 85th time since my election.”[/QUOTE] These 5 statements are all basically the same thing and they make up 425 of the 1950 "false or misleading" statements. In fact, the next couple are almost the same thing as well. So a good quarter, possibly even up to half, of all the statements are about this issue.... as I keep scrolling through the list they keep going. Hell, these kinds of statements might make up 80% of the 1950 statements. [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE]Trump claimed the economy under Obama was suffering. He assumes the presidency. Trump then claims the economy is great, because of his ascension to the role of President. It's weird that this is a point of contention at all. [/QUOTE] That isn't even the argument that would be presented, though? I'm Trump, and his acolytes, would say that the tax cuts, the lowering of regulation, or even the promise of those things have led to a more robust economic outlook, and given a foundation to the gains under Obama. Again, they might be completely off base, but it takes more than simply calling them false and misleading to make that argument.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53028670]The stock market claim is just a stark example of a factually true statement being called misleading based on an underlying analysis and/or assumption. Here are the top 5 most repeated statements form the WaPo list: These 5 statements are all basically the same thing and they make up 425 of the 1950 "false or misleading" statements. In fact, the next couple are almost the same thing as well. So a good quarter, possibly even up to half, of all the statements are about this issue.... as I keep scrolling through the list they keep going. Hell, these kinds of statements might make up 80% of the 1950 statements. [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] That isn't even the argument that would be presented, though? I'm Trump, and his acolytes, would say that the tax cuts, the lowering of regulation, or even the promise of those things have led to a more robust economic outlook, and [B]given a foundation to the gains under Obama.[/B] Again, they might be completely off base, but it takes more than simply calling them false and misleading to make that argument.[/QUOTE] That would require one to acknowledge that Obama has anything positive to do with it. Trump, and Trump acolytes as you have put it, have generally flatly refused to do so.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53028627]No, that's not what the statement is saying. His position, as a whole, is saying that. That one statement, by itself, is just a statement of fact. Only when you take that statement in context of everything else he's said does it become clear that his position, as a whole, is false and/or misleading. I agree completely. Trump should be challenged constantly, by the right and left, to substantiate his crazy claims, but this isn't a list of unsubstantiated claims. If it were, you wouldn't see me here making this argument. The WaPo is making a positive argument that it isn't just unsubstantiated, but that it is actually false and/or misleading. That claim requires evidence. [editline]5th January 2018[/editline] Cool, I'm glad they're also addressing his statements in a holistic way. I wish people were directed towards something like that instead of amassing a list of out of context statements.[/QUOTE] The point is that the statement is misleading [I]because of the context[/I]. They even explain that context on the list right next to it. Since you don't seem to disagree that the statement misleading, it seems like the only issue you're really taking with this is that they don't give an article's worth of explanation right next to it on the list.
Trump just tweeted out a new example of one of those extremely clear lies that can be shown to be false very easily. [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/949618475877765120[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/949619270631256064[/media] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2000[/url] Has anyone actually compiled a list of these kinds of lies? I'm fine with the compilation here, I do agree that when context is shown, they're justified in calling certain statements misleading. But I also think, although I might be too optimistic, that a list of all these [I]blatant[/I] lies could help convince people not to trust anything Trump says.
When you realize that Trump has expressed, in private to friends, that it was not his voice on the Access Hollywood tape, you come to understand that he is not living in the same reality as the rest of us and he does not play by the same rules as the rest of us. He's already admitted to the tape, and then after a year he's just decided it's fake news despite Billy Bush confirming the authenticity. As an unrepentant narcissist, he doesn't consider whether something is true or false, only if it works to convince or manipulate someone the way Trump wants. It's why you hear the same lies coming up over and over - they "worked" so they're in his toolbox.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.