The ultimate minimalist approach. I truly wonder why it is liberals in general have such a difficult time grasping concepts. These two statements can only be considered lies by those who, for whatever reason, try and convince themselves when Trump made these statements he literally meant Obama and Clinton traveled to a board room somewhere in Syria and held a meeting where the founding documents creating ISIS were drafted and signed. That is ridiculous and you know it.
Trump was speaking to
policy, the policy
decisions made by both
Obama and
Clinton which
created the
atmosphere and
conditions from
which ISIS could, and did, arise.
Trump did not lie in regard to the responsibility of either Obama or Clinton in this regard. He was telling the gospel truth.
Hugh Hewitt tried that excuse as well.
Trump corrected him.
HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.
DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.
But even if you want to give him that credit, he's still
totally wrong.
"At a campaign rally in Nebraska, Democrat Hillary Clinton made a bold announcement – and maybe, for once, actually told the truth!
“Trump wants to cut taxes for the super-rich,” Clinton said as Warren Buffett sat behind her. “Well we’re not going there, my friends. I’m telling you right now, we’re going to write fairer rules for the middle class and we are going to raise taxes on the middle class!”
Because, you know, misspeaking once on the campaign trail equals policy. Are you serious? If I mean to say, "I want sausage on my pizza and whipped cream on my coffee" and it accidentally comes out, "I want whipped cream on my pizza and sausage on my coffee", any waiter who ignores subsequent corrections as well as my previous written order as well as my preference on my public website which is a matter of general public knowledge (let's just assume for a minute that my taste in pizza toppings is akin to a presidential candidate's stance on taxation in terms of importance and repeatability) is probably going to get fired when they bring me my sausage coffee, because it's
blatantly obvious that I misspoke. Yeah, Clinton said it. The lie is in claiming that that's her intended policy when every indication from her own speech to her website to every previous version of that speech indicates that she
doesn't want to raise taxes on the middle class.
This is an intellectually dishonest answer. If you believe Clinton has as a part of her policy to raise taxes on the middle class, you are
wrong. And if you claim that despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are
lying.
I couldn't find the quote where Trump said the fire marshal wasn't following the law. But at least Trump can draw a
crowd.
This:
"And the reason they won’t let them in is because they don’t know what the hell they’re doing,” Trump continued. “Hey, maybe they’re a Hillary person. Could that be possible? Probably. I don’t think there are too many of them.”
This is my fault, I didn't explain what I meant clearly. When I say "the fire marshal wasn't following the law", I am referring to Trump's accusation that the fire marshal was doing something other than simply following the fire code for the building.
That's nonsense. It's completely wrong and there's no reason to lie about that. The claim that the fire marshal wouldn't let more people in because "they don't know what the hell they're doing" or "maybe they're a Hillary person" is a
lie. Like it or not, Trump made that up on the spot based on absolutely
nothing, and subsequent investigation found that the fire marshal was entirely correct.
Absolutely true. Two of the debates are up against
NFL games.
The lie is that the democrats rigged it. Again, this is a stupid, unforced error: the debates were scheduled by a bipartisan committee back in september of 2015. You know, long before either primary was established, and more than half a year before the NFL set its schedule. Please stop bending over backwards to defend the indefensible. Trump lied. Again.
From the same source as above, quote:
"A Trump campaign source told ABC News that "Mr. Trump was made aware of the conflicting dates by a source close to the league. It's unfortunate that millions of voters will be disenfranchised by these chosen dates."
Yes, this is a step back from his previous claim, that, and I quote:
“I’ll tell you what I don’t like,” Trump told George Stephanopoulos. “It’s against two NFL games. I got a letter from the NFL saying, “This is ridiculous.'”
If you want to call this a knowing lie fine. But even if so it pales in comparison to those routinely spouted by Mrs. "What difference does it make."
The point is,
why would he lie about this? What's the endgame here? He didn't get a letter; did he think the NFL would just clam up and not say anything? Did he think they'd lie and agree with him? What's going on here? This lie seems inconsequential, but it's such a bizarre unforced error. If we're talking about lies that are truly pathological, this one seems like a pretty clear contender. Right?
Interesting wording. But the issue is the Democrat policy to allow convicted felons the right to vote. Why do you think that would be? It isn't about compassion, or justice, nor does it have anything to do with notions of rehabilitation.
The actual Trump wording:
"President Obama pushed for changes to sentencing laws that released thousands of dangerous drug trafficking felons and gang members who prey on civilians," Trump said. He continued, "This is Hillary Clinton's agenda, too, to release the violent criminals from jail. She wants them all released."
Is this about letting felons vote? He doesn't mention voting. He doesn't mention felons who are done with their sentences. He specifically says "This is Hillary Clinton's agenda, too, to release the violent criminals from jail. She wants them all released." Are we playing a little game here, where if we don't like what Trump said, we get to pretend he said something else entirely? This is a lie. Full stop.
Also, a word of advice. You are not a good judge of character, and you are not good at determining the motivations for your political opponents. You
immediately jump to malice. You jump over all other possible or stated rationales, no matter how much sense they make*, and say, "They're doing this out of pure self-interest". You then treat this as justification for ignoring any other good reasons for the actions, which doesn't make any sense anyways, because the right thing done for the wrong reasons is
still the right thing.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's statement, so it's just another stupid red herring and a waste of my time.
*It is, in fact, a pretty gross injustice that felons who have served their time cannot vote, as we continue to punish them by stripping them of one of their most fundamental rights as citizens of a democracy long after they've served whatever sentence they may have. That's a
really good reason to allow rehabilitated felons who have served their time to vote.
You didn't bother to source any of your claims, however...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../donald-trump-says-us-gdp-never-negative-ter/
And here, once again, we ignore what he actually said and reach to some bogus excuse. Trump's actual claim:
"The last quarter, it was just announced, our gross domestic product … was below zero. Who ever heard of this? It's never below zero."
That is a lie. GDP growth has dropped below zero quite often throughout the history of our country. 42 is slightly more than zero!
Has GDP growth been bad under Obama? Sure. And if that was what Trump was claiming, I wouldn't be calling it a lie. But that's not what he claimed. He explicitly said on numerous occasions that our GDP growth was below zero and that this had
never happened before. That's a lie. Particularly when he says it after being corrected on it. If the real numbers are as damning as you say, why would he lie? Why wouldn't he tell the truth about this?
The unemployment rate as promoted by the administration, and its sycophants, is an
absolute lie. In addition:
Donald Trump is right: America's real unemployment rate is 40%
"But actually, this view can be supported by actual statistics. If you use the broadest definition of unemployment, the ratio of people over the age of 16 with jobs to the overall 16-and-over population, the Labor Department says that 40.6% of the population is unemployed."
At best, this is completely misleading. It includes people on disabilities who cannot reasonably work. It includes high-school and college students, who go to school full-time. It includes the severely mentally handicapped. It includes housewives, whose hours dealing with Junior go unrecorded. If you're talking about employment, this statistic is
nonsense. You might as well claim that employment is 100%, because nobody works "full time", and by "full time" you mean 24/7. That's how nonsensical this is. It's
indefensible. If it was a real difference in opinion among experts, I could at least grant that it's merely wrong, but it's not. It's just insane. Trump would have to be a complete idiot to cite this figure, and after the first round of fact-checking (because he keeps on repeating it), a liar.
For the exact same reason as allowing convicted felons the right to vote. For the exact same reason for promoting open borders and illegal immigration. To create another Democrat voting block. One truth concerning liberal/progressive policy is nothing achieved is ever enough.
10,000 today, 250,000 tomorrow. According to
FOX News an estimated seven million Syrians are seeking refugee status. Taking in 250,000 would be a drop in the bucket. However it would achieve much in ensuring Democrats continue to hold political power.
Except that Obama has at no point aimed for or pledged to bring in 250,000 syrian refugees. The real number is nowhere near that. Literally everything in this above quoted paragraph is a stupid red herring. I'm sorry, when the Trump claim is:
"And when you look at what happened in that case, it’s just reported, one from Syria. And our president wants to take in 250,000 from Syria,[...]"
And the reality is that the Obama administration plans to take in
10,000, I don't
care what the reason is. I don't
care that it's supposedly about "ensuring democrat political power". The topic is Trump's lies. And he lied. The 250,000 figure is a complete misrepresentation.
If they were "fact-checked" with any intellectual honesty, all but possibly one would be revealed to be the absolute truth.
My actual opinion on this sentence cannot reasonably be said on this forum. I'll have to settle for this.
I'm sorry, this is just stupid. Trump lies. He lies a lot. In fact, he lies more than just about any candidate in recent memory. Pretending that all these lies are somehow true, despite the evidence to the contrary, is just
dumb. It beggars belief, it really does. To accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, when your responses were, in order:
- Mistake the facts and ignore Trump's own statements
- Completely ignore why it's a lie and repeat the lie
- Misunderstand why it's a lie
- Misunderstand why it's a lie in a particularly bizarre and nonsensical way
- Admit that it's a lie
- Deflect by pretending Trump was talking about something entirely different and just inventing your own version of what he said
- Deflect by talking about something entirely different and pretend that "he was right anyways" (despite the fact that no, he wasn't)
- Pretend that it isn't a lie by appealing to exactly the same bogus statistics Trump used
- Throw up a red herring, repeat the lie, and do nothing to address the problems with it
And
I'm the intellectually bankrupt one? WHAT?! Dude! Remove the Trump McMansion from your eye before you complain about the splinter in mine. #8 is literally the
only one you have any case for, and even then, it's wicked flimsy.
Yeah, right. Do you recall how the members of the panel audibly groaned when Bill Clinton said "it depends on what the meaning of is is?" Can you not recognize this as a deliberate, knowing, pathological lie:
Deliberate? Yes. Knowing? Yes. Pathological?
How could you possibly tell? It's a politician lying because he thinks it'll get him out of a jam. That's pretty normal human behavior. People lie. They say things which they know are false because they think they'll get some benefit from it - in this case, possibly avoiding a major scandal and potentially the end of his marriage. In some cases, people become really good at lying, even without any overt pathology. It's a thing. I maintain that if we're using the vague criteria you laid out (it seems to be "lies a lot" combined with "I calls 'em like I sees 'em" and more realistically "is named Clinton"), Trump qualifies better. Except not really, because it's not good criteria.
And tell us again how difficult it is to recognize said
pathology.
It's a whole lot harder than saying, "Look, this person lied once or twice or even a hundred times over their career". You don't understand what "pathological lying"
means. I welcome you to look into it. There's a reason we don't psychoanalyze people we don't actually know.
I could keep going literally all day. All of these lies are trivially fact-checked and shown to be completely nonsensical. Should we consider them pathological? Is Trump also a pathological liar?
