US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

Actually if you prove to me that Trump is a proven liar, I will be quite happy. I spent a lot of time lately dealing with some fellow Brazilians who idolize that moron.

It's a huge compendium, but I think we believe he's hit his 3000th lie for the administration. That has to be a record. And I mean documented. If you're arguing with people in Brazil over this, just smack them upside the head and tell them to do their own research. It's pretty easy to find. Here is some from Politifact, if this helps:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

You can also find a comparison here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

You can click on options to find details, so it's not just a random percentage that they devised.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I am astonished at this from you. I take you for a reasonable person. Perhaps you're buying some propaganda from afar, but, as Federberg says, there has never been so much blatant lying coming out of the White House. Endless reversals of positions with no shame, no fear of reprisal. Trump has been caught in lies and contradictions of himself, it's hard to keep up. It is not usual that a President gets called a "liar" in public, but Trump is even being called that by members of his own party. That's pretty fresh and new. HRC was a well-considered Senator for NY, and greatly admired as Secretary of State. Whatever you think of the campaign, you do understand that there was a lot of mud slung. I'd like to hear why you think she's a greater liar than Trump. I'd also like you to look at both of their records of public service or private enterprise and tell me who is the more ethical, in terms of behavior and track record.

Well, the Benghazi stuff was a disaster under her leadership and there was also some sort of attempted cover up after that. But, I would agree with you that HRC is less of a liar than DT.

 

[Federberg]

Actually if you prove to me that Trump is a proven liar, I will be quite happy. I spent a lot of time lately dealing with some fellow Brazilians who idolize that moron.

Wait a second! You need someone to prove to you that Trump is a liar? So basically just like with Charlottesville you’ve inserted yourself into this thread without knowing the facts

Please don’t do that mate. In the main you seem like an intelligent responsible person. This just doesn’t look good

 

[Federberg]

Well, the Benghazi stuff was a disaster under her leadership and there was also some sort of attempted cover up after that. But, I would agree with you that HRC is less of a liar than DT.

Benghazi was a political disaster for her for sure. Her unwillingness to answer questions fulsomely is not the same as telling outright lies though

 

[mrzz]

Wait a second! You need someone to prove to you that Trump is a liar? So basically just like with Charlottesville you’ve inserted yourself into this thread without knowing the facts

Please don’t do that mate. In the main you seem like an intelligent responsible person. This just doesn’t look good

Let's go from the start, since we do not have the same audience here and in the Charlottesvile discussion. On one hand, yes, I entered that discussion without having read 2343 news pieces about it, just one or two. But I was engaging primarily a poster with views that are close to the extreme right. You know I always try to find common ground to start a conversation. My posts had a good deal of rhetoric "ok, let's assume there were no neo-nazis there". Yes, there were neo-nazis there, and I haven't seen the videos by then. But that was unnecessary in the line of reasoning I was trying to follow. By the way, the poster himself posted later on a video showing people there singing nazi chants ("blood and soil"). So I can make a half mea culpa on this one, but I was focusing on a few moves ahead on that discussion. I should have PM'ed you the minute you replied my post.

About Trump... of course I know he is a liar! We are discussing who is a bigger lier, who was caught more times lying, etc and etc. Ok, I probably should expressed my self better: I do not need someone to prove me he is a liar. I am using "amount of proof" (of whatever nature) to scale how big a liar those people are. This is the whole discussion, right?

But, to make things clear. Mea culpa: I should have started with the line: I now he is a big liar.

And maybe I should have also asked this: "Are there something as crude as youtube videos out there with speeches of Trump on different moments in time, put side by side, saying completely opposite things? Are there youtube videos out there showing speeches of Trump describing an event, put side by side with footage of this event showing completely different things? Can the cheapest, dumbest youtube video maker back at his home, wherever it might be, have such an easy time proving he is a liar?"

And, no, this is not the same as the lists @Moxie gave in the links above (by the way, thanks, lot of ammunition to deal with Trumpetes here). Running down one of the lists (made by much clever people than the average youtube maker):


Donald Trump
"In seven years that (nuclear) deal will have expired, and Iran is free to go ahead and create nuclear weapons."

— PolitiFact National on Wednesday, May 2nd, 2018

The veredict given is: "False. Some changes, but key limits remain"

This is a matter of interpretation. Obviously Trump is twisting it to the core, but this is about a deal with hundreds of pages that international lawyers could discuss for ages. The matter is not black and white. What Trump is doing here, which is to dishonestly twist a complex truth, is oldest political bad habit in the book. My point is: this is not in another league, this is unfortunately common.

Following:


Donald Trump
Says North Korea has "agreed to denuclearization."

— PolitiFact National on Sunday, April 22nd, 2018

Veredict given is: "They haven't agreed yet"

Sorry, this is simply wrong. They "agreed" on the matter (I read the joint statement in full), what they did not give was a compromise, a time line, any concrete schedule. But they "agreed" (whatever it means). This is not a "lie", this is (again) using things politically. I confess that after I read this item I gave less attention to the rest.


Third:

Donald Trump
"Only fools, or worse, are saying that our money losing Post Office makes money with Amazon. THEY LOSE A FORTUNE, and this will be changed."

Veredict: "Profit is in the billiions"

Again, he is playing the old political game. He can always say: "What I meant is that they can make 10 times more, so they are indeed losing a fortune". And he can challenge the accounting details of the profit. So on and so forth...


Fourth:

Donald Trump
Says Conor Lamb "ran on a campaign that said very nice things about me."

— PolitiFact Pennsylvania on Thursday, March 22nd, 2018

Veredict: "More silence than nice things"


This does not even qualify as a lie.

My point is: does all this (together with the rest of the list) show me he is a liar? Hell Yes. Does this show me he is a BIGGER lier than the others (which is the original point, and the only one I am replying to). NO. Maybe this shows how low the scale is.

The reason I am saying this is simple (I saw that movie before): When there is a bad political figure that calls that much attention as Trump, the heavy attacks this figure receive end up "forgiving" his political adversaries. He is the "worst of all times", so the others are not that bad. People very easily confuse those things. I concede to whatever point you make about solely Trump. My issue is where you put him on the political scale.























Again, I should have not entered this discussion, because it is a partisan discussion by definition: who is the worst, Clinton or Trump? I surely wasn't intelligent when I got myself in to this. When I say that Trump is no worst from the rest (and I am despising the guy more and more, to be honest), I am not defending him, I am attacking the rest.

 

[Federberg]

^Mate, while I appreciate your response you are still missing the point. Say what you want about Hillary Clinton but lying is not really an accurate description of what people object to about her. She is a highly intelligent lawyer - like her husband - who is frustratingly difficult to pin down. The problem with HRC is her ability to manipulate the truth. She is the very definition of an elite connected Washington politician, who has benefited from a system that continues to benefit the powerful. Add in a dash of misogyny, a rejection of neo-con politics and extreme partisanship and you get the 'HRC is the devil' phenomenon we've seen in the last few years. It is very clear to me that your experience of Clinton is 2nd hand at best and you haven't made an effort to understand the difference between a rather conventional, woefully uninspiring politician and an aggressively mendacious demagogue

 

[Federberg]

^And with all due respect the examples you've used regarding Trump's lies don't even scratch the surface. Again it seems like you're not even aware of what's been going on. Just pick one day any day, and read through the statements Trump has made and do some basic research to find the lies. You're an intelligent guy, you can do this and see the truth for yourself

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Benghazi was a political disaster for her for sure. Her unwillingness to answer questions fulsomely is not the same as telling outright lies though

It does not matter what she says or does not say. She handled it badly and is responsible for what happened.

 

[Federberg]

It does not matter what she says or does not say. She handled it badly and is responsible for what happened.

I'm not sure what the relevance of that is with regards to their (Trump and HRC) respective level of dishonesty.

The idea that Benghazi can be laid soley at Clinton's door has always been a mystery to me. At the very least Susan Rice and Obama should eat some of that pie, but I guess neither was a likely 2016 Presidential candidate. The fact that a Republican dominated legislature couldn't find anything to hold over her after 10 investigations says something to me

 

[mrzz]

^Mate, while I appreciate your response you are still missing the point. Say what you want about Hillary Clinton but lying is not really an accurate description of what people object to about her. She is a highly intelligent lawyer - like her husband - who is frustratingly difficult to pin down. The problem with HRC is her ability to manipulate the truth. She is the very definition of an elite connected Washington politician, who has benefited from a system that continues to benefit the powerful. Add in a dash of misogyny, a rejection of neo-con politics and extreme partisanship and you get the 'HRC is the devil' phenomenon we've seen in the last few years. It is very clear to me that your experience of Clinton is 2nd hand at best and you haven't made an effort to understand the difference between a rather conventional, woefully uninspiring politician and an aggressively mendacious demagogue

Federberg, I see your points, but... it is not that I am missing the point, I entered the discussion regarding a simpler, stricter point. You are saying that this is inserted in a broader discussion, ok, I believe you. But I was simply debating one specific issue (that could be seen within a broader perspective, yes, and not only in the one you presented).

And, yes, my experience of Clinton is mostly second hand. The only first hand one were the presidential debates, where she demolished Trump. And her lovely participations on youtube....

Point is I do not want to make the effort you ask me to. There are a lot of things out there which I personally find more interesting. Those two will be footnotes in the history books, anyway.

(well, I hope Trump does not start WW3).

^And with all due respect the examples you've used regarding Trump's lies don't even scratch the surface. Again it seems like you're not even aware of what's been going on. Just pick one day any day, and read through the statements Trump has made and do some basic research to find the lies. You're an intelligent guy, you can do this and see the truth for yourself

Just to clarify, those were not examples I gave. I just scrolled down the list of the example Moxie gave. And nothing wrong with the list she gave, as I said, most are perfectly valid. I am just trying to make a point. Those first four are a good statistical sample as any.

[two edits, the word "not" was inserted and is underlined, and it altered the meaning of the original sentence. The comment in brackets was put in the right place]

 

[Federberg]

Federberg, I see your points, but... it is not that I am missing the point, I entered the discussion regarding a simpler, stricter point. You are saying that this is inserted in a broader discussion, ok, I believe you. But I was simply debating one specific issue (that could be seen within a broader perspective, yes, and only in the one you presented).

And, yes, my experience of Clinton is mostly second hand. The only first hand one were the presidential debates, where she demolished Trump. And her lovely participations on youtube....

Point is I do not want to make the effort you ask me to. There are a lot of things out there which I personally find more interesting. Those two will be footnotes in the history books, anyway.



Just to clarify, those were not examples I gave. I just scrolled down the list of the example Moxie gave. And nothing wrong with the list she gave, as I said, most are perfectly valid. I am just trying to make a point. Those first four are a good statistical sample as any.

(well, I hope Trump does not start WW3).

Good to know. Going forward I'll disregard your comments on these issues. No harm no foul

 

[mrzz]

Good to know. Going forward I'll disregard your comments on these issues. No harm no foul

It is your choice to disregard them given that I may not approach the subject in the way you find appropriate, and taking into consideration the things you find important. See, this is not a given. (btw my above post had a mistake, which I edited, that made one sentence have exactly the opposite meaning. My bad). But, again, the fact I do not want to make a carefull analysis of Clinton's psique and/or political positions has almost zero impact on most discussions regarding politicians, including the point at hand (the lies). Imagine if someone would ask you to have an equivalent deep understanding of Trump's positions to engage conversation... you would just roll your eyes, mate. But, yes, I cannot look to US politics to the level of detail you do (even if sometimes this helps!).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, we now have breaking news again. Russian money gets funneled into Cohen's shell company from where Stormy and other Tornados get paid. Nice!

 

[Federberg]

So, we now have breaking news again. Russian money gets funneled into Cohen's shell company from where Stormy and other Tornados get paid. Nice!

This really looks like pay to play. Obviously Mueller must have known this for some time. I'm just amazed Avenati was able to get a hold of it. Not sure how responsible it is for him to be making it public, but I guess he's got his own priorities

 

[britbox]

It's a huge compendium, but I think we believe he's hit his 3000th lie for the administration. That has to be a record. And I mean documented. If you're arguing with people in Brazil over this, just smack them upside the head and tell them to do their own research. It's pretty easy to find. Here is some from Politifact, if this helps:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

You can also find a comparison here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

You can click on options to find details, so it's not just a random percentage that they devised.

Lol... and which category of politifact do you think your statement that Trump had told 3,000 lies would fall under?

 

[Federberg]

Lol... and which category of politifact do you think your statement that Trump had told 3,000 lies would fall under?

most reasonable people, even people who purport to support him don't argue this point mate. I don't know what world you're living in if you can listen to the guy and claim that he doesn't lie or others have lied just as much as him...

 

[britbox]

most reasonable people, even people who purport to support him don't argue this point mate. I don't know what world you're living in if you can listen to the guy and claim that he doesn't lie or others have lied just as much as him...

I've never once claimed he's not a liar... I've explicitly said he lies... but let's be serious about this for one moment... are we really supposed to believe a supposed fact that he's only told the truth 26 times since he's been President? I mean, it's funny... but the site used as "evidence" is not scientific!

 

[mrzz]

A few days ago the new US ambassador to Germany started completely on the wrong foot, showing a giant level of ignorance of basic diplomacy.

He was publicly corrected by an experienced German counterpart. This little episode shows how Trump's ignorance of classical politics and diplomacy (and this time I mean both terms in a positive way) should give his critics ammunition enough to shoot him down (politically), as this new ambassador seems to echo perfectly his boss. The guy is just putting himself in a corner. US global adversaries are already pushing the "will Europe behave like US vassal's" argument, which is a very simple and strong political argument.

Obviously the whole Iranian issue is a complicated one, but... this is borderline ridiculous.

 

[britbox]

A few days ago the new US ambassador to Germany started completely on the wrong foot, showing a giant level of ignorance of basic diplomacy.

He was publicly corrected by an experienced German counterpart. This little episode shows how Trump's ignorance of classical politics and diplomacy (and this time I mean both terms in a positive way) should give his critics ammunition enough to shoot him down (politically), as this new ambassador seems to echo perfectly his boss. The guy is just putting himself in a corner. US global adversaries are already pushing the "will Europe behave like US vassal's" argument, which is a very simple and strong political argument.

Obviously the whole Iranian issue is a complicated one, but... this is borderline ridiculous.

Not the first though... going back to the Iraq war, there was a lot of anti-French fervour based on George Bush's "with us or against us" rhetoric.

 

[mrzz]

Not the first though... going back to the Iraq war, there was a lot of anti-French fervour based on George Bush's "with us or against us" rhetoric.

True, but this time it seems ignorance is having a multiplying effect. And, on the Iraq war, if I remember correctly there was more anti-French sentiment on the US than the other way around. I even remember the "banning" of french fries and french kisses...