those are lies??

what you fail to grasp is those things this are both debatable and meaningless...as is Obama and the 57 States he visited...

what has changed much to your disliking is that one side has apparently realized that holding their guy to a much higher standard is a big disadvantage....the left sounds like the woman who spends years trying to change her husband, ideally to be more like her...and when she succeeds she hates it and wants a divorce...it appears as though many on the right have simply relented to hold, Trump, at least and who knows for how long...to the standards that the dems have set...must be quite maddening

you really like Politifact....here is an actual "lie" that actually affected Americans in a profound way....nothing on your list reaches this level of dishonesty and deception

so much so that it gained "lie of the year" honors

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-plan-keep-it/

VDH did a fabulous job recently analyzing the things that Obama touted in his last State of the Union as his "successes".....are these
"lies"...this is consequential policy stuff unlike debunked groping stories

Assessing the Obama Legacy—Against His Own Mileposts
The president’s stated priorities have not turned out well.
By Victor Davis Hanson — December 8, 2016

In his 2016 State of the Union address, President Obama summarized his achievements. That same night, the White House issued a press release touting Obama’s accomplishments.

Now that he will be leaving, how well did these initiatives listed in the press release actually work out?

“Securing the historic Paris climate agreement.”

The accord was never submitted to Congress as a treaty. It will be ignored by President-elect Trump.

“Achieving the Iran nuclear deal.”

That “deal” was another effort to circumvent the treaty-ratifying authority of Congress. It has green-lighted Iranian aggression, and it probably ensured nuclear proliferation. Iran’s violations will cause the new Trump administration to either scrap the accord or send it to Congress for certain rejection.

“Securing the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

Even Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton came out against this failed initiative. It has little support in Congress or among the public. Opposition to the TTP helped fuel the Trump victory.

“Reopening Cuba.”

The recent Miami celebration of the death of Fidel Castro, and Trump’s victory in Florida, are testimonies to the one-sided deal’s unpopularity. The United States got little in return for the Castro brothers’ propaganda coup.

“Destroying ISIL” and “dismantling al Qaeda.”

We are at last making some progress against some of these “jayvee” teams, as Obama once described the Islamic State. Neither group has been dismantled or destroyed. Despite the death of Osama bin Laden, the widespread reach of radical Islam into Europe and the United States remains largely unchecked.

“Ending combat missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

The Afghan war rages on. The precipitous withdrawal of all U.S. peacekeepers in 2011 from a quiet Iraq helped sow chaos in the rest of the Middle East. We are now sending more troops back into Iraq.

“Closing Guantanamo Bay.”

This was an eight-year broken promise. The detention center still houses dangerous terrorists.

“Rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region.”

The anemic “Asia Pivot” failed. The Philippines is now openly pro-Russian and pro-Chinese. Traditional allies such Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are terrified that the U.S is no longer a reliable guarantor of their autonomy.

“Supporting Central American development.”

The once-achievable promise of a free-market, democratic Latin America is moribund. Dictatorships in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua remain impoverished bullies. All have been appeased by the U.S.

“Strengthening cybersecurity.”

Democrats claimed Russian interference in the recent election. If true, it is proof that there is no such thing as “cybersecurity.” The WikiLeaks releases, the hacked Clinton e-mails and the Edward Snowden disclosures confirm that the Obama administration was the least cybersecure presidency in history.

“Growing the Open Government Partnership.”

The NSA scandal, the hounding of Associated Press journalists, some of the WikiLeaks troves, and the corruption at the IRS all reveal that the Obama administration was one of the least transparent presidencies in memory.

“Honoring our nation’s veterans.”

Obama’s Department of Veteran Affairs was mired in scandal, and some of its nightmarish VA hospitals were awash in disease and unnecessary deaths. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki was forced to resign amid controversy. Former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized for issuing an offensive report falsely concluding that returning war vets were liable to join right-wing terrorist groups.

“Making sure our politics reflect America’s best.”

The 2016 presidential campaign was among the nastiest on record. WikiLeaks revealed unprecedented collusion between journalists and the Clinton campaign. Earlier, Obama had been the first president in U.S. history to refuse public campaign money. He was also the largest fundraiser of private cash and the greatest collector of Wall Street money in the history of presidential campaigns.

“Protecting voting rights.”

Riots followed the recent presidential election. Democrats, without merit, joined failed Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount in key swing states they lost. Progressives are berating the constitutionally guaranteed Electoral College. State electors are being subject to intimidation campaigns.

“Strengthening policing.”

Lethal attacks on police are soaring.

“Promoting immigrant and refugee integration and citizenship awareness.”

The southern U.S. border is largely unenforced. Immigration law is deliberately ignored. The president’s refugee policy was unpopular and proved a disaster, as illustrated by the Boston Marathon bombings, the San Bernardino attack, the Orlando nightclub shooting, and the recent Ohio State University terrorist violence.

Note what Obama’s staff omitted: his doubling of the U.S. debt in eight years, the unworkable and soon-to-be-repealed Affordable Care Act, seven years of anemic economic growth, record labor nonparticipation, failed policy resets abroad, and a Middle East in ruins.

Why, then, has the president’s previously sinking popularity suddenly rebounded in 2016?

Obama disappeared from our collective television screens, replaced by unpopular candidates Clinton and Trump, who slung mud at each other and stole the limelight.

As a result, Obama discovered that the abstract idea of a lame-duck Obama was more popular than the cold reality of eight-year President Obama.

He wisely adjusted by rarely being heard from or seen for much of 2016.

So Obama now departs amid the ruin of the Democratic party into a lucrative post-presidency: detached and without a legacy.

Hillary didn't win, did she?

Yes those in fact are all lies.

So again, pls. point out where I said "everything" Trump says is a lie.

I wrote "you seem to label everything he says as a lie"

can you cite an instance where you declared Trump truthful?:rolleyes:...oh...wait...when he said he wanted to date his daughter....that was probably truthful...

I've only discussed a fraction of his statements. In fact, a fraction of his lies.

So what? What's the big deal about what you've discussed? What's so important about it?

THE WAY ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN WON HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED OVER A LONG PERIOD OF OUR HISTORY.

Hillary didn't win, did she?

:deadhorse:

Trump should twitter out that he will be the most honest president in our history....bigley....that would send the moonbats right over the moon....or at least into aroma therapy

Still don't see where I stated "everything" he said was a lie - try again.

Your "bar" is set awfully low.

this is correct

Once the primaries ended, it was assured that a morally bankrupt, serial liar was going to be POTUS.

The GOP nominated Ward Cleaver in 2012, it didn't stop your side from claiming that he was a heartless tycoon who had no empathy for dying women, or for kids, or puppies...

I don't like his morals any more than you do. Character wasn't on the ballot in 2016.

lie

noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

verb (used without object), lied, lying.
5.
to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Synonyms

not to be confused with

Definition of misspeak
misspokeplay \-ˈspōk\misspokenplay \-ˈspō-kən\misspeaking
transitive verb
1
: to speak (as a word) incorrectly
2
: to express (oneself) imperfectly or incorrectly <claims now that he misspoke himself>

Trump issue is not that he Misspeak's on the contrary his willingness to double down on his statements when his figures and claimed facts are show to be false... this behavior makes him a liar..

His issue was to get elected. He accomplished that. Now, his issue is to make America great again. Actually, he said "We" will make America great again. But first he'd better consult with you on the definition of great. Then, after clearing that up, he can get on with it.

no one said he "Misspeak's"(well, you just did)....in fact it's pretty widely acknowledged that he's loose with the truth and facts to the point where it can be pretty amusing when he gets on a roll, the degree to which it's willful and sinister is debatable.....in most cases I suspect what you perceive as is "lie" is rather simply, and nothing more, the fact that he has a differing view and perspective than you may hold on a given subjects, what you perceive as a "lie" by Trump is actually your inability to view the world through the prism through which he looking...probably the result of your lack of tolerance of differing viewpoints and a closed-minded inability to grasp the world outside your bubble.........so it's not really Trump....it's you...:hihi:

Originally Posted by detbuch

"I don't think that Trump's lies are all that bad. Most of them were not actually lies. Mostly exaggerations, sarcasms, mistakes, or outright distortions of what he actually said . . ."

Krauthammer really nails it...

The most amusing part of the Trump transition has been watching its effortless confounding of the media, often in fewer than 140 characters.

An epidemic of constitutional chin-tugging and civil-libertarian hair-pulling immediately breaks out. By the time the media have exhausted their outrage over the looming abolition of free speech, judicial supremacy, and affordable kale, Trump has moved on.

Trump so thoroughly owns the political stage today that the word Clinton seems positively quaint and Barack Obama, who happens to be president of the United States, is totally irrelevant.

Trump will continue to tweet and the media will continue to take the bait. Highly entertaining but it is a sideshow.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-interventions

the verbal gymnastics are amazing to support his lies (based on the definition of a lie ) not what I FEEL is a Lie Scott your argument is and excuse to accept what he say's as OK .. He is the POTUS elect .. no longer a TV host and whats scary is the wiliness of people like you and others to not see this as a problem going forward... And the right had the nerve to complain about the lefts Blind faith in Obama...

what is his Idea of Great ?? seeing he hasn't outlined any Markers to measure His Idea of Great .. maybe you all can explain it .. for us


unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions:
A great fire destroyed nearly half the city.
2.
large in number; numerous:
Great hordes of tourists descend on Europe each summer.
3.
unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc.:
great pain.
4.
wonderful; first-rate; very good:
We had a great time. That's great!
5.
being such in an extreme or notable degree:
great friends; a great talker.
6.
notable; remarkable; exceptionally outstanding:
a great occasion.
7.
important; highly significant or consequential:
the great issues in American history.

I'm still trying to figure out Bigley...what was Obama's Idea of "Hope and Change" and "Fundamental Transformation"? and which one of Trumps "lies" (based on your definition of a lie )have I supported?...

perhaps he'll "grow" into the position as we were told Obama would do in time :kewl:

Trump uses language similarly to Biden, whom the left adores. If Biden runs in 2020 against Trump, it should be a verbal Barnum and Bailey.

But I think Trump is even better than Biden at it--as PaulS said, he takes it to another level.

if Biden was smart enough to figure out how to Tweet, he be right up there...

Stefan Basil Molyneux is an Irish-born Canadian blogger/vlogger

Supports a Stateless society

Supports the Voice of men a strongly antifeminist and frequently accuses feminists of being misandrist in their mindset. another 1st

But again thanks for posting a Canadian blogger's opinion As real new's and TRUTH

the left invented fake news...and deemed(s) it perfectly acceptable as long as it furthered(s) their cause....if it hampers their cause...it's the worst thing to be foisted on mankind.....silly leftists :rtfm:

leftist definition of "fake news" = "anything news that disagrees with our world view" :hihi:

Fake news is probably the third oldest profession.

But with the concoction of real news, fake news, opinion, entertainment, marketing, and bias we are now down the rabbit hole. News gets frequently whitewashed, ignored, twisted, and mix in the current bias in news reporting it is difficult to decipher the real from the fake, when it confirms your inherent bias.

The Press, the fourth but independent leg of a free government, is required to be both a conveyor of what is good within a government and to be a watchdog when government is bad. I do not know what is worse, a press that is paid for and managed by the Government (RT in Russia for example) or a press that chooses not to be the watchdog, but instead be a sycophant.

Isn't "fake news" just a hipster rewording of what we used to call "misinformation"???

Now, instead of being used to mislead an enemy it's being used to mislead a nation.

I posted an articulate, intelligent, insightful person's opinion. It didn't occur to me to check out his credentials before I heard what he has to say. I think what he said was correct. I didn't hear anything that I considered lies. He was pointing out the bigger picture (I know you like to refer to the big picture) of what is actually fake in the "news."

Your Wikipedia bio of him was limited and not totally unbiased. There are, however, more scathing bios of him on the net. And also more positive and inclusive ones. None of them add to or detract from the video I posted. For me, in respect to the video, they are irrelevant. I don't agree with everything Molyneux says (and I have watched several videos), and don't have strong opinions about him as a person. But I find his opinions and interviews interesting and informative. And, even more, an alternative to the warmed over intellectually limited version of the main stream news, which, to me, has a lot of fakeness.

His credentials as a "mere" blogger are far more impressive than you imply. But, if a narrow, slanted description of the messenger is the important message for you, rather than the message itself, I understand how that works.

I like this little item by him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArKPZyfZUFs

It didn't occur to me to check out his credentials before I heard what he has to say.

Nor did I. I checked them( credentials ) before I heard what he said I checked them after ... And it was insightful to why he said what he said... I am curious did you come across him on the web or thru an email ? I call these feeder clips sent out by like minded people who's
bigger picture tend to include T foil hats

I like to judge what is said by the words that are actually spoken or written. Checking the background of who spoke the words can be insightful. Or it can be misleading. Checking the background can lead to varying and contradictory conclusions. And those conclusions can more easily be concocted to fit the checker's version depending on the T foil hats he wears than if the actual spoken or written words in question are honestly examined.

In a court of law, it is the guilt or innocence that is to be determined. Motivation can enlighten as to why a crime is committed. But the existence of an actual crime, and the who is responsible for it, is foremost what is to be established. Ending an investigation and discussion at possible motivations leaves the jury with nothing substantial to come to a meaningful verdict about anything. Without the prosecution claiming or proving that any crime was committed leaves the jury wondering for what purpose they have been assembled.

I checked Molyneux's background available on the net, found your Wikipedia entry, and found another which made him out to be a horrible person and another which made him look good. None of them had any impact on my opinion of his video.

The source of information, for me, is far less relevant than the actual information. I notice, from your other discussions, as in the WikiLeaks and the "interpretation" of the Constitution, that you value peripheral things more than actual text. It didn't seem to matter to you if the leaks were true or not as much as who the source of the leaks was. It doesn't matter to you what the actual words and their actual meanings as written in the Constitution are, rather it is more important for you what "interpretations" of those words can be concocted by five people. And here you are even implying that the source for my finding the video is more important than what is in the video.

And, here, as in other instances where I have provided a video or an article, you totally ignore a discussion of what is presented and dismiss it with extraneous, peripheral insinuation.

Casting aspersions of T foil hattery can rebound back to you. You seem to think that because something is presented by other than some mainstream media outlet (that is if it isn't a "right wing" mainstream media), it is part of a "like minded" conspiracy of Tinfoilers--fake news. Well, the sources on which you depend are also loaded with fake news. Ironically, you imply that coming across something on the web can tend to include T foil hats. Yet you checked Molyneux out on the web.

You might try to actually discuss the actual words on the video.

Great observation .. unfortunately it is a hipster rewording

but its not the hipster's who create it or the one who believe it ...

CNN is going down the drain much like the Democratic party

can the witch hunt end now?

Witch hunt:biglaugh: But you were all over Bengazi w/no evidence - right? Another double standard.

You need to read the paper. Millions to Flynn and Manafort

And tell us about the communists you posted about earlier.