paying attention to debates but ignoring Trump

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, it was very little--one article. A study that compared Trump to the limited number of participants in the research, not a study of all the other politicians in the same manner. And Yeah, the examples of lies were, as usual, not really lies, certainly not on the basis of what your social scientist considers a lie to be. The most significant line in your article was this by its author "A lie occurs any time you intentionally try to mislead someone. In the case of Trump's claims, though, it is possible to ascertain only whether they were false or misleading, and not what the president's intentions were." That is an admission that your author cannot verify his examples to be lies. Being wrong (false) is not a lie unless you know that what you say is not true.

And I wouldn't value a similar count of "lies" told by other politicians for the same reason. And, mostly, because I value actual political philosophy and practice more than political speechmaking--most of which is self-serving (which is how your author describes most of Trump's "lies."

BTW, I consider social science, as it is practiced, to be very biased toward leftist thought and don't put much stock in it.

So are you claiming that Trump doesn't lie, but just gives us Fake News.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So are you claiming that Trump doesn't lie, but just gives us Fake News.

I'm not claiming either. You can read my words as written to see what I claim. One of the things I claim is that you are guilty of what you accuse Trump of doing. Telling lies (without intending to). Just as described in your social science article, this post by you is misleading, but only you would know if you intend it to be.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I'm not claiming either. You can read my words as written to see what I claim. One of the things I claim is that you are guilty of what you accuse Trump of doing. Telling lies (without intending to). Just as described in your social science article, this post by you is misleading, but only you would know if you intend it to be.

I did read your words.
Just how do you determine actual political philosophy without listening to politicians speak? Is it only thru the written word or hearsay?