Welcome to 2019, when a congresswoman says “we’re going to impeach the mother——er.”

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You literally just proved his point, didn’t bother you before.......but Trump



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps it is the constant lying from Trump which never occurred before. Or the constant chaos in the Oval office with members of his own team saying derogatory things about Trump. Or the hypocrisy of the right which would have been screaming holy hell at some of the things that are being done if prior administrations had done them (declare a national emergency to build the wall - imagine if Obama said we have a national health emergency re ACA).

But Got Stripers can certainly respond for himself.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Perhaps it is the constant lying from Trump which never occurred before. Or the constant chaos in the Oval office with members of his own team saying derogatory things about Trump. Or the hypocrisy of the right which would have been screaming holy hell at some of the things that are being done if prior administrations had done them (declare a national emergency to build the wall - imagine if Obama said we have a national health emergency re ACA).

But Got Stripers can certainly respond for himself.

Suck it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Suck it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another thoughtful response. I don't really expect more from you.

[Pete F.]

Political "lying" as you call it, prior to this administration was typically based on a range of possible outcomes based on a range of available data, not blatant lies based on alternative facts as the current administration does.
Disagreeing with the alternative facts presented does not make the person or organization fake, because if you present an argument with some basis you can back it up with facts, just insisting loudly that you are correct and calling the other party names, does not make you right.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Political "lying" as you call it, prior to this administration was typically based on a range of possible outcomes based on a range of available data, not blatant lies based on alternative facts as the current administration does.
Disagreeing with the alternative facts presented does not make the person or organization fake, because if you present an argument with some basis you can back it up with facts, just insisting loudly that you are correct and calling the other party names, does not make you right.

That may be your esoteric definition of political lying. Which, ironically, seems to claim that before Trump politicians didn't really lie. They just miscalculated. Or disagreed with "alternative facts." Of course, Trump cannot create alternative facts based on what he perceives as available data. But that's neither here nor there.

I mean by lies, actual lies. And politicians, as ever, know when they intentionally twist truth, or omit facts, as they always do if it is necessary to promote their agenda, and as media types do to promote theirs. "Blatant" lies, twisted or omitted facts, are all lies. And they have been the tactic of politicians, and media, and the vast majority of human beings for that matter, to convince others as to their (phony) veracity.

Your slick, sick, twisted definition of political lying is an excellent demonstration of con artistry.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That may be you esoteric definition of political lying. Which, ironically, seems to claim that before Trump politicians didn't really lie. They just miscalculated. Or disagreed with "alternative facts." Of course, Trump cannot create alternative facts based on what he perceives as available data. But that's neither here nor there.

I mean by lies, actual lies. And politicians, as ever, know when they intentionally twist truth, or omit facts, as they always do if it is necessary to promote their agenda, and as media types do to promote theirs. "Blatant" lies, twisted or omitted facts, are all lies. And they have been the tactic of politicians, and media, and the vast majority of human beings for that matter, to convince others as to their (phony) veracity.

Your slick, sick, twisted definition of political lying is an excellent demonstration of con artistry.

Trump’s lying far surpasses any predecessors on quantity alone.
Far too many of his claims have no factual basis.
Anyone else would be embarrassed to be caught, and not just double down on the BS.

The downfall of General Donnie Bonespurs long con is coming.
I figure he’s going to show up on TV sooner or later in a uniform with epaulets so I’ve given him a new nickname and don’t worry:

The Meme is Coming



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump’s lying far surpasses any predecessors on quantity alone.
Far too many of his claims have no factual basis.
Anyone else would be embarrassed to be caught, and not just double down on the BS.

The downfall of General Donnie Bonespurs long con is coming.
I figure he’s going to show up on TV sooner or later in a uniform with epaulets so I’ve given him a new nickname and don’t worry:

The Meme is Coming

You have not actually made a count of how many lies politicians have made in the past and present. Your claim that Trumps quantity surpasses those of his predecessors is just convenient blather. It is the sort of lie, which has no factual basis, that typical politicians have always resorted to.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You have not actually made a count of how many lies politicians have made in the past and present. Your claim that Trumps quantity surpasses those of his predecessors is just convenient blather. It is the sort of lie, which has no factual basis, that typical politicians have always resorted to.

Here's a couple of counts for roughly the same number of statements, now come up with a new spin for your BS

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

[Sea Dangles]

I am almost giggling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here's a couple of counts for roughly the same number of statements, now come up with a new spin for your BS

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

You said: "Trump’s lying far surpasses any predecessors on quantity alone."

I replied "You have not actually made a count of how many lies politicians have made in the past and present." I should have specified a count of "all" politicians, but that is implied in my reference to your "any" predecessors.

Your little sample of Politifact's check on the truth of a few assertions, out of the massive uncountable number of political statements by predecessor politicians is pathetic. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that the few selected checks of Trump statements, nor the few selected ones of Obama, are a count or even an indication that Trump has far surpassed any predecessor in quantity of lies. You haven't even begun to check the record of all predecessor politicians. Your statement is, indeed, as I said, "the sort of lie, which has no factual basis, that typical politicians have always resorted to."

And what's hilarious, even in this skewed and insignificant number of truths and lies by Trump compared to Obama, Trump scores 29% completely true to Obama's only 20% percent completely true. The rest of the categories from mostly true to pants on fire all are versions in which some untruth exists--that is they're partial lies, which is typical of most slanted political lying and media opinion pieces.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You said: "Trump’s lying far surpasses any predecessors on quantity alone."

I replied "You have not actually made a count of how many lies politicians have made in the past and present." I should have specified a count of "all" politicians, but that is implied in my reference to your "any" predecessors.

Your little sample of Politifact's check on the truth of a few assertions, out the massive uncountable number of political statements by predecessor politicians is pathetic. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that the few selected checks of Trump statements, nor the few selected ones of Obama, are a count or even an indication that Trump has far surpassed any predecessor in quantity of lies. You haven't even begun to check the record of all predecessor politicians. Your statement is, indeed, as I said, "the sort of lie, which has no factual basis, that typical politicians have always resorted to."

And what's hilarious, even in this skewed and insignificant number of truths and lies by Trump compared to Obama, Trump scores 29% completely true to Obama's only 20% percent completely true. The rest of the categories from mostly true to pants on fire all are versions in which some untruth exists--that is they're partial lies, which is typical of most slanted political lying and media opinion pieces.

New spin as I predicted, now look at the false side and not surprisingly it's Obama 150 to Trump 444.
You do understand that they did not factcheck every word spoken by each politician, but only looked at issues someone found questionable.
I'm not interested in spending the rest of my life doing political research to rebut an internet argument, perhaps you are.
And so my opinion still stands as stated
No elected American politician has ever lied as much as Generalissimo Donnie Bonespur the First.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

New spin as I predicted, now look at the false side and not surprisingly it's Obama 150 to Trump 444.

Well that's just statements they've decided warranted checking. I think the WaPo's analysis of all of Trump's public remarks is more telling, what are they up to now like 6 or 7 thousand false or misleading statements? You don't even need to analyze past recent presidents, nobody could manage that volume.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well that's just statements they've decided warranted checking. I think the WaPo's analysis of all of Trump's public remarks is more telling, what are they up to now like 6 or 7 thousand false or misleading statements? You don't even need to analyze past recent presidents, nobody could manage that volume.

Oh, really? 6 or 7 thousand of Trump's remarks warranted checking? Even wdmso hasn't found that many Trump remarks to warrant pointing out . . . and a lot of what he does is pretty trivial.

And the WAPOST? That bastion of objectivity? You know there are other publications and blogs that fact check politicians, and which focus on the leftist side's lies. You might want to expand your field of information and occasionally step outside the anti-Trump arena.

Again, though, your post is just expansive opinion.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh, really? 6 or 7 thousand of Trump's remarks warranted checking? Even wdmso hasn't found that many Trump remarks to warrant pointing out . . . and a lot of what he does is pretty trivial.

And the WAPOST? That bastion of objectivity? You know there are other publications and blogs that fact check politicians, and which focus on the leftist side's lies. You might want to expand your field of information and occasionally step outside the anti-Trump arena.

Again, though, your post is just expansive opinion.

Perhaps you could inform us of the mainstream publications that offer this information
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

New spin as I predicted, now look at the false side and not surprisingly it's Obama 150 to Trump 444.

The false side in the survey was degrees of false. All on the false side were not completely true, but partially false. That makes the trick more believable. It's called slanting in a direction while not actually being totally truthful.

You do understand that they did not factcheck every word spoken by each politician, but only looked at issues someone found questionable.

I completely understand that. Do you? Some issues someone found questionable. Some statements. That Politifact bothered to "check." Uggghh . . . there are an insurmountable number of political statements tinged with or are completely lies that they didn't "fact check." There is no way that your statement "Trump’s lying far surpasses any predecessors on quantity alone" can be verified. And there have been some very prolific liars in the present and past. What you state is not only unverifiable, it is obviously a stretch meant to demonize. It's a discredit to your analysis or opinion of Trump if you have to stoop to this tactic. You don't have to go beyond reason or logic to persuade. If you do, it makes what you say less believable. At least to a logical person. Of course, the choir, when preached to, will lap up each word as gospel truth.


I'm not interested in spending the rest of my life doing political
research to rebut an internet argument, perhaps you are.

Who's asking you to? Some of your page long research results are dull boring repetitious and slanted stuff already. Piling on more would be insufferable to read.

And so my opinion still stands as stated
No elected American politician has ever lied as much as Generalissimo Donnie Bonespur the First.

Maybe you can get Politifact to verify that.