paying attention to debates but ignoring Trump

[scottw]

you two are confusing each other

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Pretty scary to have a pathological liar as President.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet another of your Trump-like lies. Maybe you're pathological.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

They aren't lies,

That's correct.

Detbuch hit it on the head, it's due to total ignorance, he's just to damn dumb to know better.

Not total, by any stretch. He is ignorant of some things. Everybody is. Like you.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

you two are confusing each other

They're usually in lockstep. One of them must have made a mistake. like Trump sometimes does. Wonder how many thousands of lies were told by Hillary or Bill or Biden, if someone cared to research and use the same standard of what a lie is which is applied to Trump.

By that standard, every campaign speech, every metaphorical poem, just about any political statement by a Progressive, would be full of lies. Thousands and thousands, actually millions if not billions of "lies" told by politicians in our history.

[Pete F.]

A little research though not what some want.
I would assume some Trump supporter is making a comparable list of other politicians lies, it would be interesting to see.


By BELLA DEPAULO
| SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON POST |
DEC 08, 2017 | 2:35 PM

I study liars. I've never seen one like Donald Trump.

I spent the first two decades of my career as a social scientist studying liars and their lies. I thought I had developed a sense of what to expect from them. Then along came President Donald Trump. His lies are both more frequent and more malicious than ordinary people's.

In research beginning in the mid-1990s, when I was a professor at the University of Virginia, my colleagues and I asked 77 college students and 70 people from the nearby community to keep diaries of all the lies they told every day for a week. They handed them in to us with no names attached. We calculated participants' rates of lying and categorized each lie as either self-serving (told to advantage the liar or protect the liar from embarrassment, blame or other undesired outcomes) or kind (told to advantage, flatter or protect someone else).

At The Washington Post, the Fact Checker feature has been tracking every false and misleading claim and flip-flop made by Trump this year. The inclusion of misleading statements and flip-flops is consistent with the definition of lying my colleagues and I gave to our participants: "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.

I categorized the most recent 400 lies that The Post had documented through mid-November in the same way my colleagues and I had categorized the lies of the participants in our study.

The college students in our research told an average of two lies a day, and the community members told one. (A more recent study of the lies 1,000 U. S. adults told in the previous 24 hours found that people told an average of 1.65 lies per day; the authors noted that 60 percent of the participants said they told no lies at all, while the top 5 percent of liars told nearly half of all the falsehoods in the study.) The most prolific liar among the students told an average of 6.6 lies a day. The biggest liar in the community sample told 4.3 lies in an average day.

In Trump's first 298 days in office, however, he made 1,628 false or misleading claims or flip-flops, by The Post's tally. That's about six per day, far higher than the average rate in our studies. And of course, reporters have access to only a subset of Trump's false statements — the ones he makes publicly — so unless he never stretches the truth in private, his actual rate of lying is almost certainly higher.

That rate has been accelerating. Starting in early October, The Post's tracking showed that Trump told a remarkable nine lies a day, outpacing even the biggest liars in our research.

But the flood of deceit isn't the most surprising finding about Trump.

Both the college students and the community members in our study served their own interests with their lies more often than other people's interests. They told lies to try to advantage themselves in the workplace, the marketplace, their personal relationships and just about every other domain of everyday life. For example, a salesperson told a customer that the jeans she was trying on were not too tight, so she could make the sale. The participants also lied to protect themselves psychologically: One college student told a classmate that he wasn't worried about his grades, so the classmate wouldn't think he was stupid.

Less often, the participants lied in kind ways, to help other people get what they wanted, look or feel better, or to spare them from embarrassment or blame. For example, a son told his mother he didn't mind taking her shopping, and a woman took sides with a friend who was divorcing, even though she thought her friend was at fault, too.

About half the lies the participants told were self-serving (46 percent for the college students, 57 percent for the community members), compared with about a quarter that were kind (26 percent for the students, 24 percent for the community members). Other lies did not fit either category; they included, for instance, lies told to entertain or to keep conversations running smoothly.

One category of lies was so small that when we reported the results, we just tucked them into a footnote. Those were cruel lies, told to hurt or disparage others. For example, one person told a co-worker that the boss wanted to see him when he really didn't, "so he'd look like a fool." Just 0.8 percent of the lies told by the college students and 2.4 percent of the lies told by the community members were mean-spirited.

My colleagues and I found it easy to code each of our participants' lies into just one category. This was not the case for Trump. Close to a quarter of his false statements (24 percent) served several purposes simultaneously.

Nearly two-thirds of Trump's lies (65 percent) were self-serving. Examples included: "They're big tax cuts — the biggest cuts in the history of our country, actually" and, about the people who came to see him on a presidential visit to Vietnam last month: "They were really lined up in the streets by the tens of thousands."

Slightly less than 10 percent of Trump's lies were kind ones, told to advantage, flatter or protect someone else. An example was his statement on Twitter that "it is a 'miracle' how fast the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police were able to find the demented shooter and stop him from even more killing!" In the broadest sense, it is possible to interpret every lie as ultimately self-serving, but I tried to stick to how statements appeared on the surface.

Trump told 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind ones. That's a much higher ratio than we found for our study participants, who told about double the number of self-centered lies compared with kind ones.

The most stunning way Trump's lies differed from our participants', though, was in their cruelty. An astonishing 50 percent of Trump's lies were hurtful or disparaging. For example, he proclaimed that John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey, all career intelligence or law enforcement officials, were "political hacks." He said that "the Sloppy Michael Moore Show on Broadway was a TOTAL BOMB and was forced to close." He insisted that other "countries, they don't put their finest in the lottery system. They put people probably in many cases that they don't want." And he claimed that "Ralph Northam, who is running for Governor of Virginia, is fighting for the violent MS-13 killer gangs & sanctuary cities."

The Trump lies that could not be coded into just one category were typically told both to belittle others and enhance himself. For example: "Senator Bob Corker 'begged' me to endorse him for reelection in Tennessee. I said 'NO' and he dropped out (said he could not win without my endorsement)."

The sheer frequency of Trump's lies appears to be having an effect, and it may not be the one he is going for. A Politico/Morning Consult poll from late October showed that only 35 percent of voters believed that Trump was honest, while 51 percent said he was not honest. (The others said they didn't know or had no opinion.) Results of a Quinnipiac University poll from November were similar: Thirty-seven percent of voters thought Trump was honest, compared with 58 percent who thought he was not.

For fewer than 40 percent of American voters to see the president as honest is truly remarkable. Most humans, most of the time, believe other people. That's our default setting. Usually, we need a reason to disbelieve.

Research on the detection of deception consistently documents this "truth bias." In the typical study, participants observe people making statements and are asked to indicate, each time, whether they think the person is lying or telling the truth. Measuring whether people believe others should be difficult to do accurately, because simply asking the question disrupts the tendency to assume that other people are telling the truth. It gives participants a reason to wonder. And yet, in our statistical summary of more than 200 studies, Charles F. Bond Jr. and I found that participants still believed other people more often than they should have — 58 percent of the time in studies in which only half of the statements were truthful. People are biased toward believing others, even in studies in which they are told explicitly that only half of the statements they will be judging are truths.

By telling so many lies, and so many that are mean-spirited, Trump is violating some of the most fundamental norms of human social interaction and human decency. Many of the rest of us, in turn, have abandoned a norm of our own — we no longer give Trump the benefit of the doubt that we usually give so readily.

[Sea Dangles]

Clearly the best president of our lifetime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A little research though not what some want.
I would assume some Trump supporter is making a comparable list of other politicians lies, it would be interesting to see.

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.

[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.

[Sea Dangles]

🎯
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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?

[Sea Dangles]

Some would treat it like the Bible and interpret as they choose to,enjoy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

Just like Trump, you can't help yourself. Again, as just about every time you post about Trump, you do what he does, this time you falsely imply that I don't listen to politicians speak. I didn't say that I didn't listen to them speak. I said that "I value actual political philosophy and practice more than political speechmaking--most of which is self-serving". That is, the principles upon which, for instance, Progressivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism are established and how they are actually practiced are more valuable to me for making choices than the self-serving political speechifying meant to look good and get votes and money while making the opposition look bad.

I do listen to the speechifying (which is mostly lies, especially when held to the standard of Trump "lies"), but it's value to me is miniscule compared to what the true aim and practice of the party is.

So, again, you create a Trump-like "lie," a false narrative, or an error, or a mistake, and only you can know if you intended it. Like Trump, you probably didn't.

When you accuse Trump of "lying," you might want to check the internal mirror first.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Just like Trump, you can't help yourself. Again, as just about every time you post about Trump, you do what he does, this time you falsely imply that I don't listen to politicians speak. I didn't say that I didn't listen to them speak. I said that "I value actual political philosophy and practice more than political speechmaking--most of which is self-serving". That is, the principles upon which, for instance, Progressivism, Libertarianism, Conservatism are established and how they are actually practiced are more valuable to me for making choices than the self-serving political speechifying meant to look good and get votes and money while making the opposition look bad.

I do listen to the speechifying (which is mostly lies, especially when held to the standard of Trump "lies"), but it's value to me is miniscule compared to what the true aim and practice of the party is.

So, again, you create a Trump-like "lie," a false narrative, or an error, or a mistake, and only you can know if you intended it. Like Trump, you probably didn't.

When you accuse Trump of "lying," you might want to check the internal mirror first.

Perhaps my question was not clear enough, it certainly inspired you to go on another bout of pontification
I’ll phrase it in a simple manner
Prior to trump’s election how did you determine he was a viable candidate since he had zero political history to demonstrate his actual political philosophy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps my question was not clear enough, it certainly inspired you to go on another bout of pontification
I’ll phrase it in a simple manner

A la Trump, you have to clarify what you meant by your inartful (actually incorrect) implication of what I said. And then, like Trump and most other politicians, you put a negative spin, pontification, on my pointing out how you were wrong but, like Trump, not intentionally--how, you told a Trump-like "lie.

Prior to trump’s election how did you determine he was a viable candidate since he had zero political history to demonstrate his actual political philosophy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this a Trump-like, sloppy use of diction? What do you mean by political history? You mean actually being an elected politician? And that only previously elected politicians can be viable candidates? The Constitution does not say that. Trump was absolutely constitutionally viable as a candidate.

And we all have political histories if we vote or discuss politics or contribute to political campaigns. All the candidates, including the ones I disagree with, were "viable." Perhaps, rather than a legal, constitutional view of viability, you prefer the Progressive view of rule by "experts," expertise being defined by Progressives? That is, in my opinion, an elitist, totalitarian view, but you may think it is a perfectly viable one.

For that matter, Trump had actual executive experience that was more so than most of the other candidates. And he had shown the ability to succeed, even to rise from and correct failure and error. And he was, as demonstrated in the debates, tenacious, fearless, insightful, and, for all your notion of what he didn't have, he did not have the anti-American political baggage of the Progressives. Of course, by "anti-American," I mean something that is probably different than what you would mean, but your question was how did I determine he was viable, not how you did you determine that he wasn't. If that is what you determined.

[Pete F.]

Trump’s political history as shown in his tv appearances, tweets, draft dodging, party switching, concealment of any school grades from grade school thru college, tax returns, non disclosure agreements and his use of alias to inflate his public persona lead me to believe he is not quite what he claims to be. I certainly do not see him as fearless and insightful, but as paranoid and narrow minded.
After failing as a real estate developer, he now runs a business that is largely compromised of selling his brand. He was very successful at that, largely because of his affiliation with The Apprentice. He has had several books ghost written for him, each time he has gotten lots of press by getting sort of involved in politics. He ran for President once before and has apparently since forgotten about that since he non-lies and claims he didn’t.
The source of his wealth after his failure as a developer is sketchy at best, Russian at worst. His sons have both said they get all the funding they need from Russia.
I will give him credit for running the greatest con of all time. I’m not willing to concede to him this country.
Happy 4th
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I will give him credit for running the greatest con of all time.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

silver lining

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump’s political history as shown in his tv appearances, tweets, draft dodging, party switching, concealment of any school grades from grade school thru college, tax returns, non disclosure agreements and his use of alias to inflate his public persona lead me to believe he is not quite what he claims to be. I certainly do not see him as fearless and insightful, but as paranoid and narrow minded.
After failing as a real estate developer, he now runs a business that is largely compromised of selling his brand. He was very successful at that, largely because of his affiliation with The Apprentice. He has had several books ghost written for him, each time he has gotten lots of press by getting sort of involved in politics. He ran for President once before and has apparently since forgotten about that since he non-lies and claims he didn’t.
The source of his wealth after his failure as a developer is sketchy at best, Russian at worst. His sons have both said they get all the funding they need from Russia.
I will give him credit for running the greatest con of all time. I’m not willing to concede to him this country.
Happy 4th
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So now you go from "zero political history" to your canned version of anti-Trump talking points as his political history. So did you lie the first time or this time. Or was this just a Trumpian shift.

Thanks, I guess, for giving us your version. Personally, I didn't ask for it. I expected it to be pretty much along the lines of what you say here. Half truths, innuendo, irrelevance, and really nasty personal opinion. You actually outdo Trump when you gear yourself up to it.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by scottw

silver lining

More YouTube for PeteF.!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device