You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HEADLINES: Tuesday, April 10th, 2018 - Alex Jones Invades The Swamp At National Press Club, Rod Rosenstein Approved FBI Raid, Manafort, Trump, Zuckerberg, China's Xi, Cohen, Laura Ingraham, Thomas Bossert, Syria and War Drums, and More
95% of Univision’s ‘Fact Checks’ Target Trump, Republicans
If Trump didn’t tell so many blatant lies, the percentage might be somewhat lower. 😏
"We’ve signed more bills -- and I’m talking about through the legislature -- than any president ever." - Trump
"14 percent of noncitizens are registered to vote." - 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." - Trump
I also wanted to add a detail. I personally believe it is an important detail.
If the person believes what they are saying they are not technically lying. Lying requires knowing one thing to be true and saying something else. It is a very subjective thing. Yet to prove it was a lie there is the "innocent until proven guilty" as none of use are mind readers. You have to show they believe one thing but are saying another that they know is false.
I've seen Trump (and every other human) say things that turn out to be incorrect. The more they speak the odds of encountering this increase. It is incorrect. It is not a lie.
You want to talk about blatant lies take the last 3 or 4 presidents and their speeches and promises, and throw Hillary into the mix. They promise things like throwing bait for fish, and once they are elected they often do completely the opposite.
They have big flowery words and charisma and they are masters of blowing smoke up your ass. Yet they change what they say so often and their actions do not match their words. That is lying. It is the status quo.
I see the quotes. I don't see any proof that they are lies.
You not liking something doesn't make it a lie. Truth and facts don't give a shit about our feelings.
I never said it did.
That’s what fact-checking accomplishes.
For instance, the first lie I noted:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-laws-bills.html
Refutations of his other lies are not hard to find.
You are correct. It is easy to find tons of lies. Not just about him. Russian hacking. (bullshit) Russia, Russia, Russia. Gas attack on the UK with gas by Russians 10x deadlier than VX gas yet no one died. (obvious joke of a lie)
Everytime we're about to back out of Syria... suddenly Assad magically allegedly gas attacks people. When he is winning, and suddenly we have an excuse to be there and to strike. Assad must be secretly suicidal and be sad his death is about to be averted, so he must do something incredibly stupid (not once, but multiple times) to get our guns pointed back at him.
These are the stories that are "not hard to find".
That doesn't make them true.
If everyone on the planet believed a lie, it would still be a lie.
If no one on the planet believed the truth, it would still be the truth.
I'll check them out. I can honestly say that so far I haven't see what qualifies as a lie. I have seen him say incorrect things though. If he believed what he was saying then it wasn't a lie. That doesn't stop it from being incorrect. Lies are intentional in nature.
Also yes they are hard to find. I've looked at a lot of them and they are so far 100% that I have looked at based upon opinion and when looking at what they are calling a lie they are wrong. Is Trump incorrect? Yes. Yet there is no proof he was stating something he didn't believe to be true. Until you do that it is not a lie. Yet, it is popular to hijack words from the left for emotional impact when the hijacked word is not accurate in the context used.
Also talk about lies and link to New York Times? These outlets have become avenues for pushing propaganda which when proven not true already yet still pushed meets the definition of a lie.
If someone says "X is lying, ask this liar they can prove it" then I won't give it as much weight as I might otherwise. I'll still listen. That doesn't mean I'll believe it and if the source I'm being told I should trust as a credible source has already been found to actually LIE themselves then I'd take what they said and try to find some other source to back up what they are saying. Though the source would have to be something other than corporate siblings feeding from the same press trough.
The ability to believe one’s own lies is not a particularly strong defense.
source: https://www.reference.com/world-view/liars-believe-own-lies-25626f1ff7e98724
Oh and by your definition there.
You are a liar.
I am a liar.
We are all liars.
We all believe things that are incorrect, UNTIL we learn otherwise.
So I call this definition of lies BULLSHIT.
Now there are a rare breed (maybe not so rare anymore) that can make up fabrications, and somehow mentally convince themselves they didn't make them up and actually believe them. I've seen no proof of Trump doing this.
It is people like that which the quote you provided might apply to.
Kind of like Al Gore saying "he invented the internet". :)
Or Obama telling people "you didn't make that". :)
Were those lies? Or just incorrect.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that millions of non-citizens voted for Clinton, even after his bogus voter fraud commission disintegrated without finding any evidence to back up his claim.
So either he knows that his claim is false (he’s lying) or he’s convinced himself that it’s true (narcissistic personality disorder).
If they believe it they are not LYING. Therefore it is not a lie.
They are simply incorrect.
As to the quote. That is called an "argument from authority" fallacy.
Words are tools. They have meaning. That meaning can change.
In fact look up the same word in several different dictionaries and the definitions will change a bit.
You see books are written by people. A dictionary is not a bible. It is not a tool to define what the absolute definition of words are. The people that made the dictionaries have no such authority.
It is a tool designed to help people look up words they haven't ever heard of before and try to determine what they mean. That's it. It is not the be all end all of meaning. It is simply the collated works of the human or human(s) that compiled and constructed those particular definitions.
Why is this relevant.
www.reference.com
Same damn thing. It proves nothing. It is simply an "appeal to authority" when I don't recognize any such authority.
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. If someone says “2+2=5” and then passes a lie detector test because he’s convinced himself that 2+2=5, fact-checking notwithstanding, I’d call that lying. Either that, or said person is just plain delusional. Which in’t much of an improvement.
———
But back to the need for fact checking. It is nothing but repeating a myth to say that Al Gore said that he “invented the internet” since nobody’s ever come forward with source material quoting him saying so. What he did say about the net is well documented and quite different.
Too many posts in this thread, getting confused what goes where. Al Gore was in another post.