slug.com slug.com

34 1

Trump's Troubles With the Truth

There are some good reasons not to trust President Trump. His penchant for dishonest rhetoric is just one:

"It was only 200 days ago, on his 601st day in office, that President Trump exceeded 5,000 false or misleading claims.

Now, on his 801st day, the count stands at 9,451, according to The Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement the president utters. That’s a pace of 22 fishy claims a day over the past 200 days, a steep climb from the average of nearly 5.9 false or misleading claims a day in Trump’s first year in office.

Of course, not every day yields 22 claims. The president’s tally expands when he’s giving a speech, usually at a campaign rally. At such events, he runs through many of his favorite lines, such as that he passed the biggest tax cut in history, that his U.S.-Mexico border wall is already being built and that the U.S. economy today is the best in history. All three of those claims are on The Fact Checker’s list of Bottomless Pinocchios [washingtonpost.com] . At a rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., on March 28, for instance, Trump made 64 claims that ended up in the database."

[washingtonpost.com]

Germaine 6 Apr 1
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

34 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

13

How many facts could a fact checker check if a fact checker could check facts?

I guess that’s a hypothetical question?
You’re assuming that “Fact Checkers” actually “Check” anything ...
And ... it seems they either don’t or, they find to be a “Fact” whatever their PAID to find ...

'A' for creativity. And, it's funny. Well played, my friend.

8

I declare myself an IDW Fact Checker and after checking the facts, the Fact Checker is wrong and that is a fact.

@Daryl
I think you proved my point. Citing Ny times, CNN and Washington post as credible sources is just disturbing and blatantly false. All of them are left leaning and facts are the least things theyre concerned with. You probably still believe that there was a Russian collusion? I wouldn't be surprised. What happened to the facts? Im afraid that you've departed from reality. I would too if I watched cnn and read nytimes and Washington post.

8

Hummm ... “Washington Post” as good a source of trash as I’ve ever read ... mostly just to see what Leftist morons might be “trying” to think...
“The Fact Checker” ... unspecified I might note ... “Fact Checkers” typically “Check” “Facts” and find what they want ... whatever suits their agenda

8

And, yet, he's achieved so much: [realclearpolitics.com]

Granted, some of his achievements may not be desirable to some, but that's a different topic.

Even so, I can't imagine anyone being unhappy with a middle class wage raise, defeating ISIS, joblessness among blacks being the lowest ever recorded and for Hispanics the lowest ever, and the US becoming the largest oil producer on the planet.

Personally, I'll take that over "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" any day.

@Daryl My response is largely the same: And yet he's accomplished so much.

The reality is that in today's political climate we are often left with choosing the lesser of two evils. In this instance, Trump was far the lesser evil than Hillary.

By a long ways. I'm not going to rattle off the litany of examples that show this as I'm assuming that you're well read enough to know. If not, than this discussion is moot.

And for you to make the claim that Trump is "alone and unique in how often he lies or misleads" is just plain wrong.

Remember, if you're truly interested in meaningful dialog you have to remain intellectually honest. That claim is simply not intellectually honest.

If, however, you're simply wanting to stand on a soap box and bellow on about Trump's lies, then more power to you. The discussion is pretty much meaningless at that point because you're simply not interested in it.

@Daryl Oy. I can see you are clinging to your soapbox. Best of luck with that.

7

The problem I see with way too many of the “fact checkers” running around is that they confuse opinions with facts. When you use a term like “misleading” you inject your opinion instead of saying whether something is factual or not.

Most people who support President Trump, understand that he blusters and exaggerates tremendously (i.e. best economic growth ever), but they agree with the policies that have led to a much better economy than during President Obama’s eight years.

7

Fact checkers are among the most insidious modern political concoctions. They sound authoritative, but I've found them all to be deeply flawed. For a safe example, they count 'how many people were there' as an evil lie costing trillions of lives. Okay, I'm exaggerating (there are only 7.6 billion people on the planet and no fact checker I've read people are dying as a result of Trump's lies). Guess what? Humans exaggerate. I just did it. Trump does it all of the time without expecting someone to go count and then set some kind of Angoff cut-score to determine when a comment is true, a sarcastic exaggeration, or an actual lie. This garbage is just corrosive partisanship. So, here's my question. How much of an 'exaggeration' is the 6,000 lies ASSERTION? How wrong can that assertion be before it itself is considered a lie? My take is fact-checkers are horrific liars, and I've determined this by watching a number of raw videos with my own eyes to dispel the deception. The media is the enemy of the American people, and there's no better evidence to that statement than the behavior of so-called 'fact-checkers'. GROSS!

@Daryl, ummm, ok. Not sure if that's satire or not, but I pretty strongly disagree. Where do you sit politically, and how accurate will that acknowledgement be? The sources you cite as credible aren't. At all. I mean, you are being funny. Right?

@Daryl, I didn't insult you. I asked you if your comment was satire. Is it not possible for a post to be satirical? Now, I know you're serious, and we disagree. Pretty safe stuff.

How does pragmatic rationalism inform your politics? I can deduce from your comments, but I could be wrong. But, if it's right it would make sense why you think the factcheck stuff is legit and why you'd use a factcheck source to validate a factcheck source. If you read my post, you'll note I reject factcheck sources as being gravely problematic and insufferably biased, because I simply haven't found one that isn't problematic or insufferably biased from my perspective. I find it to be grossly deceptive, but not unlike the deception most mainstream media outlets are currently engaged in. Very ugly stuff, in my view. Disagreement is fair and healthy. Deceiving or attempting to deceive millions of people for personal gain is sick and self-celebratory.

@Daryl, I didn't insult you. I'm actually really good at insulting people, unfortunately--decades of internet flame wars. That question wouldn't even register on the scale of insults. My true motivation was to find out if you were being satirical before I assumed you were being serious. Surely, you can understand why I'd ask.

Your link doesn't answer the question of how you're affiliated politically. I get, as an ideal, you'd like to remain free of the constraints of taking a political position, but I assume you have a political position, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of where that position is in relation to your comments here about factcheckers. In my view, your comments about the Washington Post stand in direct opposition to what you wrote on pragmatic relationalism on your link. And why is that? Well, through my lens it looks like team fanaticism. I'd think from reading your thoughts on pragmatic relationalism you'd share my position with me. Yet, you didn't. I am curious how you reconcile the two, but not enough to start flaming each over it. So, if you've given as much information as you care to--a fair position, we can easily call it a day.

I think the "fact checkers" are all born out of "Fight the Smears", which was really a bastion of integrity.......sarc/

@chuckpo I think the fact that he continues to cite WaPo as a credible source should indicate the cut of his jib.

7

So when he says "a stack of hamburders a mile high" is that considered a single lie or is it a compound of the spelling mistake and a vast overestimation of the altitude of piled bovine sandwiches? So basically 2 lies?

7

The fact check sites have an agenda....do your own homework. You might be surprised at what you can find if you just look.

6

I'll take Trumps word over the MSM any day. He may be a bit of a bafoon but those "Fact Checkers" are completely dishonest. Do a little checking yourself and you'll see that is a fact

@DarylThe problem isn't their sourcing. The problem is their bias. The word fact can be misleading. What I’ve noticed is that they will take a portion of a statement that is essentially correct, and cherry pick a “fact” out of it that when taken in context is little more than a misstatement.
For example: “I love tacos. I eat them almost every Tuesday”
Fact Checker: Of the 52 Tuesdays last year he ate tacos 23 times.
Finding: False
That’s dishonesty and bias at it’s core, even though it may be factually correct. Intent matters

6

Have you fact checked the self-titled "fact checkers"?

I've seen a picture of two conflicting headlines; I want to say from Washington Post (but I'm not certain which major newspaper it was). Paraphrased, the two headlines exclaimed:

  • Trump falsely claimed during the SOTU address that we have a "National Emergency" over illegal immigration
  • What's going on at our southern border is a National Emergency

P.S. - I can't seem to find the image at the moment, wish I had saved it. Can anybody post it?

@Daryl - Moral of the story is: don't trust the "fact checkers" just because they claim to check facts..... especially when they've been caught lying themselves, or distorting truths, words, contexts, and circumstances.

Edit - Trump certainly has told some lies, and he obviously shouldn't do that. That doesn't excuse the Washington Post for lying to the public about Trump .... especially when journalists are supposed to report the truth, not distort the truth to suit their own political leanings.

@Daryl Here again, you are trusting a self-titled "fact checker."

When I searched mediabiasfactcheck, the second link (after the website itself) was:

"Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?"

[justfactsdaily.com]

I haven't even read the whole article, and I wouldn't place much stock in a source just because they have an article title that I want to agree with. The point here is: it's easy in this day and age to find an article that says what you were looking for. That behavior is treading dangerously close to 'confirmation bias' territory. If you want to be intellectually honest, and speak of truth, you're going to have to dig a little deeper in this day and age. That's just the sad truth about the current state of journalism.

Edit - Perhaps I need to be more explicit: as several other responders here have pointed out, lots of those so called 'falsehoods' in your original reference are themselves, in fact, false. I am sure many of them are true; President Trump says dumb stuff. However, the very fact that the WaPo claims to 'fact check' Trump, while eagerly inflating their 'falsehood' count by blatantly lying, just shows how biased and untrustworthy they are. You can't claim to represent 'the truth' while you willingly, repeatedly lie .... and that goes for Trump, too.

5

In spite of all your whining and crying= he is still your President and will be for the next six years lol

Psst... that's going to continue to happen no matter who gets elected to office. You might as well LOL brother.

Rok19, you're being far too dismissive.

Daryl, you're blowing it way out of proportion, saying a "tyranny will rise" as if Sauron's forces are coming forth from Mordor ?

5

Lie--Schiff does not actually have a pencil for a neck.

I saw it on the Internet soooooo.......

Buwhahahahaha.

5

Funny, All that and I still feel he is more trustworthy than Obama ever was. Obama is so two faced he is dangerous. Even now as he is vainly trying to protect his legacy while underhandedly contributing to the vilification of Trump.

It all boils down to intent, purpose and the person's definition of what is America. Is one of Trump's lies that America will never be a socialist country? I think he loves the country, the Constitution and has its "general welfare" as his greatest charge.

Obama wouldn't admit he was a socialist and redistributing wealth seemed his greatest ambition. He wanted to fundamentally transform America which is such a vague proclamation it should have scared the crap out of all Americans. He must have thought America a pretty bad place if he wanted to "fundamentally transform" it.

Had Hillary been elected that would have ended America as it is known. Putin had so much dirt on Hillary, from the Uranium One scandal and her unsecure server that had most probably been hacked by them, and who knows how many other foreign agencies, she would have to take up the fiddle to emulate Nero while America burned..

George W. Bush was not that engaged and if 911 had not happened, followed by the Iraq war, would probably be all but forgotten by now. PNAC and Cheney pretty much ran the show for him, in my view.

@Daryl yah this killer economy, low unemployment, prison reform, trying to secure our boards, etc. etc. etc. is just destroying the country?[magapill.com]

@Daryl I would like to understand that point of view and I have reconciled it to some degree in my own mind.

I'm going to assume you are a liberal and perhaps a progressive leftist. Do you consider yourself so?

You say the tax cut was a "massive redistribution of wealth from bottom to top" . Isn't a redistribution of wealth what the left wants? I don't think you mean it is taking wealth from the bottom, the poorest, since they don't have wealth, and moving it to the top. You can't redistribute nothing, taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Doesn't work. So how come you would find Trump's method of "redistributing wealth" so abhorrent? I don't see it that way at all, by the way.

I suppose if you take Obama for his word and never looked at what he did you could say you trust him. He says nice things, like, everyone should have a fair shake. Some of the wealth needs to be redistributed. Everyone should have access to affordable healthcare. You can keep your Doctor and you can keep your plan, period. We need to create shovel ready jobs. My 8 year term as President was scandal free. Is that your view of him and his Presidency?

Reading your bio I see you are interested in social engineering. That fits in with leftist ideology.
The left likes to try and engineer society. Running a social experiment takes manipulating people's behavior somewhat, wouldn't you say? Behavior modification would be high on your list of positives? Is that what America is about? Isn't it more about rugged individualism rather then having government run or engineer people's lives and their behavior?

I think that is enough questions for now. I've got a few more if you are interested.

@Daryl OK. Got it. Ever been unpragmatically irrational? I had a co-worker at one time who thought benevolent dictator was a worthy objective as well.

5

When the list was about 4500 I read through a good portion of it. It’s a joke. Many of the things listed were no different than what any person running or in political office would say. Hyperbole at most. Many more were born out to be true. More yet are honest disagreements about how to interpret numbers or statistics. Which ultimately means that if there are in fact lies, I don’t care since their claim is so ridiculous as to become less than meaningless.

4

Everyone must be responsible to do there own research and not rely on research of other's ( fact chech snoop's or more) if you want truth.
The wall is being built under funding approved under Obama's time as President ( common knowledge)
And some truth's that these Fact checkers will lie about.
90 thous children did go missing under the Obama administration.
18 children did die under Obama, 2 under Trump in custody.
1450 children are missing to date under Trump.
Human Trafficking is down 300%
Arrest of Ms13 id higher as well as pedophiles in government and ceo high profile people ect.
So my point is fact check yourself don't rely on any other souce for fact's.

3

I am both disgusted and laughing here. "The Fact Checkers" such as Snopes and factcheck.org are leftest tools. Most discerning people know they're extremely biased to the liberal left. As far as an article from WaPo, are you kidding me? Why not toss out some 'facts' from CNN, Huffington Post, or The View while we're at it? LOL

@Daryl you are wrong. What is tearing our country apart are the extremely biased leftist media outlets. The basic lack of logic and reasoning absent from most of their viewers/readers is at the root of it. The public school system has for the past 50 years slowly indoctrinated students to leftist ideals. Those students went on to be college professors, holding to the leftist ideology, furthering the leftist indoctrination. People are constantly conditioned to sneer at morals and react based solely on emotion.

For example, a Black man is shot by police, immediately it becomes a media frenzy instigating people to be outraged. React with emotion so you overlook the facts of the situation. It doesn't matter that the Black man had a gun and was aiming it at police, or that there were other extenuating circumstances. You must be outraged to be a politically correct SJW. That's the narrative, and if you don't follow along with anything the left tells you, your life may be ruined.

So we have emotional people taking in the mainstream media narrative, and to make themselves feel smarter, they go to liberal/leftist fact checking sites to comfort them in their beliefs.

I don't use fact checking sites, I do my own research of the facts. Most everything involving the government is available online through government websites, for example. I avoid mainstream media outlets. I rarely let emotions factor into my decision making.

Ironically, it took my living in extremely liberal Canada to open my eyes to how biased the mainstream media is in the States.

Btw, our country is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a democracy. Of course, if public schools still taught the basics of government, most people would know this.

Educate yourself is the best advice I've ever received. That came from my father who only had an 8th grade education, but was THE smartest man I've ever known.

@Daryl - actually conservatives check facts much more than the left does. And the left are authoritarian today- i.e. they are violently shutting down free speech events at colleges.
Perhaps you could cite some specific examples of how the conservative right is tearing the country apart?

@Daryl thank you for proving my point. Please turn off CNN, you really sound like an emotional parrot. The world is ending in 12 years anyway. <wink wink><nudge nudge> LOL

@Daryl infowars? That's what you come up with? Let me spell it out for you...it used to be that reporters did fact checking, research, dotting I's and crossing T's, before running a story. Now it's rare to find news sources that do their due diligence. You've already been told that I, as a conservative, do my own fact checking. I don't need some entity telling me their version of the 'facts,' especially if they don't list verifiable resources for their 'facts.' I refuse to be manipulated into believing the garbage that passes as news today.

I'd be willing to bet you're not aware of a lot going on in the world. Not dissing you, but I can tell by the way you repeat liberal talking points, that you get your information solely from mainstream media. For example, are you aware that Christians are being slaughtered in Nigeria by Muslims? Hundreds in just the past 2 weeks simply for being Christian. Fox News was THE only mainstream media outlet that reported it. I don't even watch Fox, but I know they reported it.

Now ask yourself why this slaughter isn't all over every news outlet? Think about it and get back to me.

@Daryl agree mate. Wish we could borrow Trump for Australia ??

@Daryl it's almost like talking to a wall. I don't follow only conservative media outlets, and that IS my point. The reason you don't see what's really going on in the world is because it doesn't fit the left's narrative. "Islam is a peaceful religion." "There is no crisis at the border." "All is well in Europe." etc, etc, etc. FYI, Reuters isn't even a reliable source. Try talking to people around the world, investigate their experiences.

@Daryl and your point is what exactly? Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize. Does that give legitimacy to the NPP committee? I'm still trying to figure out how on Earth he was given this award. His presidency was anything but peaceful. Btw, least biased doesn't mean no bias. Checking multiple sources is the only way to get actual facts. Even then it's difficult. As I said, talk to people from around the world. I often do among my international friends.

3

Blows my mind that you could actually waste you time checking all his comments and counting the ones you consider false ....unreal

3

Whew, Darryl's objectivity should certainly come under scrutiny as he clearly has a bias, so how can a self proclaimed fact checker deliver truthful and unbiased evaluations? Using a biased media source to back up another is not definitive but circular. Darryl, unless you are prepared to put boots on the ground and actually fact check stories yourself, then provide irrefutable proof then you're operating in a fools paradise. Queue the derrangement response.

@Daryl I choose to judge politicians by their actions and not by their words. Requires no fact checking.

3

Can you back any of what you say about Trump's lying?

I keep hearing the constant background droning of how untruthful, racist and just plain evil Trump is

And quoting Washington Post? That's your source.? Second only to CNN on the stretching the truth to the limit and beyond scale

My pet peeve against name calling extends to others.

And before you go all hissy fit on me, you stated he lied 9,451 times (by the WaPo count)

Source:

Come out all bold and noisy, expect a bold salvo back

3

Trump is from New York, the land of superlatives. It's all he knows. Is his inauguration crowd size a bigger whopper than "You can keep your doctor" or "I turned over all work-related emails"? I think not. I judge him on what he does, not what he says. If we are going to wait for an honest politician, I'm too old to see the finish......

@Daryl , how did he do all that he has done in spite of no help? Accident?

@Daryl let me give you an example. I needed knee surgery for a torn meniscus. The surgeon I had by all accounts was kind of a dick to talk to, zero beside manner. He said at my age I may not get all my range back. Well I can tell you, I'm back on the volleyball court because of this man's artistry. Do I really care that we're not drinking buddies or he has a stand offish personality? Hell no. Quit belly aching about Trump and move on. It's mind blowing that the Democrats are spending every waking moment to try and find the slightest thing to take him down, rather than get on with the business of government. This shit show should be an example throughout history as to why we hate career politicians, they spew lovely words, then stab you in the back with a smile on their face. Your economy is booming, industry is flocking back, you should be happy about this. Here in Canada we're slipping ever closer to socialism.

@Daryl there is a great deal more evidence to suggest that Hillary and Obama were up to no good. Benghazi, uranium one, Steele dossier, oh and how about death from the skies Obama with his ramped up drone strikes? Open your eyes man!

@Daryl we'll revisit the "debunked" aspect of the Steele dossier and uranium one after the declassification and all that FISA abuse sees the light of day. Care to wager?

@Daryl deal.

2

Did you know that 3% of all Planned Parenthood health services are for abortion services? That is according to Planned Parenthood and their web site. Essentially what I am saying is don't believe everything you read especially when the source is the Washington Post.

2

You have to realize that those opposed to President Trump have a derrangement syndrome that does not allow them to listen to Trump and hear what he is saying. It all goes over their head. They hear the opposite and say something like: that is a lie, or, that’s raaaacist! This form of thought is called identity politics. It worked on RINO politicians who would previously cow tow to the cray cray, apologize and become subservient lapdogs. Remember Romney who misspoke about the binders full of applications by women? You think trump would have apologized for that? Too many politicians are beta cucks. Sometimes an alpha male rubs weak people wrong. The best thing is for them to retreat to their safe space and rock back and forth saying: “he’s not my president” over and over again.

@Daryl Are you an American Citizen?

Yes - Then President Trump is your President!

No - Then President Trump is not your President.

@Daryl Evidently, so do many people. It is unfortunate that so many Americans reject a duly elected President and therefore the Constitution of the United States. However, whether you like it or not, he is YOUR President!

You have stated that you practice "Pragmatic Rationalism." Yet you refuse to accept the fact that Donald John Trump is your President. That doesn't sound Pragmatic OR Rational!

@Daryl Clapper is in a whole Lotta trouble for lying about the Russia Hoax. He's not a good sources ?

@Daryl Your rejection is irrelevant. And in fact, you seem about as logical as Stacey Abrams, considering her refusal to concede her defeat in that Georgia Gubernatorial Election. The fact is, there have been other elections where the winner lost the popular vote. That is the way the Founding Father's wrote the Constitution. They didn't want large population centers to determine a Presidential election. When the Constitution was written the largest two population centers were Boston and New York City. They did not want those cities to determine policy for the rest of the Country. That same principle holds true today, in that, considering 30 states voted for President Trump as oppose to 20 for Hillary Clinton. Also, according to Time, Donald Trump won 2,649 counties to 503 that Hillary Clinton.

As to James Clapper, he is a strident and vocal anti-Trump person, who, I have no doubt would have done almost anything to prevent Donald Trump from being elected. So, I have one question: IF, and I repeat, IF, the Russians were able to change the election outcome, and I don't think they did, and neither does former President Obama, how did they do it? Further, how did this happen during the Obama administration?

2

I may come off as very Rude, but that is who i am sometimes os a given subject or topic.
Right now as the candidate's unfold for who is running for PRESIDENT IN 2020. i have been reseaching each one as far bach as i can go. I look at what I'M TOLD about their past and pick it apart into many different SCENARIO'S of how it could have been meant different, happened different, how the policies they passed and did nor effected people.ect.
We need to be honest with ourselves in the fact that we are lied to daily and have been for decades. And if you don't look for answer's and what your candidate truly stands for your rallying one the mind's of some others to tell you. ( is this freedom) by limiting you souces to say left or right only, or pro abortion or pro life only your not alowing yourself the freedom of the best choice in and choice you make.
I don't listen to polital speeches at the time given because i wait till the opinions come out them i i listen to what they said form a open opinion compared to the history of the person that i reseached and my or my not from a final opinion. We are kept in a constant state of gotta do do do that we are distraction on purpose with real real real.
My opinion of President Trump he does have a very high IQ i have reseached this. He is very good at connecting with people. He loves the country and all we stand for. He gets deliberate bad information from the NRA and other's ( he's figer this out as he goes) His lies are small and Calculated for a purpose. (Do i like this way of business no but is it working and has it for him his whole life yes) do i disagree with some of his policies yes but has he done more then the last 3 silent President's ask yourself after you reseach. I do not see the President as a or god as many say. I support his policies as many do. And you should support your candidates policies and not the person because of race gender ethic's ect.

2

And other presidents have been squeaky clean???? There are no saints without sinners and therefore if you think you can do a better job get elected

I'm 100% with you, you only have to look at our elected government in the uk, an untrained monkey could do better. No one has a clean record, even our queen has done some whoppers.

2

Ha ha, and who supposedly tracked all these lies? The master liars and spinners, the press?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:26601
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.