The Myth of The Lying President

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Translation: you cannot lie if you are ignorant of the facts. Wrong. You can be ignorant, a liar, and delusional all at the same time. When was the last time we had this discussion about someone who could start a nuclear war?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I agree with some of what you said, particularly when evaluating any single falsehood in isolation. I was not clear about what I meant in using the word expectations. It's funny how I don't just have cognitive bias of different sorts but actual blind spots you pointed out. My comments could easily be misconstrued, oops. However, I cannot simply deflect and make a plea to other intentions where this is concerned:

Given Trump’s dashing of all presidential expectations, this sort of appeal to tradition simply doesn’t work anymore. Trump can, and does, comment on whatever he wants.

That should be addressed. My argument might trigger an emotional response and "appeal to emotion" never mind tradition. A logical fallacy indeed. I might be clever and attempting to leverage that and so my alphabetical points must therefore stand up to that scrutiny. Words matter, and I have repeatedly used the word "expectation."

So without pulling out a dictionary, in using the term expectation I mean that "lacking any actual evidence to the contrary." [I mean it operates that way right now]

Beyond speculation in comments and the media, I do not see any fundamental change in how the WH is organised and operates relative to prior administrations with two exceptions. First, the media (Twitter) used to communicate is different from a traditional stand point. Having said that, most governments use Twitter to communicate the public. This isn't a "new" thing. Now perhaps Trump uses that in a new way. Second, a case might be made that the shear volume of communications has increased relative to past American and other global leaders.

What else is different then? It otherwise seems an extraordinary claim for you to make. The onus of proof is reversed and needs to demonstrate there is some essential difference in the administration with Mr. Trump in that role. Same positions, departments, legislation process, etc. What is different in a substantive way?

Trump can, and does, comment on whatever he wants.

Is that the difference? I see that as a conflation. Let me try to keep within the terms of service on this site. Were Mr Trump to advocate a violent assault in some way on any specific person that might constitute a criminal offense. Has he done that or something like that? That's debatable. So if you mean he can simply comment on anything, then I suppose that is true in a limited way depending on the context and content of his comment.

Further, the idea that a president should be a valid source of information is a wrong one.

OK maybe. How? Based on the concept of necessary secrecy? All politicians lie? Could you clarify?

The false dichotomy of lying vs grossly incompetent doesn’t factor in numerous other possibilities.

My mistake, you are correct. I presented a false dichotomy when only a detailed list would be valid. The list I observed in this thread (although far from complete,) included:

i) Intentional Lie.
ii) Some degree of incompetence including gross.
iii) The mental illness argument.

Others:
iv) Necessary secrecy.
v) Strategic partisan position.
vi) "Fake" falsities.

Not a very complete list. Your evidence based approach is very important. If intent may be directly related to motive the full scope of motivation should not be ignored. It might be key to establishing proof.

I suggest that the remainder of you response should stand unchallenged but with an important distinction. Your entire argument requires some clearer definition of what you mean by proof. What are the rules of evidence:

a) Enough for criminal conviction?
b) The standard used in civil court?
c) Is eye witness testimony enough? How many witnesses?
d) Does proof require a paper trail?
...

It [is] not that you were unclear about a requirement for proof. For example "d)" would not even apply to many of the falsities but might (conceivably) apply to the crowd size example. We must define our terms and that one needs clarification if this conversation is to proceed in a constructive manner. I fully support your effort and believe that MSM bias could largely [be] removed from the issue using the correct methodology although it would require some effort and resources.

Here is the question of the day for this topic:

If the person does 2 opposite things would that not be a lie?

Point in case on this:

Trump, has denied that climate change is valid, calls it a hoax. This is true and well documented.

However, if you look at the actions that he is directing it may show something else. It appears as the man has applied for a sea wall to protect his golf course. And as part of the reason on the application that was put in, was: To global warming and its effects.

One can not say one thing and then use the same claim the next without actually lying. 2 statements at the opposite extremes. So which is the outright lie?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Nah. He can disagree about the cause. Though I would compare the cost of the upgrade to that of the property.

Isn't profiting from his office much simpler prove? Though on this thread, we must speak to proof of intent.

"The Myth of The Lying Politician"

A vigilant conspiracy-theory guide for todays real life satire

(Pre-order the book now, U2U me for donations)

Nobody lied like Obama...he made every other politician look like mother freakin' theresa...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Fake news, #cult45.

originally posted by: Zoyd23
Nobody lied like Obama...he made every other politician look like mother freakin' theresa...

Haha, I guess that makes Trump the Virgin Mary by default?

We now have someone in the White House who has us arguing about what lying means. Think about it.

You mean Hillary and Obama are visiting the White House comrade?

originally posted by: DJW001
We now have someone in the White House who has us arguing about what lying means. Think about it.

Or a media that has made you forget what lying means.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
One can not say one thing and then use the same claim the next without actually lying. 2 statements at the opposite extremes. So which is the outright lie?

What you are missing here, is that nobody is debating that there is climate change, as such. It's whether it's caused by man.

Let me ask you a question. Religious people of "most" faiths, claim that "God made man in his image". Now, in these "faiths", God is omnipotent and omniscient ... are you? It should have been obvious, to any man, that we are not made in "gods image". Even two thousand years ago. So are all religious people liars? deceitful? or just ignorant?

Why did I ask this question? Because man is just a rabbit ... when rabbits breed themselves to extinction ... you can "claim", they cause their own demise. But you can't claim that the rabbit changed the climate ... it's the "climate" that usually causes rabbits to "increase" in numbers ... and so for man.

We didn't cause it ... we're here because of it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
We now have someone in the White House who has us arguing about what lying means. Think about it.

Or a media that has made you forget what lying means.

Did the media say that Bannon was never an important part of Trump's campaign? Or was that the White House?

a reply to: bjarneorn

I brought up the climate change part, is to show about that the President tends to make misleading statements when it suits him, and that shows intent and that the does indeed lie and is not as truthful as some would point out.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DJW001
We now have someone in the White House who has us arguing about what lying means. Think about it.

Or a media that has made you forget what lying means.

So the media lies, but Trump doesn't.

Uh, ok.