A tangled web, a poisoned well ...

|| Collusion | |

Declassified Documents Show FBI Used ‘Defensive’ Briefing In 2016 To Spy On Donald Trump | The new documents detail the FBI's attempts to use a briefing ostensibly meant to warn the Trump campaign about foreign intelligence threats to spy on the Trump campaign itself. (The Federalist, Washington, D.C.) | by Sean Davis | 23 July, 2020

_________________

Blunder (chess)


(Credit: Alan Light (cc., 2013) Wikipedia)

(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

"In chess, a blunder is a very bad move. It is usually caused by some tactical oversight, whether from time trouble, overconfidence or carelessness. While a blunder may seem like a stroke of luck for the opposing player, some chess players give their opponent plenty of opportunities to blunder.

"What qualifies as a 'blunder' rather than a normal mistake is somewhat subjective. A weak move from a novice player might be explained by the player's lack of skill, while the same move from a master might be called a blunder. In chess annotation, blunders are typically marked with a double question mark, '??', after the move.

"Especially among amateur and novice players, blunders often occur because of a faulty thought process where they do not consider the opponent's forcing moves. In particular, checks, captures, and threats need to be considered at each move. Neglecting these possibilities leaves a player vulnerable to simple tactical errors." ...

The article referenced above, by The Federalist's Sean Davis, is just one of numerous recent articles recount this story of crime and cover-up, a story coming into ever-sharper focus as official restrictions on the release of information fall away.

And the introductory use of the chess-term "blunder", which I finally settled on, I chose only after first considering others:

"Blowback," "Own goal," "tragic flaw (or, "hamartia," from the Greek ἁμαρτία)" and "gross incompetence," for which term Wikipedia offers some interesting related examples but no page dedicated to the concept itself.

Of them all, "Blow-back" and, especially, "hamartia" have the closest relation to the idea associated with "blunder" as used here with reference to the issues treated in the referenced Federalist article by Davis.

Essentially, the events set in motion by the conspiracy to ruin and eliminate Donald Trump as an elected official and a factor in U.S. politics are going to remain and further fester, poison and corrupt the nation's body politic.

No matter the outcome of November's 2020 presidential election, the winner, if Trump, is going to remain the object of his critics' efforts to undermine his administration, and, if Biden, is going to replace Trump as the object of a similar lasting contempt and, that, exceedingly deservedly so, for Biden has had a personal part in the vicious reaction to Trump's 2016 electoral-college victory over Hillary Clinton.

We now have, and, by all indications, we are going to have to live with for years to come, a truly ruinous disaster of a political order; one which is the direct and predictable product of a stupendous example of the what, in classic Greek tragedy was known as a tragic flaw. This one is the Democrats' tragic flaw, their nearly incalculable blunder in refusing to accept the voters' decision at the ballot box under terms which, had their party won the presidency, they'd have taken and expected their Republican party opponents to accept and respect with goodwill.

But, finding themselves on the losing side of the equation, they had and they showed nothing of the kind.

Now, if Biden should somehow happen to win, he'll have absolutely no right to expect anything other from his opponents than the kind of scorched-earth practices which Trump's opponents, with Biden's complicity, have shown since even before Trump took office. Even that depends on Biden's ability to muster the physical and mental strength to carry out the demanding duties of the office for more than a just several months. That capacity is in very serious doubt by all who allow themselves to face facts honestly. Those least able or willing to do that have the nerve to harp upon wholly unfounded allegations of Trump's mental unfitness for office. That, on their part, is merely one more, and hardly the least example, of the vicious aspects of this same legacy of poisoned-politics.

This inestimable hell of a mess is the poisoned "gift" of the embittered losers of the 2016 presidential race, a race they entered and ran from before the very start by and with bad-faith and unhinged underhanded conspiratorial efforts to beat Trump.

It was bound to fall apart eventually even if it had resulted in Clinton's election, but it didn't even achieve that goal. It failed and fell apart.

Now, its poison is with us everywhere and it's going to remain with us for longer than anyone can know at this point.

The extent of this blunder is beyond what any of us can measure.

__________________

It all goes back to this bunch of amazingly stupid dumb-fucks:

(from Real Clear Investigations) | Meet the Steele Dossier's 'Primary Sub-source': Fabulist Russian at Democrat Think Tank Whose Boozy Past the FBI Ignored | By Paul Sperry | July 24, 2020

(ages shown are as of 2009)

Main cast:

● Igor “Iggy” Danchenko, 42, a Russian national. (Primary source)

● Christopher Steele, 45, "co-founded Orbis Business Intelligence, a London-based private intelligence firm." (Wikipedia/Christoper Steele)

● Fiona Hill, 44, British-American, "former official at the U.S. National Security Council specializing in Russian and European affairs." (Wikipedia/Fiona Hill). Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, advisor to President Barack Obama.

● Nelson Strobridge "Strobe" Talbott III, 63, sixth president of the Brookings Institution (Wikipedia/Strobe Talbott)

● James Comey, 49, 7th director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (Wikipedia/James Comey)


● Hillary Clinton, 62, 2016 Democratic Party presidential candidate, former U.S. Secretary of State, former U.S. Senator, (D.-N.Y.) (Wikipedia/Hillary Clinton)


● Barack Obama, 48, former U.S. President
(Wikipedia/ Barack Obama)

● Peter Paul Strzok II, 39, Deputy Assistant Director (one of several) of the Counterintelligence Division,"assigned to lead the Russia investigation in late July 2016" (Wikipedia/OIG, D.o.J. report (2019)) (Peter Strzok/Wikipedia)

● Lisa Page, 29, former F.B.I. agent
(everipedia.org/Lisa Page)

● Robert Mueller, 65, "appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as special counsel overseeing an investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election"
(Wikipedia/Robert Mueller)


● Eric Holder, 58, former U.S. Attorney-General, Obama administration
(Wikipedia/Eric Holder)


● Sally Caroline Yates, 49, Deputy U.S. Deputy Attorney-General (Obama administration), Acting-U.S. Attorney-General (10 days of the Trump administration),
(Wikipedia/Sally Yates)


● Loretta E. Lynch, 50, U.S. Attorney-General, Obama administration
(Wikipedia/Loretta Lynch)

Supporting actors, Extras-players, ad-libbers, cheer-leaders, accessories-after-the-fact:

● Nancy Pelosi, 69, U.S. House of Representatives, Speaker, (D.-Calif. 12th)
(Wikipedia/Nancy Pelosi)


● Charles Ellis "Chuck" Schumer, 59, U.S. Senator, (D.-N.Y.) (Wikipedia/Chuck Schumer)

● Jerrold Lewis Nadler, 62, U.S. Congressman (D.-N.Y. 10th), House Judiciary Committtee, Trump impeachment managing staff.
(Wikipedia/Jerrold Lewis Nadler)


● Adam Schiff, 49, (D.-Calif. 28th) Chairman, House Intelligence Committtee, Chairman, Trump impeachment managing staff.
(Wikipedia/Adam Schiff)

● The New York Times, editors, reporters.


● The Washington Post, editors and reporters.

● CNN (Cable News Network) editors and reporters.


● MS-NBC, editors and reporters.

● John Podesta, 60, advisor, 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, "American political consultant who served as White House Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001 and Counselor to President Barack Obama from 2014 to 2015" ...
(Wikipedia/John Podesta)


● Huma Abedin, 33, 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, Vice-chair.
(Wikipedia/Huma Abedin)

● Robert E. "Robby" Mook, 30, American political strategist, 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign manager,
(Wikipedia/Robby Mook)


● Joel Benenson, 57, Chief strategist, 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, (Wikipedia/Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign)

● Jennifer Palmieri, 43, 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, U.S. State Department spokesperson, Obama administration, communications director, Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign
(Wikipedia/Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign)

● Chuck Todd, 37, political director, NBC News, moderator, Meet the Press (NBC News)

"The extent of this blunder is beyond what any of us can measure", your sure of that? I read a couple of books on J. Edgar Hoover and lived through part of his reign and as I remember it the first meetings between Hoover and a new president were usually discussions of the "dirt" files the FBI had on prominent personages including the incoming president on occasions. I think the FBI has been, forcibly, pointed in a different direction but there are no doubt vestiges of some sort that probably exist.

>1 proximity1: if Biden should somehow happen to win, he'll have absolutely no right to expect anything other from his opponents than the kind of scorched-earth practices they've shown since Trump took office

Not just since Trump took office - "Biden's opponents" (ie, the Republican party and assorted fanatics, losers, and hangers-on) have done everything they could to bring down the last two Democratic (and democratically elected) presidents. Why would they stop now? Do you think that Republicans suddenly will learn to love America on November 4th?

It's not exactly news, right? They know they have no argument that real Americans will buy, so they resort to lies and smears - and some people are stupid enough to believe them.

"THE SIMPSONS" send-up of idiotic 1970s & 1980s "Era" (LOL!) Left-Coast dumb-ass literary-theory-driven grunge-music & touchy-feely jargon-filled pseudo-intellectual crap.

This is for all those too young to remember it and wondering, "Where (TF) Did It All Go So Very Wrong!?"

This is the stuff which the second-generation laugh-balls pine for, or, excuse me, the stuff for which they have Derrida-dian deconstructed dreams.

Homer has a grunge band, "Sadgasm"," oh, yeah, the boy can play, dedication, devotion, turning the night-time into the day"...

... "At Springfield University, Marge is impressed with her surroundings and with her radical feminist revisionist history professor Stefane August, despite Homer's disapproval.

"Marge quickly admires August, and both form a mutual attraction. August begins manipulating Marge by telling her Homer is a simple 'townie' who would not appreciate her intellect. ...

... "When running onto the beach, August shocks Marge by revealing that he considers marriage oppressive and misogynistic, angering Marge as she desires to get married someday. Marge breaks up with August, breaking his heart. A miserable Marge is surprised to see Homer made a song dedicated to her, called 'Margerine' (based on 'Glycerine' by Bush), about their relationship." ...

"That 90s show" (The Simpsons, season 19, episode 11) Wikipedia has a page for this.

... Robert Canning of IGN strongly disliked the episode, also feeling that the continuity change was not a good choice. He said, 'What 'That '90s Show' did was neither cool nor interesting. Instead, it insulted lifelong Simpsons fans everywhere. With this episode, the writers chose to change the history of the Simpson family.'" ...

Maybe for some people (who've forgotten where they put their sense of humor) this was neither 'cool' nor 'interesting'. Never mind. It's fucking hilarious.

As Homer says,



And "Youtube" has a video excerpt.

Smells like teen spi

________________

Nurse! Nurse! He's out of bed again!

Scorched earth? Really?

Looks to me for one thing that not only is Trump going to lose but the Democrats are going to easily carry both houses.

But anyway......anyone who attains the office of the Presidency can expect to be attacked relentlessly by the other side and even sometimes by those who are nominally anyway on your side. It's funny that Trump still hasn't figured this out as throughout the Obama presidency he repeated over and over ad nauseum the birther libel about Obama's origins. Trump then came into office attacking the mainstream media as fake news and yet he also continually whines that the mainstream media isn't being fair to him. What does he really expect?

Further in 2010 the Republicans gained control of the Senate in the mid-terms and the first thing that Mitch McConnell announced was that it was scorched earth for the Obama administration and that's pretty much what happened even to the point of holding up a Supreme Court Justice vacancy for well over a year of a republican/corporate friendly Merrick Garland. Which is to say Garland was persona non grata pretty much for the simple reason that the Obama administration picked him.

Now from my own point of view the Obama administration was a profound disappointment and if anything a Biden administration promises to be even worse. Saying that nothing in my lifetime even begins to compare to how awful--how catastrophic the Trump administration has been--not Nixon, Reagan or Bush II even.

>6 lriley: Looks to me for one thing that not only is Trump going to lose but the Democrats are going to easily carry both houses.

Whoooooooaaaa. I don’t know what you’re on, but whatever it is, it’s pure voodoo. Probably cooked up in an off-the-books lab somewhere in Eurasia by Russian mafia using biotech hacked from the R&D division at DuPont.

Who’s your supplier? You gotta hook me up with your supplier.

> 7

So, according to your crystal ball, Ouija board, tea leaf reading by Madame B., and/or your never-wrong personal astrologer, this is just fake news:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

- and this is just democratic national committee propaganda:

https://electoral-vote.com/

Well, maybe, possibly, you could be right. The day might come when we all will toast to your (previously unrecognized) political genius.

Jesus Fucking Christ, I hope to Hell NOT.

"No Dumping"

_________________

>8 JGL53: Why believe, or pretend to believe, polls? At this point in 2016, the polls were giving Hillary! a 9 trillion percent chance of winning.

> 10

You have got 94 more days to live in your bubble, Carn, then POOF. Enjoy your unreality while it last.

You're hoping that Republicans this year will go through what you and the rest of the left went through in 2016.

I don't know who's going to be in the White House in late January. I do know that polls don't provide any information about that.

> 12
And that is where you are wrong. The polls in 2016 were accurate regarding the popular vote and were within the margin of error - off by about 2 per cent.

Most pollsters did not look that close at the electoral college. If you want to make a big deal of that then OK. tRUMP winning the electoral college while losing in the popular vote by 3 million is sort of like you putting your money on number 17 on roulette and actually winning. It does happen but no one, from professional gamber/owners of casinos in Las Vegas to the best pollsters spend much time yammering about such odd events possibly happening - though such events certainly do occasionally happen.

In any event the polls have consistently shown tRUMP losing for quite some time now, in enough states to show Biden with a tremendous electoral advantage. Anything (in theory as is said) can happen but a turn around and victory by tRUMP now is getting to be as improbable as you being elected King of Jupiter by the intelligent gas beings who may possibly reside there. lol.

Of course, before the "big game", both cohorts of partisan fans tend to prematurely declare victory. Professional gamblers nevertheless place their money on the most likely winner as per some developed strategy or analysis of some set of statistical facts. And the odds look bad for tRUMP, not just presently but moving forward, as per history. I am sorry for your hurt feelings but that is a fact.

-------
Addendum: As an aside, regarding sports, sure, things can never be predicted very accurately. A big e.g -

Back in 1968 near at the end of the season my favorite college football team's record was something like 2-6. They pretty much sucked from every angle, plus they had enjoyed really bad luck, losing several games within the last minute by a two or three point margin.

Their next opponent was the guaranteed division winner and favorite for overall winner, a team with an impressive record of 8-0. They actually had a rough schedule and had beaten several good teams.

You could not get a bet on this game at a bookie because the spread was something like 35 points.

My team beat the other team 38-0. That's right - the champions did not even score. They were crushed. At home. With a 10-1 fan advantage in the stands. The bookies were off by about 73 points.

No one, on either side, could hardly believe it, but we had to eventually accept it because it was reality.

The point being - no one can know or can ever know the future with a guarantee, sports, politics, anything. The cliche "The only poll that counts is the one on election day." became a popular cliche because it is the only thing one can say with complete assurance that one can never be proved wrong.

So - do you want to continue this useless conversation, or are we done?

>1 proximity1:

I think the pendulum looks pretty bad on this one. If Trump wins, we pretty much get 4 more years of this, if he loses, many hard core Trump supporters could easily be pushed into attempting a succession or Civil War. I'm a little worried about the far left being just as violent after the disillusion with the Democrats that do have power. Although many treated Obama unfairly, it has certainly been heightened with Trump. I think it gets worse with Biden.

>13 JGL53:

If a team is barely losing several games, they probably are not complete garbage. These kinds of things happen because of the overlooking / under-prepping of the favored team. College Football is littered with these games. And, Trump will likely overcome the odds as well.

#1--Stephen Calabresi co-founder of the Federalist Society followed the Republican standard line that nothing Trump had done was impeachable until........his tweet about delaying the election. Calabresi does believe that tweet did cross the line. Just saying. You might want to check that out. It was on Fox news.

Personally the Federalist--the Federalist Society, Cato are all shit to me.

That said I hate Chuck Todd too plus a lot of the other actors named. The Clinton/Obama/Pelosi/Schumer establishment wing of the democratic party is shit and needs replacing. A bigger problem for now though is Trump. You get rid of your worst problems first. It's the difference between atrocious and catastrophic.

>14 Cubby.R.S.:

I'm absolutely certain that you're right about this--but I'd love to be mistaken:

"If Trump wins, we pretty much get 4 more years of this,..."

I have no doubt that, between Biden and his misbegotten choice of a running-mate or Trump and Pence, the country would be far better off with Trump and Pence remaining in office, whatever one thinks about pendula.

And since I very much hope that this isn't going to be the case: " ...if he loses, many hard core Trump supporters could easily be pushed into attempting a succession or Civil War,"

I suspect that it's also true that, if Trump loses, "we pretty much get 4 more years of this,... "

___________________

... "I think it gets worse with Biden."

Right again. We've had Obama and almost Hillary Clinton and these were both terrible so it takes no imagination to see how Biden would be much worse than keeping Trump and Pence.

Biden's judgment is terrible--and that's of course the worst thing a country can have in its head of state--- and there's no reason to expect that his already-stupid-decision about how to constrain his choice of a running-mate hasn't already doomed that outcome's desirability.

But that's compounded in its mischief by Biden's diminished mental capacity and his age and general fragile state of health making him hardly well enough to have a good prospect of even surviving a full term of office (as insanely stupid as it sounds, maybe that's the "secret design" in the minds of some top Democrats, FFS!); all of which have led to some having described Biden's choice of a running-mate as being a virtual "living-Last Will & Testament."

So, if Biden is chosen, then "it (definitely) gets worse with Biden."

______________

... "Obama has always been blind and deaf to the irony of himself. He strikes a moral pose about election sanctity at precisely the time serial disclosures reveal that he knew of—or indeed ordered—the weaponization of the FBI, and perhaps the Justice Department and CIA, in order to go after an opposition presidential campaign that by design further led to the subversion of a presidential transition and indeed a presidency itself. ...

>16 proximity1:

Biden as some sort of 'lesser of two evils' choice, is a false premise that may bite the Democrats very soon. When his record is on full display, which is soon enough, many people will begin to see just how corrupt he is. His track record of molestation, scandal and the use of political stature to enrich his family will probably sicken many enough to keep them from even voting. His racist past may even move some towards smaller party candidates, including Kanye West.

This is going to be a pretty crazy election cycle. Probably will conclude with the re-election of Donald Trump and likely an attempt on his life.

As far as Obama goes, he started this trajectory with his obvious disdain for a large part of the population. I hate to say this, but the soul-less Hillary Clinton would probably have been a less destructive choice to American politics, years ago. Clinton just wanted power, she had no real vision or agenda. The irony of it all is, Obama could've been more unifying.

What part of the population did Obama show obvious disdain for? I'm honestly baffled by your comment. From my point of view there was a part of this country that could never accept a black man for their president and there was nothing Obama could have done to placate them.

>18 jjwilson61:

That's because you too hate half of the population.

Which half is that?

Obama was a chronic liar, he chided Conservatives and mocked them and the media was at his full disposal. He could have moved policy to the left without being a snake, but he chose to do it illegally.

https://youtu.be/S8q2elyUrrs

And the racist stuff at ad naseum, give me a break. It isn't selling here, I'm not buying it. When Libs get bored they'll stop pretending to care too. Racists suck, but I'd rather know who they are, let's stop pretending that black Americans are our fucking charity case. They are just as human and just as capable, so quit telling them they aren't and they need sicko politicians to take care of them. Stop using blacks as political pawns... We could debate on chicken wings and a fucking lib will use the race card to shut it down.

>18 jjwilson61: What part of the population did Obama show obvious disdain for?

Obama: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion..."

What proportion of Americans is either gun owners or religious or both?

>13 JGL53: Most pollsters did not look that close at the electoral college. If you want to make a big deal of that then OK.

Since that’s what determines who’s President, it’s not only a big deal, it’s the only deal.

>23 Carnophile:

Shhhhh! Don't tell them! They're highly paid professionals running the Dems' campaign. LOL!

>17 Cubby.R.S.:

"This is going to be a pretty crazy election cycle."

It sure is.

"Biden as some sort of 'lesser of two evils' choice, is a false premise that may bite the Democrats very soon. When his record is on full display, which is soon enough, many people will begin to see just how corrupt he is. His track record of molestation, scandal and the use of political stature to enrich his family will probably sicken many enough to keep them from even voting. His racist past may even move some towards smaller party candidates, including Kanye West."

___________________

(emphasis added)

If so, they're probably not much as "Democrats."

Instead, such people seem to have to have found some way to get upon and remain "on the fence" for some reason; and it's hard to see how at this point there are still many people susceptible to seeing the defects about "Hidin' Biden" who haven't already figured things out.

Dems' never tire of claiming that Trump could shoot someone down in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue in front of hundreds of witnesses and this wouldn't make a bit of difference to his supporters view of him.

Democrats are no less determined to cast their votes for Biden, come what may, since, according to their world view, Trump couldn't be less worthy of office even if he actually had gunned down some completely innocent stranger on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight as hundreds watched.

It's a completely genuine mass-hysteria, a true mental derangement we've been witnessing. Democrats genuinely have no idea at all how a Trump candidacy could ever possibly appeal to anyone except one who is insane, incorrigibly evil or both. And this means that, despite not finding much of anything about Biden to recommend him, they'll vote for him without being at all pleased at the idea for no other reason than that he's not Donald Trump.

And, that, really, is the only way we can even explain how Biden could possibly have become the nominee.

>24 proximity1:

Ah yes, Trump could kill someone in the street!

Rich, coming from those who say they'd vote for Biden if he had an underage boy and a dead prostitute in his bed. Speaking of which, that is not surprising; considering that sounds about like an average Clintonian Saturday.

>24 proximity1: and >25 Cubby.R.S.:

What, don’t you love it when your great leader is quoted?

January 23, 2016, in Iowa, then-candidate Trump said:

“I could shoot someone on Fifth A dune and not lose one vote.”

Aren’t you proud? You should be happy that he said it, that it’s probably true, and that Democrats are keeping his image alive.

>25 Cubby.R.S.:

Yep. Slander someone, never mind that it’s not germane to the topic at hand.

You never fail to be entertaining.

>26 Matke:

You should use the whole quote. ..."They say, I could..."

You never fail to converse in that manner as well, in which you avoid the entire conversation and cherry pick a statement.

>26 Matke:

as proud as you posting alleged statements from those you despise without bothering to cite their original reference.

>21 Cubby.R.S.: Obama was a chronic liar

Bear in mind that Trump's count is north of 20K lies told while in office. Are you sure you want to get into this comparison?

If, on sober reflection, you think that you want to compare Obama's record with Trump's, then by all means start citing his "chronic lies". Let's see how far you get.

>30 kiparsky:

Bullshit. Obama was a malicious liar that acted criminally in office, and factually committed those crimes.

Trump has certainly lied, but the Trump lie count is a skewed viewpoint on comments generally with half of the story left out by him or by the reporting. It's not really a debatable topic, the conflating and lying about many of the lies makes this an impossible debate.

>31 Cubby.R.S.: Okay, you want to play? Go on, then, list them.

Let me know when you think you have enough to qualify as "chronic", and I'll take a look. Since you haven't called Trump a "chronic liar", you'd better have a lot more than 20,000 lies to show, or you'll have some splainin' to do.

At the end of the day, you should remember that a serious accusation which is not substantiated is itself a lie, and repeating the claim does not constitute evidence. So, unless you want to make a liar of yourself, you'll have to either back up what you say or retract the claim.

Obama ... acted criminally in office, and factually committed those crimes

I know, I know. The distraction game. You realize that you've put your foot in it, so you throw some other bullshit out and hope that you'll have got away with your first barefaced shameless lie. Not going after that one. Let's deal with your first lie first. If you still have the stomach for it, we can come back to this lie later, and you can be a liar twice over.

If you don't want to back up your first claim - or if you realize that you can't back up your claim - then just say so, admit that it was a lie, and we can move on to your next one. But we're not touching bullshit lie #2 until you've dealt with bullshit lie #1.

>32 kiparsky:

IF I back up the claim and provide evidence, you will say you do not have time to watch it or read it. Don't play games and pretend like you suddenly will. Obama lied, lies and is a criminal.

>33 Cubby.R.S.: So you have no evidence to support what you say? I say you're a liar, and my evidence is this thread.

>34 kiparsky:

Trump and Russia / Flynn
Obamacare
Benghazi Cover-up
Fast and Furious

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/obamas-whoppers/

I'm not going to play this game with you, If you don't know that Obama lied, you've got serious issues.

The bigger issue is, Obama liked to skirt the law and usually ended up on the wrong side of the line.

Are you going to support your claim, or are you not going to support your claim?
It's not hard:

Step 1: cite an actual lie and show that it was a lie.
Step 2: repeat enough times to be convincing for your claim of "chronic liar".
Step 3: compare the number of lies you find convincing for your claim that "Obama is a chronic liar" to the number you don't find convincing for "Trump is a chronic liar" (that number is 20,000 and rising)

So far you've provided a desperately partisan link with eight entries in it for obama's "whoppers". Suppose those all check out, that works out to (grabbing my slide rule...) one per year of his presidency. Trump's count (actually fact-checked) is, as we've seen, north of 20,000, which makes about 15.8 per day. One per year, versus about 16 per day. Trump lied twice as much, let's say, last Thursday, as you're telling me Obama lied in the course of his presidency.

And yet you say Obama is a "chronic liar" and you deny that Trump is a chronic liar.

You, my friend, seem to have an integrity problem.

The bigger issue is

Nope. You've put your foot in it, and you're not going to pull it out that easily. We'll debunk your second bullshit lie after we're good and done with your first one.

>37 Cubby.R.S.: You can yell all you want, the facts remain: you have so far claimed that Obama lied eight times during his presidency, and Trump does double that on any given day.

Really, is that all you've got? Eight? I mean, are you sure you think that adds up to a "chronic liar"?

I wonder, when you originally said "chronic liar", were you aware that you were going to come up with something that weak? Or did you only look it up once you realized that someone was actually paying attention and was going to call you on it?

I said Trump lies, but 20,000 is not only a stretch it is a purposely skewed number.

If you want to contest the 20,000 number, here's a list. Go to town.

You're talking about the difference between a buffoon telling ridiculous lies and a snake destroying the constitution, weakening our country and costing people their lives. Huge difference.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/26/obama_donald_trump_is_a_liar_...

https://www.creators.com/read/larry-elder/06/17/if-trump-is-liar-in-chief-what-o...

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-may-5-2019-1.51...

https://www.thefrontpageonline.com/news/liar-obama-dwarfs-trump

http://www.madnesshub.com/2020/02/video-kevin-hasset-destroys-liar-barack.html?m...

https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-massive-lies-past-president...

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/365393-how-quickly-ny-times-forgets-obam...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/its-a-lie-except-when-obama-says-it

tRUMP was notable for lying innumerable times about Obama not being born in the United States.

Worse than being a liar tRUMP is a thief - examples being his charity and his 'university'. I don't know about his wine and his steak. They probably suck too. His recent promotion of black beans is just a god damn embarrassment to any decent human being.

But as to being a liar - see Orange Hitler's 25,000 other lies - thus to compare any other person on earth unfavorably to Jabba the tRUMP regarding being a big fat liar is the height of lying itself - or of imbecility. Pick one.

President Obama slams President Trump and the Republican Party with gloves off for "blatantly, repeatedly, baldly, shamelessly, lying" True, he does that. I mean, if you haven't noticed, that's kind what he does. Half the time you can't figure out whether he doesn't know and doesn't care, or knows and doesn't care, or doesn't know what "know" or "care" even are. Not sure it matters, really. One way or another, Trump is one sick fucker. But you can't score that one as a lie, since it's absolutely true.

The rest, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to actually do a little work here. Just throwing columnists claiming "Obama lies" isn't really helping you here, they're all talking about variations on the same theme.

Why don't you take a little time and gather up the occasions on which you believe (or the people who tell you what to think believe) that Obama told lies, and get them all in a row so we can talk sensibly about them. I mean, if you're trying to make a case, you gotta make the case. I'm not going to make the case for you.

Or don't you believe there's a case to make, is that why you're trying to drown me in bullshit?

Since you get to say whatever you like, and deny whatever you like, why would it matter if the list is typed or if the list exists in the articles? You just deny and repeat. So this nonsense gets you nowhere. We both know Trump tells B.S of no consequence, but only one of us is playing ignorant on Obama here. So you refute all of the statements in those 8 links, or accept that Obama is a liar and guess what else? He's a criminal. And if you cannot refute the links, and we both know you cant, then just accept it.

Because you drown yourself in bullshit, does not make the claims in those articles wrong. So good luck.

>39 Cubby.R.S.:

You've got all weekend kip...and, go.

>42 Cubby.R.S.: Okay, so you're saying you've found some number of opinion pieces claiming that Obama told some lie some time, but you don't know how many lies you think Obama told because you haven't bothered to figure it out and you don't know how many of them are people just repeating what the other guy said, but whatever the number is, that number makes Obama a chronic liar?

Do you even have any idea what you want to mean when you say that someone is a "chronic liar"? Does that even mean anything for you, or is it just something that the voices in your radio told you to say?

Pretty sad shit, boy, better try again. Make your case. Produce data, not blathering from imbeciles repeating each other. What did he say, when did he say it, why do you think it was a lie? I've given you a list of 20,000 false claims that Trump has made, you've given me bullshit.

If you believe what you say, make your case. If you don't believe what you say, or you can't support it, admit that you're lying. Don't ask me to make your case for you - that's just too pathetic, even for you.

>31 Cubby.R.S.:

"Trump has certainly lied, but the Trump lie count is a skewed viewpoint on comments generally with half of the story left out by him or by the reporting. It's not really a debatable topic, the conflating and lying about many of the lies makes this an impossible debate."

Exactly. To say, "Well, Trump's pants are on fire, aren't they?" is just ridiculous.

The character and content of the lies are as different as day and night. Trump, it's true, is a shameless truth-stretcher and most of it is designed to watch his opponents go crazy taking his words literally when, virtually always, there's another and completely benign and plausible interpretation which is not literally the same, but it's still entirely reasonable and even common-sense.

Obama, on the other hand, has lied or been a party to lies, deceptions where very serious crimes, felonies, are involved.

Had there been anything of that kind from Trump, his political enemies would have seen him hauled into criminal court a long time ago.

>44 proximity1: There is literally no subject on which Trump has spoken as President about which he has not lied. Calling this "truth-stretching" is well beyond idiotic. We can dive into the nature and significance of those lies presently, once we've settled once and for all this business of Obama as "chronic liar", but the fact is that we have a man in office who is so pathologically compelled to mendacity that his affirming a given proposition P gives us no information on whether P is true, whether he believes P to be true, or whether the next time he speaks on the matter he's going to affirm P or not-P. There is literally no point in Trump ever speaking at all, because nobody with any sense believes that he is capable of providing any information, even about his own beliefs. This is not a tactic, this is a sickness.

Obama, on the other hand, has lied or been a party to lies, deceptions where very serious crimes, felonies, are involved.
I know you want to help Cubby get off the subject of Obama as "chronic liar" because he has no hope of justifying that claim, but the only way we start in on his lie #2 is if he - and you - admit that the "chronic lie" claim was itself a lie.
Or - ha ha - if he does the work to support his claim. Which will never happen because he can't and he knows it and you know it.

>38 kiparsky: Link is 404.

So I tracked down another Washington Post link, which claims to have documented more than 19,000 Trump lies - yet it's the WaPo that turns out to be lying on the one claim that I checked. The Post says that, in contrast to that ZOMG! lying bastard Trump!!!,

By just about any important measure, the pre-coronavirus economy was not doing as well as it did under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson or Bill Clinton — or Ulysses S. Grant.

Oh really? I checked one stat, the first one that came to mind: Unemployment under Bill Clinton. The result?

The low unemployment under Clinton: 3.8% (April 2000). The low under Trump, pre-virus: 3.5% (Dec 2019).

Clinton high: 7.1%. Trump high, pre-virus: 4.6%.

Clinton mean (Feb 1993 through Jan 2001): 5.2%. Trump mean pre-virus (Feb 2017 - Feb 2020): 3.92%.

The Washington Post, like all leftist institutions, lies shamelessly.

Does this mean Trump never lies? Nah, he's a politician. But the left does lie, rather cheekily, about everything, including the extent to which Trump lies.

Charming cherry you've picked. Unfortunately for you, facts are not on your side.

Looking at a graph of US unemployment from 1990 to 2019, we see that Clinton came in with a rising unemployment rate that had reached 7.5%, and that rate decreased every year of his presidency. If you want to take the position that presidential actions largely determine unemployment (which is basically the position you assume in your post) then clearly you have to say that Clinton turned around the disaster handed to him by his republican predecessor and made life better for Americans. Similarly, by the way, Bush Jr handed Obama a 9.3% unemployment rate, and by 2016, unemployment in the US was at 4.5%.

Unemployment under Trump was pretty much flat until COVID, so claiming any particular credit for him on "not doing much of anything" is a bit ripe.

Post-COVID, it looks a bit less good. He's failed entirely to respond in any meaningful way, and in fact has created so much chaos that our unemployment rate looks stuck at 10%, while the EU is at 7.1% as a whole, with Germany and England down closer to 4%.

So, not looking very good for him on unemployment: he didn't make much of a difference, and when he did make a difference he seems to have made things rather worse.

Sorry, I'm afraid you lose again. Do try again though, maybe you'll get lucky one day.

>49 kiparsky: WOW. I provided a link to the original government source data that is monthly. (Here it is again.) You dug up a different graph that's yearly, which conveniently obscures the relevant patterns:

Clinton came in with a rising unemployment rate

False. Unemployment was already trending down when Clinton was in his first full month of office, in Feb. 1993. Unemployment had peaked in Jun 1992.

Unemployment under Trump was pretty much flat until COVID

No. It started trending down before he took office, but it continued trending down under Trump until COVID.

As if I wouldn't check!

More profoundly, this is moving the goalposts on behalf of the WaPo. The claim has changed from what happens on a President's watch to what happens on a President's watch that's attributable to his policies. That is a complicated thing to assess, which is perhaps why the WaPo shied away from making a claim about it.

Huh. 19,000 alleged lies, and yet they're forced to make one up.

>50 Carnophile: You know, I don't know why I'm bothering to argue this with you, since I can just cite what the Post reported on this

If you take the trouble to read, you will find that they've already done this work for us, and it doesn't look good for you:

The unemployment rate in August was 3.9 percent, and it dipped as low as 3.8 percent in May. But the unemployment rate was as low as 2.5 percent in 1953. In fact, it was below 3.9 percent for much of 1951, 1952 and 1953. The unemployment rate was as low as 3.4 percent in 1968 and 1969 and was 3.8 percent in 2000.

Now, I know you wanted to compare Trump's number to Clinton's but the claim that is being debunked is "In many ways this is the greatest economy in the HISTORY of America” (and the many variations he's come up with on this theme)

And in fact, the Post is right and you're wrong - check your own graph. Sorry, but that really was kind of an own goal on your part. We're still well north of 20,000 lies for Trump (not 19,000, you probably should keep up with the numbers on this - it's not like he's stopped lying his ass off every time he opens his face)

Now, all that's fun and all, but of course we don't want to get too distracted in all this fun and forget that Cubby still has his ass hanging out with his "chronic liar" claim which he has still been unable to support.

Thought I was going to forget, didn't you? Nah.

>51 kiparsky:

I'm not building you, king nothing, a list. Utilize the factual claims in the links above and begin refuting, or keep pretending that you're right. Either of those things is fine with me. Although I do not view you as stupid; I do believe you are utterly hopeless.

I refuse to waste my time typing on this stupid phone, just for you liberals to deny, deny, deny. Type in Trump in Google and you'll get all negative for 30 pages. Type in Obama and the reverse is true, I can promise you that there is another side. I have to pay for a subscription in order to receive an honest news source. Do you realize the difference? The reason that you're such a pain in the ass, is because you're being fed lies.

>39 Cubby.R.S.:

Again, for your convenience. And....go.

>52 Cubby.R.S.: So you're saying you have no way to support your ridiculous claim that Obama is a "chronic liar"? This is no surprise, since it is unsupportable, and you haven't even tried. You can't even tell me what constitutes a "chronic liar" in your mind - you don't even know what it would take to make your claim true, which means you had absolutely no idea whether it was true or not when you said it. And, obviously, you didn't even care.

The astounding thing is, there is a list of the false statements made by Obama during his presidency. It's here and it contains... wait for it... eighteen items.

And what's hilarious about this is, this list is cited in one of your linked opinion pieces. So I have to ask - did you read that piece that you cited? Or did you just realize that there is no way for you to spin eighteen false statements over eight years into a story about a "chronic liar", particularly when you're spending the rest of your time defending the diahrreically mendacious Dickless Donald?

Whatever, doesn't matter: you made a claim that you couldn't support, you refused to retract it when it turned out you couldn't support it, and you tried to bullshit your way through.

Sorry, bucko, but that's your credibility shot dead. I hope it was worth it.

>53 kiparsky:

Deny, deny, deny... You looked at one, that's a first. Now refute all of those claims, and look at the next one, then refute all of those claims, etc. When you're done, we can talk about Obama's criminal record.

>54 Cubby.R.S.: Who says I want to refute them? They were wrong statements and he shouldn't have said them.

See, that's how easy it is to own up to the facts. Try it sometime, liar.

>55 kiparsky:

Ha. This is why you star in nearly every folk tale that's ever been written.

For anyone that is interested, the links that are in questions >39 Cubby.R.S.:

King Parable shall not look upon anything that might hurt his feelings. The opening story of this thread, read about that... Let's see how many times he and or his administration claimed Trump and Russia were stealing the election.

>56 Cubby.R.S.: I doubt anyone is very interested in that garbage. What was interesting is that you made an unsupportable allegation and were asked to support it. And we're done with that: you refused to even try.

Now, if you want to claim that eighteen lies over eight years makes someone a "chronic liar" you can still give that a try, but that's where you're at right now.

And by the way, you're still on the record as a liar.

>57 kiparsky:

My claim stands because you have not refuted it. You want a list? Conservatives were not so petty as to create one (Obama lied about keeping your health plan countless times on the campaign trail), I provided you with a significant amount of links, and you refuse to refute their allegations. This and your petty argument of deny, call me a liar, and all other clintonesque behavior, makes you a chronic liar as well. Do not project onto me, your incessant behavior. If anyone is interested, they can see the links and actually read the claims. Your tactics might work for a bunch of leftists who aren't interested, but that does not make it true.

Lol, you didn't actually read >53 kiparsky:, did you?

The list exists, if you'd read your own linked material you would have found it. (as an aside, if you couldn't be bothered to read that shit, you certainly can't blame me for not wanting to) Anyway, the list has eighteen items on it. Look, here they are:

1. FEB. 24, 2009.“We import more oil today than ever before.” (Oil imports peaked in 2005.)
   
2. MAR. 10, 2009.“Our high school dropout rate has tripled in the past thirty years.” (It had actually declined by a third.)
   
3. JUNE 1, 2009.“If you actually took the number of Muslims sic Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” (Almost 60 other countries were home to more Muslims.)
   
4. JUNE 11, 2009.“No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.” (Some people had to switch plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act)
   
5. SEPT. 9, 2009.“One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.” (Delayed treatment didn't cause his death.)
   
6. DEC. 3, 2009.“I mentioned that I was in Asia on this trip, thinking about the economy. When I sat down for a round of interviews, not one of them asked me about Asia. Not one of them asked me about the economy.” (Several journalists did ask.)
   
7. APRIL 21, 2010.“The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country.” (It wasn't.)
   
8. SEPT. 20, 2010.“Keep in mind the previous administration had been helping them, giving billions of dollars and just asking nothing in return.” (The Bush administration imposed multiple conditions on auto companies.)
   
9. MAY 10, 2011.“Doubled our exports.” (Exports increased by less than half.)
   
10. JUN. 29, 2011.“What I have done – and this is unprecedented, by the way, no administration has done this before – is I’ve said to each agency, 'Don't just look at current regulations – or don't just look at future regulations, regulations that we’re proposing. Let’s go backwards and look at regulations that are already on the books, and if they don't make sense, let’s get rid of them.'” (Several previous administrations did.)
    
11. FEB. 17, 2012.“American manufacturers are hiring for the first time since 1990.” (Manufacturing employment grew at times during the 1990s.)
    
12. SEPT. 20, 2012.“I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration.” (The program began under Obama.)
    
13. MARCH 1, 2013.“The janitor, the security guards, they just got a pay cut and they've got to figure out how to manage that.” (Their pay wasn't cut.)
    
14. SEPT. 4, 2013.“First of all, I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line.” (He did set a red line.)
    
15. MAR. 11, 2014.“Most young Americans right now, they’re not covered.” (Most were.)
    
16. MAY 7, 2014.“Since 2007, Republicans have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class.” (The real number was closer to 50.)
    
17. SEPT. 7, 2014.“I wasn’t specifically referring to ISIL” (He was.)
    
18. JUNE 29, 2016.“I mean, the steel industry is producing as much steel in the United States as it ever was.” (Steel production peaked in 1973.)
    

Now you have to figure out how you want to argue that Obama is a "chronic liar" with eighteen lies, and Trump isn't a chronic liar with 20,000++ lies.

Do try to keep up, darling, I know it's a bit of work and you're a conservative, but do try to exert yourself a little.

I mean, it's not like you can regain your credibility at this point. As I've said, you weren't even able to say what would have made that claim true when you said it, which means you had no idea whether you thought it was true or not when you asserted that it was true, which makes you a liar. But we can keep digging you in deeper if you want.

>59 kiparsky:

Next link...?

So, this doesn't include the number of times in which he lied about Obamacare, the number of times he lied about Russia, the number of times he lied about the video in Benghazi, The money he gave Iran and lied about it, the lies about Bergdahl, his lies about Jeremiah Wright...

His corruption was immense, and his every day in office with his pen and his phone destroying the Constitution. Begin refuting the links or not, does not change Obama lied, lies and is a criminal.

Trump's lies are literally ridiculous, but they have zero consequence. You can't seem to see what Obama did wrong, so I have to question whether you would be concerned at all by the abuse of government.

>60 Cubby.R.S.: What are you talking about, liar?

>60 Cubby.R.S.:

At this point -- "I'm reclaiming my time" rings a bell.

>60 Cubby.R.S.: Oh, I see. You're claiming that the Times list is not exhaustive? Well, that's an opportunity for you, isn't it?

Go on, then. Put up or STFU. Clearly you think you know what you're talking about, and you think it's significant, so let's have it.

Or, if you've got nothing whatsoever, just keep ducking and dodging so we all know that you're just talking out your hole.

>51 kiparsky: “The unemployment rate in August was 3.9 percent, and it dipped as low as 3.8 percent in May. But the unemployment rate was as low as 2.5 percent in 1953. In fact, it was below 3.9 percent for much of 1951, 1952 and 1953. The unemployment rate was as low as 3.4 percent in 1968 and 1969 and was 3.8 percent in 2000.

That’s nice, but (to repeat) the Post specifically mentioned the Clinton years:

“By just about any important measure, the pre-coronavirus economy was not doing as well as it did under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson or Bill Clinton”

I know you wanted to compare Trump's number to Clinton's...

No, the Post wanted to.

And in fact, the Post is right and you're wrong

Actually, I’m right and the Post is wrong. The unemployment situation was better during Trump than Clinton pre-virus.

You quote Trump as saying, “In many ways this is the greatest economy in the HISTORY of America.” Note he didn’t say “in every way.” For example, inflation in at least some of the the years you mentioned, 1968-9 and 2000, was worse (higher) than it has been on Trump’s watch. I can’t check 1953 because the graph doesn’t go back that far.

Of course, the WaPo didn’t say “by every measure” either; they said “By just about any important measure...” But if it comes down to selecting preferred metrics, then any claim that Trump is “lying” is untenable.

The broader point: You can always find a metric that’s good and a metric that’s bad. Even during the Great Depression there was a year where output growth was around 13%.

Update: Somehow this got me curious about the 1950s compared to now. I found inflation for the mentioned time range, 1952-3, and it was better (lower) in that time than during Trump's watch. (I'll explain how I found this if anyone cares.)

On the other hand, the labor force participation rate has been much better (higher) on Trump's watch than in the 1950s.

As I said, you can always find a metric.

>64 Carnophile: Sure, whatever you say. Just one thing... tell me where in the article it compares Trump's unemployment numbers to Clinton's.

“By just about any important measure, the pre-coronavirus economy was not doing as well as it did under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson or Bill Clinton”

I know reading is hard for you, but try harder. This says that for just about any important measure, Trump's numbers are beaten by some President, for example, Eisenhower, Johnson, or Clinton. It does not say that for all important measures, Trump's numbers are beaten by all of those Presidents.

In other words, the Post is correctly claiming that there is no number on which Trump can cite to claim to have been running the "greatest economy in the HISTORY of America".

So, once again, the Post is right and you are, as always, wrong.

You'd think you'd be used to being wrong by now, you've had a lot of practice.

The 1950s were, in general, times of exceptional economic prosperity in the U.S. And, of course, the war years (in the U.S.) were industrial boom-times. High employment (which included lots of women for the first time in such numbers) and middle-class wages which allowed, in my maternal grandparents' case, for a single wage-earner (coach-line bus-driver!) to buy a house and raise two children!

>67 proximity1: Yep. So anyone claiming that the US economy in the late 20-teens was the best US economy ever would probably have done well to actually check the numbers. And Trump did not bother to check the numbers, he simply asserted it as a fact. And that was a lie.

How is this hard for people to grasp? The man lies. It's what he does, it's who he is.

>66 kiparsky: tell me where in the article it compares Trump's unemployment numbers to Clinton's.

Where it says, “By just about any important measure, the pre-coronavirus economy was not doing as well as it did under... Bill Clinton”

You could choose to exclude the unemployment rate from "just about any important measure" of the economy, I guess. But if we're going to pick and choose our metrics, the whole thing becomes so fuzzy that no one - Trump or the WaPo or anyone else - could be said to be lying. Which might be a reasonable position to take, actually.

The quote without the elision:

“By just about any important measure, the pre-coronavirus economy was not doing as well as it did under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson or Bill Clinton”

You remark,

I know reading is hard for you, but try harder. This says that for just about any important measure, Trump's numbers are beaten by some President, for example, Eisenhower, Johnson, or Clinton. It does not say that for all important measures, Trump's numbers are beaten by all of those Presidents.

Yes, rAeding iSs Hrad. Let me help. The quote does NOT say, "for just about any important measure, Trump's numbers are beaten by some President" i.e., "for any metric one chooses, we can find a President who's better than Trump by that one metric." (1) That's not the plain meaning of the sentence, and (2) that would be a ridiculously thin reed to support the claim that Trump's an outrageous liar, especially given their assertion that they have more than 19,000 lies to pick and choose from. Obviously that's not what the WaPo meant.

>69 Carnophile:

"Yes, rAeding iSs Hrad."

"My NY Times hand-book says 'Koncervatives R Stoo-pid.'"

I'd like to say your rebuke is hilarious(and it did make me LOL at first) but the fact is that what you reveal is really not that funny. It's sad, very sad. Your correspondant has been to university, FFS!

>69 Carnophile: I suppose if you only read that sentence you could argue for that weird reading. However, if you read the whole article you'll see that there is no actual ambiguity here. The writer makes it perfectly clear what they mean. The trouble is, you have to read all of the words.

Again, I know that's difficult for you, but I'll remind you that it is only by persevering through adversity that we achieve greater heights of achievement. So go on, give it a try. Some day you will get to that eighth-grade reading level. When you do, maybe we'll all wear party hats or something, it'll be a big day.

>71 kiparsky: I suppose if you only read that sentence you could argue for that weird reading

We're getting somewhere.

However, if you read the whole article you'll see that there is no actual ambiguity here.

Oh, OK. Present your argument, providing all context you think is necessary.

>72 Carnophile: My apologies, the context was in the other article we've been talking about by the same reporter in the same paper, specifically debunking this claim, which is linked from the article you cited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/07/president-trumps-repeated-cla...

Note that the claim is debunked by citing numbers which are used to benchmark the state of an economy, and showing that Trump's numbers in each case are beaten by other presidents, which is exactly what you'd expect if the claim were that "for just about any important measure, Trump's numbers are beaten by some President, for example, Eisenhower, Johnson, or Clinton", and very much not what you would expect if the writer were claiming that "for every important measure, Trump's numbers are better than Bill Clinton's".

>73 kiparsky: the context was in the other article we've been talking about

We were talking about different articles?! Ugh, now I feel like I have a homework reading assignment if I want to continue this. Maybe - *maybe* - later.

>74 Carnophile: We were talking about two linked articles, both of which have come up in this thread, so you've presumably read both of them already.

>75 kiparsky: And let me just note in passing that if it takes you weeks at a time to figure out what you think about one of Trump's 20,000 recorded false statements, it's going to take you quite a while to make a dent in that list.

You might as well just give up and admit that you worship a man who lies to you every time he flaps his gums, and you just suck it up. Why do you do that? What happened to your self-respect?

>76 kiparsky:

You'd have to be a pretty moronic fuckstick to take that list seriously. The list is a half lie about a half lie, fucking stupid list for stupid people.

>77 Cubby.R.S.: And still you haven't even been able to show one of them to be wrong

(oh, and you're still on the hook for your own massive lie, back in >21 Cubby.R.S.:... how're you coming on finding something to support that one? still hoping that'll just go away if you don't repeat it? Sorry, no dice. You're still a fucking lying-ass liar)

>78 kiparsky:

Good for you Kip, sticking to your guns on your own hogwash. You invent that I'm lying while actual evidence has been produced, while your big gotcha is a list of, Trump can't prove it or Trump lied about a crowd size... Democrats are actually covering illegal activity that has been brought out and you don't care because Trump is mean and orange. Biden and Harris actually present fascism and people think they are going to save us. They are going to mandate things, real nice. So your stance in a nutshell, Trump doesn't elaborate so I'll take Mussolini.

Evidence? My ass. You couldn't come up with any evidence, you just had some bullshit op-eds. I had to come up with a catalog of Obama's falsehoods, in >59 kiparsky:. So you made an assertion that you were unable to support, which makes you a fucking liar.

Now, the evidence that I had to provide because you were unable to come up with it says Obama made 18 false statements in 8 years in office. So your threshold for "chronic liar" is eighteen false statements in eight years? 'Cause that's what we have evidence for.

Okay, great. So if you accept the Obama told 18 lies in 8 years, based on the same source you also accept that Trump told 20,000 lies in less than four. Trump manages Obama's yearly rate before lunchtime, and then does it again before he goes to bed. So if you think Obama is a "chronic liar", then you're saying that Trump is an off-the-charts fountain of mendacity. You're telling us he's a sort of cholera case, spewing lies from both ends.

So when you say that Trump is not a "chronic liar" you're a liar again.

As far as I'm concerned this is all done and dusted - you can argue it all you want, but that just means I get a chance to review the thread and point out again that you are the very living definition of a liar.

Okay, so you had another bullshit lie, something about Obama being a criminal? Let's hear it. It's fun to watch you dig yourself deeper into the shit pit.
(my god, you're bad at this... why you keep trying I'll never know...)

>80 kiparsky:

Translated... I am a Democrat and Obama's criminal behavior is okay...boring and conflated bullshit inserted here...

Whatever Kip, you can pretend whatever you like, but I'm not the one that claims Trump doesn't lie, you're the one pretending Obama doesn't. Difference, Trump's lies are banal and Obama's are pure corruption.

>81 Cubby.R.S.: Okay, you're doubling down on your claim that Obama is a criminal. Support it. This will be good fun.

you're the one pretending Obama doesn't

Check the facts, bitch. I'm the one who showed you exactly which lies Obama is known to have told while in office. You couldn't prove it, I could. I'm sorry, but you're just a laughably stupid person if you think you can say that shit and get away with it.

Trump's lies are banal
I agree that that the observation that Trump lies is banal. That is true. Trump's lies are so constant that nobody bothers to believe that anything he says matters anymore.

Are you really trying to make the argument that by lying constantly, to the point where nothing he says means anything at all, Trump has achieved some sort of post-truth state, that he's transcended the idea of truth? That we should all join the Trump supporters in their cloud-cuckoo land of merry bullshit?

Is this why you're such a fucking liar?

>82 kiparsky:

Are you trying to bully me again kitten? This very thread is about Obama's wicked corruption, you worshipping him doesn't change the fact that he is easily one of the 5 most destructive Presidents in history.

>83 Cubby.R.S.: Bully you? I'm trying to get you to support your grandiose claims with some actual facts.

But since you can't because they're bullshit lies, I'm not surprised that it feels like you're being bullied. Sorry, snowflake, I'll try to be nicer about your precious little feelings.

>73 kiparsky: My apologies, the context was in the other article we've been talking about

It just hit me how funny it is that you spend all that time rebuking me for not having good reading skills, before finally saying, Whoops, we were talking about different articles.

>76 kiparsky: if it takes you weeks at a time to figure out what you think

Poor kiparsky, sitting by the phone waiting for Carnophile to call.

>85 Carnophile: How many weeks does it usually take for something to hit you?

It depends how much time I spend thinking about it.

>73 kiparsky: Note that the claim is debunked by citing numbers which are used to benchmark the state of an economy, and showing that Trump's numbers in each case are beaten by other presidents, which is exactly what you'd expect if the claim were that "for just about any important measure, Trump's numbers are beaten by some President (emphasis added).

If that’s their argument, then it doesn’t support the claim that Trump was “lying.”

“Trump is better on variable X but Eisenhower is better on variable Y” doesn’t support the conclusion that Eisenhower’s economy is better or that Trump’s economy is better. It reduces it to a matter of opinion.

(And this is one of their marquee examples for the claim that Trump has told 19,000 "lies"!)

>88 Carnophile: Sorry, but that won't fly. If you claim "The greatest economy in the history of our country", you have to have some basis for it. And there is no basis by which you can say that Trump has hit that grandiose mark, because no matter what number you pick, someone beats him on that number.
It might be a little complicated for you, we'll give it a few weeks and see if it sinks in.

Pro tip: It might help if you actually read the article that you got that "by just about any important measure" quote from. I know there's a lot of words but apparently you're really good at reading stuff... even if it takes you a while.

>89 kiparsky: And there is no basis by which you can say that Trump has hit that grandiose mark, because no matter what number you pick, someone beats him on that number.

This is a flat-out attempt to pretend you didn't get the point that if Trump beats some other President on one metric, and that President beats Trump on another metric, then it's a matter of opinion. So not a lie.

"Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream" is not a lie.

If you claim "The greatest economy in the history of our country", you have to have some basis for it. And there is no basis by which you can say that Trump has hit that grandiose mark, because no matter what number you pick, someone beats him on that number.

Even taken on its own terms, your claim is wrong. My social welfare function weights, say, employment more than output. Yours weights output more than employment. Etc. This does NOT reduce to “Trump’s a liar.” It reduces to “All these competing claims are mush because it depends what metric(s) you focus on.”