In the most general way of interpreting that statement they are correct. You can look at any specific statement and then, after the fact, change it slightly to fit your view. That's not what he does. Also, you picked one of literally thousands.

You seem to have no problem with a person who holds the highest office in the world telling lies at an unprecedented rate. The evidence is there. The mental gymnastics you perform to justify them is impressive. It's a shame you are such a partisan that you can't even seem to give an evenhanded report on him.

Another so called lie:

"I authorized Zero access to White House (actually turned him down many times) for author of phony book! I never spoke to him for book."

Trump never explicitly allowed his visits nor barred him from the White House, Wolff said, which allowed Wolff to exploit this "non-disapproval" to gain access through "various senior staffers."

Doesn't sound like a lie at all.

In the most general way of interpreting that statement they are correct. You can look at any specific statement and then, after the fact, change it slightly to fit your view. That's not what he does. Also, you picked one of literally thousands. — ProbablyTrue

It was the second one, and you don't have to try to find bullshit like this. These lists are full of them, that's why they can't be taken seriously.

You seem to have no problem with a person who holds the highest office in the world telling lies at an unprecedented rate. The evidence is there. The mental gymnastics you perform to justify them is impressive. — ProbablyTrue

Again, many of those are not lies. You just want to interpret them in your own way, rather than the way they were meant in - that's called being uncharitable.

Again, many of those are not lies. You just want to interpret them in your own way, rather than the way they were meant in - that's called being uncharitable. — Agustino

Accusing a former president of wiretapping him? Lying about voter fraud? Lying about people being killed? Are you such an intellectual infant that you can't figure out which ones are big lies and which ones are little lies?

Accusing a former president of wiretapping him? — ProbablyTrue

For example this - it's true. Manafort, who was part of the Trump team, was wiretapped, for example.

The media is so dishonest, that they will take a statement and call it a lie, and then write an article about it, and if you read the article, you'll see that the statement is actually not a lie at all. But of course, who bothers to read the article?!

This is marketing101 - length implies strength. Put up a long list of "lies" and people will believe they really are lies, because the list is long. It's pathetic.

Trump doesn't even make this claim. Have you considered asking for a cabinet position?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zFhYoBlZ2g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zFhYoBlZ2g — ProbablyTrue

What's wrong there? Trump behaved very normally. Of course, you cannot say everything openly, that's why he told the guy "you can figure it out yourself". That's how talk goes on at the high levels. Not everything is talked about directly.

He behaved normally for a liar. He was confronted with a previous claim he made and his response was "I don't stand by anything."

If your worldview is so fragile that you have to rationalize every line of BS this guy spews to salvage it, it might not be worth salvaging.

He behaved normally for a liar. He was confronted with a previous claim he made and his response was "I don't stand by anything." — ProbablyTrue

No, that wasn't the context. The context was that he repeatedly told that guy that he had told him enough, and he can figure the rest by himself, and that guy kept insisting. That is called, at minimum, being rude, or being stupid.

What do you think is going on? — Mongrel

The Clinton campaign was embarrassed by Wikileaks, they (or rather the company they hired to investigate their servers, Crowdstrike) made up the Russian hackers nonsense first as a way to explain away their incompetence (or possibly as a cover-up for the murder of Seth Rich, who was likely the leaker to Assange). Then they repurposed the idea and made up the "Russia Collusion" twaddle via the "Dossier," on the basis of which they got the FISA warrant to spy on Trump, hoping to be able to get something on him that they could use to impeach him.

Since the Mueller investigation is ultimately based on the noise created by the "Dossier", which was bought and paid for by the DNC and FBI in the first place, the whole thing is a hall of mirrors, complete and utter nonsense from top to bottom, and it has been from the beginning.

Democrats and liberals, and their media cheerleaders, have been living in fantasy land for a year. The cognitive dissonance and nervous breakdown incoming is going to be delicious.

Democrats and liberals, and their media cheerleaders, have been living in fantasy land for a year. The cognitive dissonance and nervous breakdown incoming is going to be delicious. — gurugeorge

Only for a year? I think the fantasy has been going on for many years.

And hopefully, when this matter is solved, and nothing happens to Trump, especially you Wayfarer, will apologise for creating a fuss for so long out of nothing. — Agustino

I'm not creating any fuss. I'm reporting on the fuss that the media, the intelligence community, and the Congressional investigations are making.

Also, my concern with Trump isn't just about the allegations of criminal activity (or the criminal activity of members of his campaign), but also of his character and policies, and being found innocent of collusion or obstruction wouldn't take away from that.

Trump has the highest popularity, amongst Republicans, of any President in recent history - and rightly so, he gets stuff done. 84% of Republicans approve of Trump. — Agustino

Well that's fake news. Here are Trump's approval ratings. The highest he's had among Republicans is 89%. Here are Bush's approval ratings. His highest among Republicans is 99%. And this is just comparing against the first year of Bush. Bush's lowest approval in his first year is 85% compared to Trump's 77%.

Truly disappointing! Your position is that Trump is all right, or pretty much so, and everyone else wrong? Turn your analytical skills to Trump: what do you say?
.

Since the Mueller investigation is ultimately based on the noise created by the "Dossier", — gurugeorge

Really I'd have said this was utterly beneath you.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/03/582908785/the-russia-investigations-5-takeaways-about-the-inescapable-nunes-memo

what a joke mate, what a joke. What is this?

"We enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history."

They say this is a lie. That's wrong. It depends how you interpret it. If you interpret it as a reduction in corporate tax, it is the biggest in history. You could also interpret it as "really big" tax cuts.

This is what I mean, the media is really dishonest. How can anyone read and believe this crap? It's like the most uncharitable way to read someone's statements in history! — Agustino

There are 167 lies there. 75 more for "Pants on Fire" and 112 more for "Mostly False". Are you just going to cherry pick a few and defend them by saying they're just exaggeration? That's intellectually dishonest of you. Trump lies a lot. Deal with it.

A lie about the SOTU: "Thank you for all of the nice compliments and reviews on the State of the Union speech. 45.6 million people watched, the highest number in history."

From here:

Trump came in sixth in total State of the Union viewers since Nielsen began collecting the data in 1993. George W. Bush garnered 62 million viewers in 2003; Bill Clinton 53 million in 1998; W. Bush 51.8 million in 2002; Obama 48 million in 2010; and Clinton 45.8 million in 1994.

This is what I mean, the media is really dishonest. How can anyone read and believe this crap? It's like the most uncharitable way to read someone's statements in history! — Agustino

Depends what you mean by dishonest. It depends how you interpret it. It can be taken as hyperbole. A hyperbole isn't a lie.

>:O

His most recent lie: "This memo totally vindicates 'Trump' in probe."

Only for a year? I think the fantasy has been going on for many years. — Agustino

Well yeah, in general, over the past few decades liberalism has gradually mutated into a cross between an infantile zombie cult and the Stasi with a smiley face, but I was just referring specifically to the "muh Russia" mania.

Your position is that Trump is all right — tim wood

No, my position is that Trump is our God Emperor and the saviour of the human race.

The Papadopolous thing is just another red herring (and anyway, anything that has anything to do with Stzrok is automatically tainted now and irrelevant to anything Mueller), so is Carter Page being "under suspicion" before (lots of people are investigated by the FBI, it's their job to be suspicious, it's not proof of anything). Neither of those are what clinched the FISA warrant, as McCabe testified.

What did it was fake opposition research paid for by the DNC and the FBI, ginned up by a ex-British intelligence hack with a boner for Trump - an intelligence hack who, funnily enough, literally worked in collusion with the Russians to concoct the "Dossier." IOW, if Putin has had any hand in throwing a spanner in the works of American politics, it's been via the "Dossier." He must be laughing up his sleeve.

This whole thing, even the "ten billion security services suspicious of Trump" thing (remember that?) was backed up by nothing more substantial than this piece of tripe. And the cream of the jest is that an article fed to the Atlantic by Steele himself was used as corroborating evidence.

It is to laugh.

A lie about the SOTU: "Thank you for all of the nice compliments and reviews on the State of the Union speech. 45.6 million people watched, the highest number in history." — Michael

Exactly my point, if you call this a lie *facepalm*. Look, real lies are things that are said to deceive and usually harm others. This is an inconsequential 'lie', and in fact, it's not even that. It's just an exaggeration. We all know that's how Trump speaks. Some people have a hyperbolic discourse - I've had many friends who were like that.

I'm not creating any fuss. I'm reporting on the fuss that the media, the intelligence community, and the Congressional investigations are making.

Also, my concern with Trump isn't just about the allegations of criminal activity (or the criminal activity of members of his campaign), but also of his character and policies, and being found innocent of collusion or obstruction wouldn't take away from that. — Michael

Thanks for admitting you hold a grudge, and the obstruction and collusion is merely a pretext. That's a beginning.

I stand corrected on that. The main point that they are really high still remains. He's doing a good job as far as Republicans are concerned.

Depends what you mean by dishonest. It depends how you interpret it. It can be taken as hyperbole. A hyperbole isn't a lie. — unenlightened

Sure, I can clarify what I mean. I mean that the media is uncharitable, and doesn't take the comments Trump makes with the meaning that they are really intended to convey. If he says "biggest crowd ever" - that's a hyperbole because that's his style. We all know that, so they are the stupid ones who read what he says in a way that it was never intended in. In philosophy, we call that being uncharitable.

Dude, when I use your own words against you in that way, you are supposed to notice that you are being as uncharitable/hyperbolic/ mendacious/ whatever, as the people you are complaining about. What you let Trump off the hook for is the same as what you condemn 'the media' for. This is called hypocrisy.

Dude, when I use your own words against you in that way, you are supposed to notice that you are being as uncharitable/hyperbolic/ mendacious/ whatever, as the people you are complaining about. What you let Trump off the hook for is the same as what you condemn 'the media' for. This is called hypocrisy. — unenlightened

Yeah, I noticed what you were trying to do, and I ignored it, because I don't think you're right.

Thanks for admitting you hold a grudge, and the obstruction and collusion is merely a pretext. That's a beginning. — Agustino

I don't know what you mean by this. We argued over Donald Trump's campaign to be President long before any talk of collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice hit the news, and I was always firmly against him.

Exactly, so now you're suffering from confirmation bias.

How so?

How so? — Michael

Cause you already disliked Trump, so when you see all those unlikely things on the news that would be harmful to Trump, you're inclined to believe them because you want them to be true - it would confirm your dislike of Trump.

I don't believe them because I dislike Trump. I believe that the accusations have credibility given that there's clearly enough evidence to warrant three (?) Congressional investigations and a Special Counsel investigation.

Rather I'd say that your support of Trump has left you with confirmation bias given that you seem to just dismiss any serious allegations against him and pass off everything else as inconsequential.

Rather I'd say that your support of Trump has left you with confirmation bias given that you seem to just dismiss any serious allegations against him and pass off everything else as inconsequential. — Michael

I think the accusations should be investigated, but you and Wayfarer are being unfair when talking about them, and presenting clearly biased viewpoints. I don't think the investigation should be shut down, I think it should be allowed to run its course.