Basejumper.com - archive

If I had a co-worker who lied this much, he'd be fired immediately

Gee, no bias in that article...

LOL

Walt

It's called an "editorial." It's allowed to be biased one way or another, that's the entire point.

Then again, if you think the article is objectively wrong, go ahead and state your case.


(crickets)

yeah i thought so!!

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it was about Teresa May .


And just in case anyone was wondering what the rest of the world thinks of trump

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40409888

It's bizarre to me that most of the non-Americans I know have stronger views on Trump than most of the Americans I know.

Simply stating "there is no evidence to support this claim" does not prove that the claim is a lie. In fact, it simply states "we don't know" because "there is no evidence to support" is basically the same as "there is no evidence to contradict".

The article does this repeatedly.

It gives a quotation from the president, and then says "we don't know if this is true" in a way that implies that it is a lie. That's both deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

I'm no fan of the current president (or the last one, actually, or the one before that), but this editorial repeatedly holds up half-truths ("there is no evidence to support") and implies that they prove something is false (which they do not).


"chirp, chirp, chirp"

The article isn't saying "we don't know if this is true," it's saying we basically know it's not true and trump can't even provide evidence to support his side because none exists. So I do think most of those statements count as actual "lies."

I agree that making an unsupported statement is not the same as making a lie. i.e., Redneck Bob saying "Aliens visited Earth!" is not a lie, it just means you think aliens visited Earth. But it becomes a lie when you just make it up out of thin air knowing people will believe you, if you rely on who you are to convince people, or use bullshit evidence. Even implication of authority counts as a lie. So a NASA scientist who untruthfully states, "Aliens visited Earth!" is a lie. Likewise, "I lost the popular vote because 3-5 million people voted illegally" is a lie.

(TL;DR can skip the rest.)

Here are the 8 examples in the article of "no evidence" statements:

Jan. 23 “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There's no evidence of illegal voting.)" First of all we know he just pulled those numbers out of his ass because that's about what it would take for him to have won the popular vote. Second of all he's implying he actually has evidence to support this level of detail. The bottom line is, his statement is wrong, we all know it's wrong, he knows he made it up, but he said it like it was true, therefore it is a lie. Some people actually believe this lie (and others).

Next example: “Professional anarchists, thugs and paid protesters are proving the point of the millions of people who voted to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” (There is no evidence of paid protesters.)" The whole "paid protester" thing is pretty much debunked. In the context of this tweet (UC Berkeley protests), trump is implying that the protesters were organized by professional political operatives and paid protesters. No, they were not. There were thugs, anarchists, and other un-American assholes rioting, yes. But his attempt to paint all his opposition as conspiracy operators is deliberately misleading even if it's mostly obvious hyperbole.

FEB. 24 “By the way, you folks are in here — this place is packed, there are lines that go back six blocks.” (There was no evidence of long lines.). No, there weren't long lines going 6 blocks back. You could look at it as hyperbole, not a lie. But if you wanted to call it a lie because he is just making stuff up, I'm on board with that too.

FEB. 28 “The E.P.A.’s regulators were putting people out of jobs by the hundreds of thousands.” (There's no evidence that the Waters of the United States rule caused severe job losses.) Typical politician lie, saying whatever they want about legislation they don't like. Both sides do it. Still a lie though, because he just made up those numbers. If he didn't make up those numbers, he should be able to produce research that supports his claim (he hasn't yet).

MARCH 4 “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” (There's no evidence of a wiretap.) Maybe he was told he was wiretapped, and he genuinely believed it. That's the only way I'd give him a pass on this one, but the statement is still wrong. He probably wanted a dramatic soundbite and doesn't actually care if it's a true statement or not.

MARCH 22 “Well, now, if you take a look at the votes, when I say that, I mean mostly they register wrong — in other words, for the votes, they register incorrectly and/or illegally. And they then vote. You have tremendous numbers of people.” (There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud.) What he is literally saying is that most voting machines register the wrong vote, as far as I can tell. Despite that we know the machines aren't perfect, this is clearly a bullshit statement.

APRIL 2 “Now, my last tweet — you know, the one that you are talking about, perhaps — was the one about being, in quotes, wiretapped, meaning surveilled. Guess what, it is turning out to be true.” (There is still no evidence.) Definitely a lie.

APRIL 16 “Someone should look into who paid for the small organized rallies yesterday. The election is over!” (There's no evidence of paid protesters.) Typical politician selling hype. Still a lie in my book.

The author's point, that trump is a baldfaced liar, does not flounder if you dismiss those 8 "no evidence to support" statements. There are 92 other statements that carry the point.

I'm not saying other politicians aren't liars too. The clintons lied their faces off, I'm sure. trump just makes them look truthy by comparison, that's a pretty hard feat to accomplish.

Hang on.

The truth or falsehood of a statement is dependent on the position of the utterer of that statement?

Really?

I think I'd prefer to consider truth and falsehood as independent, verifiable facts, not as "depends on who says it" grayscale.

If a statement is true when I make it, it's equally true when you make it. And if it's false when I make it, it's equally false when you make it.

Whether you're president of the United States or poor, ignorant, provincial Robert should not change the underlying truthfulness (or lack thereof) in your statement. If Trump really believes Aliens visited the earth, his statement of such is no more or less truth than Robert's statement of such. And our ability to determine if the statement is true or not is independent of the position (or belief) of the person making the statement.

To take it back to politics, I do not believe that it matters if you have a little (r) or a little (d) after your name--the standard for truth should apply equally across party lines.


edit:

I think that maybe what you are driving at is the idea that an authority on a particular topic has a greater responsibility to verify their beliefs before expressing them. I'd agree with that general idea, but I wouldn't say that a failure to meet that responsibility makes an unverified statement a falsehood--it's merely an unverified statement.

I think this is a really good (and relevant) point to clarify, and I'm glad you brought it up. This is just my $0.02:

There are true statements & false statements. Then, there are lies and there are non-lies. True vs. false depends on reality & facts. Lie vs. non-lie depends on one's intent to deceive, or not.

One can say something false but not be trying to trick anybody, therefore I don't consider it a lie. They are just wrong. Or one can speak only true statements, but construct them in a manner that misrepresents & deceives, and therefore is lying without uttering a single falsehood. Like a crazy person who really believes in their heart, that they were abducted by aliens, is not lying.. they are just wrong (& crazy). The opposite would be a slimy reporter, who interviews BASE jumpers, and takes their actual statements out of context, and reports selective facts, to deliberately misrepresent the sport. That reporter is a liar.

A politician (almost by definition) is a person who is willing to lie to mobilize political consensus. Ok maybe that definition is too cynical. But when confronted with the facts, most liars are willing to 'fess up and be transactional in the discussion. trump, for all his transactional themes, is non-transactional when it comes to the truth. He just doubles down, like truth depends only on how vociferously he defends his case, and worst of all you know he literally doesn't care what the truth is-- all that matters is forwarding his own agenda and he'll use any deceitful tactic he can to achieve that.

trump seems to lie even without thinking about it, without even trying. He probably doesn't realize or care that when he just makes stuff up to paint a favorable picture of himself, that is an act of lying. Merely saying "there's no evidence to the contrary" is disingenuous. I've known & worked with people like him and considered them pathological liars.

Ok, so...

"The moon is made of cheese."

False. But could be either a lie or non-lie depending on my personal belief about it.

"The moon is made of rocks, dirt and other stuff like that."

True. But could be a lie or non-lie depending on my personal belief about it.

If I really believe the moon is made of cheese, then the first statement is a false non-lie, and the second is a true lie.

Am I getting this right?

So, if Trump believes what he says, then the NYT editorial is wrong in asserting that he is "lying"? He may just be stating false non-lies?

well if you genuinely believed that the moon was made of cheese, and lord knows why, felt like "tricking" someone into believing a fact... yes, from an extremely literal standpoint, you'd be guilty of attempting to deceive someone. AKA, attempting to lie. You've managed to pick an extremely ironic example, but that doesn't mean that it's always this ironic (or unlikely).

In practice I think there are better examples: like when a seller tries to rip someone off in a merchandise sale, thinking they are selling junk to the buyer, but the merchandise ironically turns out to be a valuable antique (unknown to anyone previously).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth - has some other lying examples, some of which seem kind of related to this.

I read about a case where a woman hired a hitman (who was actually an undercover cop) to kill her husband. They produced a fake body, she gave payment, and a jury convicted her for murder even though her husband was safely alive elsewhere. Maybe it was an urban legend but it's an example of how, with moral judgement, intent may count more than outcome.

For trump to truly believe some of those things, given his unprecedented access to facts, he has simply got to be living in a fantasy land. And I don't know what's worse: a President who lies as much as he does, or one who lives in a fantasy land.

There is actively trying to mislead someone, when you say something that is contrary to what you hold true.

There is also passively trying to mislead someone, when you say something for your own personal benefit, when you are grossly indifferent to what is actually true or not.

morally i think they are both examples of lying. even if that's not obvious from my initial, imperfect, cursory definition.

I think a lot of trump's more shocking lies fall into the second category. And that's uncommon in politics, as we usually assume our politicians deep down inside know & care what the facts are-- even if they lie to our faces. But trump is unusual and shocking because he seems to not really care about if something is true or not.

he's a grown ass man who has gotten far in life by having to think and analyze critically. so in practice, he doesn't get a pass by claiming, "gosh, I genuinely believe 5 million illegals voted for hillary". He has no evidence to prove it, he's making a statement that he should know requires evidence, and he should care what the truth is. but he doesn't have evidence and he probably does not actually care what the truth is. his intent is to have others believe something, for his own benefit, without regard to (or contrary to) the truth.

edit: trying to better address your question

One more example, from an interview with his longtime butler, Mr. Senecal.


https://www.nytimes.com/...tler-mar-a-lago.html

Just more of the same, who cares about truth if he likes the story. Lies.

He's self-centered enough that I'd say he's pretty likely to be living in a fantasy land of his own devising. Far more so than any previous occupant of the oval office.


So, if we were to develop a test for "lie", it might include:

1) Intent to deceive on the part of the speaker (could we call this mens deceptus?)
2) Speaker believes the statement to be false (whether it is or not)
3) Speaker uses some color of authority or expertise to enhance the likelihood of successful deception (?)

But not:

Whether or not the underlying facts as stated are actually true (as in the case where real facts are stated in a duplicitous manner).



On the other hand we might define a "falsehood" simply as a statement which is not true.

My eyes roll any time I encounter media obsession with Trump.

It's not exactly a news flash that he plays fast and loose with "facts" but the sheer hypocrisy of "news" media calling anyone out as a liar is unreal.

Trump got elected because the system is badly broken and big news media is an integral part of that broken system. They are no more trustworthy than the career politicians who destroy our country for personal gain.

I'm not saying the editorial about Trump is wrong, but if you can't trust the messenger, you certainly can't trust the message. I damn sure don't trust the messenger.

What we have here is a liar calling someone else a liar. Are they telling the truth in that editorial? I don't know and I don't care.

Regardless of the semantics and Considering the title of this thread I'd say Trumps pants are well ablaze
(Metaphorically speaking of course)

I think they are doing their job, by keeping the light on his shenanigans.

I agree with you that the media get the story wrong a lot, and aren't totally trustworthy. But unlike the President, they issue corrections when the facts warrant. I think this particular outlet has intent to be truthful and I can't call them a liar like you do. NYT doesn't lie any more than Fox News does, and we all gotta stop calling people liars simply because we disagree with their political views. The few reporters I know personally are honest people who want to do the right thing and report accurately, even if they have different opinions than me.

I used to echo the "system is broken" meme too. But we the citizens are the system, so it started sounding like a cop-out. Getting involved a little bit restored a lot of my faith. Like Churchill said, it's the worst system except for all the others.

Are you saying you don't care if our President is a pathological liar or not? That's kinda... sad...

Sure, that might be a good set of tools for determining a lie. Can there ever be a universal definition? I've no idea.

Suppose you applied your guidelines to the original article itself. What's the verdict, are Leonhardt and Thompson being honest? (Allowing for general assumptions, because obviously we can't read their minds)

The bar has been set extremely low for the U.S. presidency and Congress. A president, senator, or congressman can lie to the world and face no meaningful consequences but if you or I lie to a federal agent, we might face federal charges.

The bar has also been set extremely low for the press. They play fast and loose with the "facts" and have become extremely biased in their reporting. As for the, "they are doing their job" thing, I would be behind them 100% if they did their job *all the time*. Where were they when Obama was lying? Why did Hillary Clinton get preferential treatment?

My vote in this past presidential election was not really a "for" vote, it was an "against" vote. I have been voting defensively for many elections because the system can't seem to produce a candidate worthy of the office.

Now *that* is what is really sad.

Walt

They don't get a free pass, either:

http://www.politifact.com/...ents/byruling/false/

http://www.politifact.com/...ents/byruling/false/

Agreed the bar is set low for politicians. Agreed that the double standard re: lying to federal agents is BS. I don't think the bar is set as low for the media as some others think, they suffer more consequences than politicians do, for lying.

You think hillary got preferential treatment from the MSM. Her supporters think trump is the one who got preferential treatment from the MSM. Some networks hated one, some hated the other. Liberals accuse Fox, and conservatives accuse CNN, because these viewers only want to see the reality that fits their cultural narrative. Watch both and maybe one gets a more complete picture. The saddest thing of all is people reflexively calling "fake news" just because they don't like the news. Reality wins in the end.

Edit to add: if you're really bothered by all the lying, then surely you are really pissed when someone (like trump) is taking the dishonesty to the next level. going beyond what supposedly little integrity was left even under the obama/clinton dynasty. because thats what trump has done

I think most of America is so numb to the lying that they don't even notice what level it's at.

BOTH of the political parties in USA are
currently horrible for different reasons!!

TO: Walt

Agree 100%, Partisan hacks love to play Politics
these days how fat people love watching football.

TO: Colm

I am not sure which is worse, this thread, or
your "is it legal" thread. Consider this:

It is LEGAL to cheat on your wife!!!

It is ILLEGAL to drink and drink,
It is ILLEGAL to text and drink,
It is ILLEGAL to drink without blinkers.

So really dude, who fucking cares
which laws You choose to break.

Murder, Rape, and Arm Robbery are three
biggest crimes and they all three have been
Steadily decreasing in the USA but where is
the media with that nice bit of Good News??
Oh yeah, that does not fit their agenda...

Then you might appreciate this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/...ecline-in-crime.html

Hey, no one's forcing you to read any of these threads. Didn't mean to ruin your day, friend But I got some thoughtful responses from Waltappel, TomA, sheepdog, a bunch of Brits and others I can't remember all, which I truly appreciate and believe it or not I have probably changed my opinion on some things because of what people here have written, who disagreed with me.

Thanks for posting this.
I tried to read the article in the newspaper, but the e- format is much easier to read.

Hoping that Trump is removed quickly.

Tangent alert:

Have you read this article?

http://www.motherjones.com/...ase-children-health/

It suggests the very interesting hypothesis that the level of violent crime (and it's decrease) is primarily explained by environmental lead levels.

Yes, there is very strong indications that the
elimination of leaded gasoline and leaded paint
helped contribute to the reduction in violence.

It's kind of mind blowing to think a poison like that can have such a specific societal effect.

ANARCHY!!!!! I don't know what it means, but I like it!!!

Related because it involves a lying trump advisor. John Oliver is always hilarious. Yes, he's biased. No, it's not just a conservative problem. Yes, it's still funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc

I think you nailed it, Tom. Watching the political theatre as it is presented to us in the media is like watching some scripted soap opera. It seems so disconnected from reality that it is hard to think of the players as real people. It's kind of like it's ok if they lie because they are just actors playing their roles.

Colm, I'm not excusing Trump or anyone else's lies here but I don't see all lies as being created equal. Like Obama, Trump is a flamboyant salesman who stretches the truth but I see a distinct difference between exaggeration and manipulating public attitudes toward policy by lying. For example, "If you like your doctor, you can keep them" (referring to Obamacare, but an outright lie). That's at least arguably worse than "I was against the Iraq invasion from the beginning" (Trump referring to his views on Iraq).

What Trump does a lot of is pure hyperbole and that is what salespeople do. Doesn't make it right but it's at least easy to recognize and filter out.

I'd like to see the media call politicians out on lies that have real substance and do real damage--lies about policy. The rest is just noise.

Walt

I agree with a lot of what you said. The main part where I disagree with you, is that you excuse trump's lies as mere hyperbole. Obviously, I think he very often is telling substantive lies, too. Combine the substantive lies plus the hyperbole, and you get a relatively novel mixture which a lot of Americans find especially revolting.

And I appreciate hearing your perspective, because it is explains one reason why someone could like trump more than obama, which is otherwise inconceivable some people (not just liberals). I think tribal psychology is another major reason. I've been making my best argument why trump's lies are on a new level, but it doesn't resonate with you for several reasons and that's not a criticism of anybody.

On another topic, we can blame politicians and the media on both sides, but how about the media consumers who demand crap content, too? Most people don't even want to take the time required, to really analyze the problems politicians are trying to solve, let alone analyze the solutions they propose. So many people are too fucking lazy to read the travel ban executive order, or Kerry's speech to the UN (just for examples), let alone even attempt the massive text of the ACA. Or they love to fact check their opponents but never fact check politicians from their own party. I too would love it if the media gave more front-page attention to lies about policy. But theatrics, not substance, is apparently what draws in ratings. So who can blame the media for this shit-show...?

edit: clarity

This side counts lies(also pants on fire) and trues from american politics people:

http://www.politifact.com/...lities/donald-trump/

I hope really, really for all people in the world, that you dont vote for this incapable president in 3 years...

please do us all a favor....

Isn't there some evidence that the fall of the Roman Empire was possibly due to mass lead poisoning?

Wait a second.... are we saying the moon isn't actually made of cheese? Where did Wallace and Grommit go then? Hu? Explain that! You can't eh? Thought so.
(Looks smug.)

[url=https://imgur.com/NeeZBB4]

-

[url=https://imgflip.com/i/1zoibm]

That's a great pick of Trumps new humble Digs for the next 8 years . That 20-$ Bill is a great example like Apple Pie . Pull a 20-$ Bill out of your pocket and give it a good inhaling 'sniff' with the Nose ..." Smells Like Merica " .
.

When trump got elected I thought give the guy a chance , I mean lets see what he does. After all Ronald Reagan was quite an imbecile too but he turned out to be a very popular president...
Recently my already low opinion of trump took a significant dive as his fucking moronic divisive tweets and retweets of lies and hatefulness. 'Britain first' are a sad collection of neo nazis , football thugs and other mindless cunts.
There's a difference between little harmless lies (I didn't eat the cookie) and big nasty spiteful lies(immigrants are your problem) Trump is a big nasty spiteful liar. His pant are well ablaze.
Can't wait to see the crowds turn up to welcome your childish imbecile president on his planned state visit to the UK.

Funny, I thought this was where trump lived these days!!



lol even my Republican friends are starting to agree, he is making Obama look like a workaholic. (not that I ever doubted that myself)

look at that face. not like it screams, "hey little girl, want to come to the golf course and help me work on my putz?" at all now, does it?

.

oh snap. the teacher just grabbed that little bitch by her... nevermind.

hey apparently trump just tweeted an admission of obstruction of justice. you sure he'll make it 4 years?

more fake news: President Trump has made 1,628 false or misleading claims over 298 days

Do you have any idea how Us look from our point of view?

Monthy Python at its best. Tragic

...wait for it...

Holding my breath, it aint over before the .... .... sings

This one's for Ray ;)