bhodilee


quality posts: 34 Private Messages bhodilee
klezman wrote:Thoughts on Trump's verbal diarrhoea and word salad? (based on today's press conference)
Thoughts on his conflicts of interest?
What about asking anti-vaccination nutbars to work on a supposed vaccination safety committee?
Is this country going to survive his conspiracy theory-based policy?



Yeah, he'll piss off Congress quick enough and they wont' work with him. He thinks they work for him and that is going to not end well.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

airynne


quality posts: 0 Private Messages airynne

I have lots of thoughts on Trump, good and bad, but what I've learned over the last year is to stop betting against him.

rpm


quality posts: 210 Private Messages rpm
klezman wrote:Thoughts on Trump's verbal diarrhoea and word salad? (based on today's press conference)
Thoughts on his conflicts of interest?
What about asking anti-vaccination nutbars to work on a supposed vaccination safety committee?
Is this country going to survive his conspiracy theory-based policy?



I'll go with my H.L. Mencken wannabe persona and say that Trump is by far the most entertaining political figure in my lifetime. He's certainly better theater than the last guys who gave the left so much agina: Barry Goldwater, "Tricky Dick" Nixon, and "Red Ronnie" Reagan.

Watching liberals get the vapors over Trump's antics is Schadenfreude on steroids. He may or may not be mad as a hatter, but he has certainly put various parties with whom he must deal off balance. Absolutely worth the price of admission!

NB: when Reagan was first running for governor in California, despite his increasingly good conservative bona fides, there were those who remembered when he'd been a liberal Democrat and President of the Screen Actors Guild; and they sometimes referred to him as "Red Ronnie". They did so seriously, but I thought it was amusing at the time given his conservative posistions, and, so, offer it here for your edification.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

rpm


quality posts: 210 Private Messages rpm
bhodilee wrote:Yeah, he'll piss off Congress quick enough and they wont' work with him. He thinks they work for him and that is going to not end well.



I think Congress knows his election was as much disapproval of the way Congress has not functioned and the way the Republicans failed to effectively oppose Obama, as it was anything else.

They'll have their issues, but on the big things, I think Trump will get very close to what he wants.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

coynedj


quality posts: 11 Private Messages coynedj

I don’t really want entertainment or schadenfreude out of my President. I’m more interested in good actions and policy decisions. So far I haven’t seen much beyond what was available during the campaign – just nebulous claims and promises of wonderful things, without anything even remotely approaching detail; Congress has given more detailed plans, but there is still an awful lot to fill in. Several appointments worry me (such as the vaccination crazies Klez referred to, and especially on trade policy) but some appear to be quite reasonable. Until I see some details, I can’t give a final thumbs up or thumbs down. Maybe I was naïve in thinking that Trump might stop complaining about Saturday Night Live and focus on governing.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 11 QPs?

rpm


quality posts: 210 Private Messages rpm
coynedj wrote:I don’t really want entertainment or schadenfreude out of my President. I’m more interested in good actions and policy decisions. So far I haven’t seen much beyond what was available during the campaign – just nebulous claims and promises of wonderful things, without anything even remotely approaching detail; Congress has given more detailed plans, but there is still an awful lot to fill in. Several appointments worry me (such as the vaccination crazies Klez referred to, and especially on trade policy) but some appear to be quite reasonable. Until I see some details, I can’t give a final thumbs up or thumbs down. Maybe I was naïve in thinking that Trump might stop complaining about Saturday Night Live and focus on governing.



Oh, I quite agree the jury is out, and it's the policy decisions and legislation passed/executive orders revoked/issued that will tell over time.

In the meantime, I'll take the theater and Schadenfreude as a bonus for putting up with Obama without apoplexy.

As to the vaccination crazy, I'm with you, but it is the sainted Bobby Kennedy Junior we're talking about here. Liberals should be wet over Trump talking with him....

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

klezman


quality posts: 178 Private Messages klezman
rpm wrote:As to the vaccination crazy, I'm with you, but it is the sainted Bobby Kennedy Junior we're talking about here. Liberals should be wet over Trump talking with him....



I must not be a "normal" liberal. You lose nearly all credibility on anything of import when you take an anti-science or conspiracy theory viewpoint. I don't care whether you're left, right, or middle. If ideology trumps clear evidence then you shouldn't be in a position to make decisions that affect others. (Of course there is the wide range of things where reasonable people can come to different conclusions based on a thorough read of the evidence. Those are the people I respect, and they're the people who can acknowledge others' views as well. Too bad few are in Congress.)

I stopped counting bottles. My CT

rpm


quality posts: 210 Private Messages rpm
klezman wrote:I must not be a "normal" liberal. You lose nearly all credibility on anything of import when you take an anti-science or conspiracy theory viewpoint. I don't care whether you're left, right, or middle. If ideology trumps clear evidence then you shouldn't be in a position to make decisions that affect others. (Of course there is the wide range of things where reasonable people can come to different conclusions based on a thorough read of the evidence. Those are the people I respect, and they're the people who can acknowledge others' views as well. Too bad few are in Congress.)



Ah, Grasshopper! You're too young, and too Canadian, (and quite possibly too sensible) to fully appreciate the importance of the Kennedys in the liberal pantheon. Any Kennedy trumps both Clintons, and an Obama.

I'm not a fan of any of them, from patriarch Joe the securities manipulator, to St. John, Robert the Martyr and Edward the Pretender, or any of their respective progeny. But, they really do make liberals of an age quiver, and during their lifetimes, induced many a liberal young woman to throw themselves shamelessly at them.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

coynedj


quality posts: 11 Private Messages coynedj
rpm wrote:Ah, Grasshopper! You're too young, and too Canadian, (and quite possibly too sensible) to fully appreciate the importance of the Kennedys in the liberal pantheon. Any Kennedy trumps both Clintons, and an Obama.

I'm not a fan of any of them, from patriarch Joe the securities manipulator, to St. John, Robert the Martyr and Edward the Pretender, or any of their respective progeny. But, they really do make liberals of an age quiver, and during their lifetimes, induced many a liberal young woman to throw themselves shamelessly at them.



The Kennedy mystique faded long ago. You're right that it holds power for "liberals of an age", but the number of liberals of that age is far from what it used to be. JFK was elected 57 years ago, RFK died 49 years ago, and even Teddy was first elected 55 years ago and has been gone for 8 years.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 11 QPs?

coynedj


quality posts: 11 Private Messages coynedj

I’m trying to keep an open mind about the incoming administration, though it can be difficult given that I disagree with Trump on a number of important issues. That said, here’s a few random thoughts and conjectures about the next four years:

- There seems to be a lot of talk about Trump not finishing his term. That’s wishful thinking on the part of liberals. I expect him to still be in office in 2020.

- I saw an interesting statistic, that for 690 offices nominated by the President, Trump has forwarded only 28 names. Seems low to me.

- The people he has nominated seem often to have little experience in the fields they’ll have authority over. Management of the departments might well be a weak point, and turnover could be high.

- He might be near the peak of his effectiveness right now. Before long, being the target of one of his Twitter attacks will probably be a badge of honor. This will especially be true for liberals and Democrats (not the same thing), but it could spread much wider.

- The balance of power between the legislative and executive branch will swing toward the legislature. They’ll put more thought into what is in bills than Trump will, and he might end up just going along with Congress on a lot of issues, especially in the early days before his mercurial nature damages relationships.

- Trump will hold few press conferences. He doesn’t seem to like the give and take of such events, and his performance a few days ago was not encouraging.

- Some folks are hyperventilating about how he’s going to destroy democracy in America. Calm friggin’ down, people. He’s not a fascist.

- Consistency in policy will probably be weak. He cares about fewer areas than he’ll be reasonably expected to have policies on, so some things of great importance to a lot of people will get short shrift.

- The budget deficit will be a problem for a lot of Republicans. Trump’s priorities don’t seem to include narrowing it, and a significant number of Republican Senators and Representatives will be increasingly exasperated by this.

- Another point of contention will be trade. The executive branch seems to be filling up with protectionists, while Congress tilts strongly toward free-traders. I sure hope the free-traders win this one.

- I see that companies are already starting to game him, or at least try. Announcements of job increases in the U.S. are coming out, despite their having been decided on and even implemented before he got elected. They’re trying to get him to praise them on Twitter.

- Democrats are not going to be as disciplined in their opposition to Trump as the Republicans were in their opposition to Obama. They’ll give him cover on a number of issues.

- If he runs for reelection, he will not win. His shtick won’t hold up for four years. We’ll grow tired of it, though I’m not sure what we’ll want next.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 11 QPs?

klezman


quality posts: 178 Private Messages klezman
coynedj wrote:- If he runs for reelection, he will not win. His shtick won’t hold up for four years. We’ll grow tired of it, though I’m not sure what we’ll want next.



Fingers crossed, it'll be somebody we've not heard of to date or who at least has a relatively low profile. Somebody who respects both knowledge and wisdom. And somebody who can actually listen to their political opponents and bring them to the bargaining table.

I stopped counting bottles. My CT

awl85


quality posts: 8 Private Messages awl85

Happy Inauguration Day! Because this just means more drinking.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 236 Private Messages MarkDaSpark

Dearest friends, mourn if you must, and rejoice if you can. AS soon as you can, hopefully "now", start with possibilities, because like all days, we don't always have the choices we want AND we still always have choices. If need be, give yourself time to address whatever you feel is lost but don't waste a moment that you don't have to being the possibility of now... because life occurs in the moment. The past is the past and the future may or may not happen. But we do have now. And we have a choice of what we feel and how we feel it.

       x20             
Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

tiger7610


quality posts: 21 Private Messages tiger7610

I'm impressed. Something Sparky and I agree on. This might be one of two things. Wine being the first

MarkDaSpark wrote:Dearest friends, mourn if you must, and rejoice if you can. AS soon as you can, hopefully "now", start with possibilities, because like all days, we don't always have the choices we want AND we still always have choices. If need be, give yourself time to address whatever you feel is lost but don't waste a moment that you don't have to being the possibility of now... because life occurs in the moment. The past is the past and the future may or may not happen. But we do have now. And we have a choice of what we feel and how we feel it.



awl85


quality posts: 8 Private Messages awl85
MarkDaSpark wrote:Dearest friends, mourn if you must, and rejoice if you can. AS soon as you can, hopefully "now", start with possibilities, because like all days, we don't always have the choices we want AND we still always have choices. If need be, give yourself time to address whatever you feel is lost but don't waste a moment that you don't have to being the possibility of now... because life occurs in the moment. The past is the past and the future may or may not happen. But we do have now. And we have a choice of what we feel and how we feel it.




This guy had the right idea!

rpm


quality posts: 210 Private Messages rpm
MarkDaSpark wrote:Dearest friends, mourn if you must, and rejoice if you can. AS soon as you can, hopefully "now", start with possibilities, because like all days, we don't always have the choices we want AND we still always have choices. If need be, give yourself time to address whatever you feel is lost but don't waste a moment that you don't have to being the possibility of now... because life occurs in the moment. The past is the past and the future may or may not happen. But we do have now. And we have a choice of what we feel and how we feel it.



Nicely put, Sparky!

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

tiger7610


quality posts: 21 Private Messages tiger7610

Apparently my students can now submit alternate facts as answers. I'm waiting to see someone try that excuse.

rjquillin


quality posts: 289 Private Messages rjquillin
tiger7610 wrote:Apparently my students can now submit alternate facts as answers. I'm waiting to see someone try that excuse.

Isn't that what legacy media has been doing for many years now?

CT

tiger7610


quality posts: 21 Private Messages tiger7610

Depends. For some things sure.But surely the president should be above that, or should we call his press conference fake news?

klezman


quality posts: 178 Private Messages klezman
rjquillin wrote:Isn't that what legacy media has been doing for many years now?



No. Definitively not.
Additional opinion may have crept in over the years (best exemplified by Fox News and MSNBC), but no "legacy" media provider outright trumpets lies. That is a monstrous false equivalence you've drawn there.

Molarchae and I were discussing this earlier today. There's a big difference between a mistake and a lie. Reporting that the bust of MLK Jr was removed from the oval office was a mistake - that was promptly corrected. Equating that to claiming Trump had an historic win in the election or that he had the largest crowd ever for his inauguration is just flat out misleading. These are facts - Obama's and Reagan's inaugurations had higher TV viewership, Obama's had far more people in physical attendance. Trump had the worst (or was it second-worst?) drubbing in the popular vote of anybody who won the presidency. These are verifiable facts, and we all do this country a disservice when we equate facts, opinions, and lies.

While I'm ranting...I am sad and disappointed with Kellyanne Conway. I've enjoyed her thoughtfulness and opinions on a regular basis as she was part of the panel for Bill Maher's show. She's just adopted an alternate reality at this point. To some I'm sure she's a hero, but to me she's lost all semblance of respectability by trumpeting lies and refusing to answer direct questions.

I stopped counting bottles. My CT

rpm


quality posts: 210 Private Messages rpm
klezman wrote:No. Definitively not.
Additional opinion may have crept in over the years (best exemplified by Fox News and MSNBC), but no "legacy" media provider outright trumpets lies. That is a monstrous false equivalence you've drawn there.

Molarchae and I were discussing this earlier today. There's a big difference between a mistake and a lie. Reporting that the bust of MLK Jr was removed from the oval office was a mistake - that was promptly corrected. Equating that to claiming Trump had an historic win in the election or that he had the largest crowd ever for his inauguration is just flat out misleading. These are facts - Obama's and Reagan's inaugurations had higher TV viewership, Obama's had far more people in physical attendance. Trump had the worst (or was it second-worst?) drubbing in the popular vote of anybody who won the presidency. These are verifiable facts, and we all do this country a disservice when we equate facts, opinions, and lies.

While I'm ranting...I am sad and disappointed with Kellyanne Conway. I've enjoyed her thoughtfulness and opinions on a regular basis as she was part of the panel for Bill Maher's show. She's just adopted an alternate reality at this point. To some I'm sure she's a hero, but to me she's lost all semblance of respectability by trumpeting lies and refusing to answer direct questions.



I love both and Molarche (and Ron), but I disagree with you here. Tweeting out that the bust was removed - without taking the care to verify it - was intended to inflame and reflects a reckless disregard for the truth. It might not be an intentional "lie" but in the law of defamation, it amounts to the same thing.

I think the whole kerfuffle over crowd size is something almost dadaesque, but risibly so, and beneath notice.

On Ron's larger point, as an historian by training, I tend to agree with him. Most reporters actual knowledge of historical and other facts is appallingly bad. They tend to play very fast and loose with the facts.

Worse, academic historians have become so politicized over the past 30-odd years that many of them have abandoned the careful approaches to evidence and discernment of fact (and the separation of opinion from fact) that I was taught in the '60s and early '70s, and which characterized the study of history from the early 19th century to the last decades of the 20th century.

On matters involving our history - especially the issues surrounding slavery's role in the Founding and the early republic, the issues surrounding the rise of the administrative state and Progressivism in the 20th century, and the growth of the welfare state, the almost complete historical ignorance is astonishing. Worse, in my view, it's that lack of historical understanding that empowers those who really want the republic to be a different country from the one the Founders intended.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

klezman


quality posts: 178 Private Messages klezman
rpm wrote:I love both and Molarche (and Ron), but I disagree with you here. Tweeting out that the bust was removed - without taking the care to verify it - was intended to inflame and reflects a reckless disregard for the truth. It might not be an intentional "lie" but in the law of defamation, it amounts to the same thing.

I think the whole kerfuffle over crowd size is something almost dadaesque, but risibly so, and beneath notice.



One of the things I absolutely respect about you, rpm, is that we can actually have a thoughtful disagreement Something that's sadly missing from most discourse these days.

I agree that I may have underplayed the irresponsibility aspect of reporting the MLK thing. Yes, that was irresponsible. Maybe it was intentional, as you suggest, maybe not. I was not in that reporter's head to know either way.

I also think the substance over the crowd size is rather beside the point. I often loathe tv newscasters and interviews, but in this case I agree with both the interviewers yesterday who pointed out that starting your job as press secretary with bold lies does not bode well for the next four years. Nor does the claimed existence of "alternative facts". For me this isn't a disagreement about policy (although I'm sure those will come), but it's about the basic standards we should expect from our elected leaders.

I stopped counting bottles. My CT

tiger7610


quality posts: 21 Private Messages tiger7610

I also respect RPM, but disagree as well. Was the tweet about a bust wrong and example of bad journalism? Yes. and look at the reaction to being pointed out that it was wrong. It was changed and corrected. Also there is a bit of a higher proof being white house press secretary and lying about things that are easily checked. This is not even about a spin. I do hate how the media covers anything. I used to watch Aljazeera news because at least it told me what was actually happening.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 236 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
tiger7610 wrote:I also respect RPM, but disagree as well. Was the tweet about a bust wrong and example of bad journalism? Yes. and look at the reaction to being pointed out that it was wrong. It was changed and corrected. Also there is a bit of a higher proof being white house press secretary and lying about things that are easily checked. This is not even about a spin. I do hate how the media covers anything. I used to watch Aljazeera news because at least it told me what was actually happening.



Amazing how everyone forgets how much lying Obama's Press Secretaries did.

And Aljazeera being "news"?

       x20             
Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

rpm


quality posts: 210 Private Messages rpm
tiger7610 wrote:I also respect RPM, but disagree as well. Was the tweet about a bust wrong and example of bad journalism? Yes. and look at the reaction to being pointed out that it was wrong. It was changed and corrected. Also there is a bit of a higher proof being white house press secretary and lying about things that are easily checked. This is not even about a spin. I do hate how the media covers anything. I used to watch Aljazeera news because at least it told me what was actually happening.



Three points:

1. What Mark said: the lying by
Obama administration press people was never called out by the press and was epidemic.

2. The only reason it was corrected was that the Trump people saw it and there was a very strong reaction. It was fixed in response to push back, not because the reporter saw he made a mistake. The only reason to send the tweet to begin with was to get a rise out of people; the guy thought he could get away with it and got caught.

3. The press has been very clear that it sees itself as leading the opposition to the administration - Democrats with bylines as libertarian blogger Glen Reynolds (the Instapundit) puts it. It's not the "Fourth Estate" anymore. I think it was Bob Woodward who revealed that in a major newsroom the Editor-in-Chief told the assembled reporters and staff "we did our best to beat him, but we lost".

The national press was always liberal to left-leaning, at least in my lifetime, but before the 2000 there were at least a few conservative journalists and papers, and there were occasional more or less serious efforts to be reasonably fair to Republicans (except Nixon and Reagan). But the mask has been off since 2000 and especially in the past 3 elections.

So, I think the Trump administration is correct to treat the press as hostile and to hold their feet to the fire for accuracy and discernible bias. Given that there is no conservative press, just one cable network (Fox) sort of, and talk radio, the mainstream media is all opposition.

BTW, for the historically minded, in the early days of the Republic, and really until the WWII and post-war ears, the press was not objective, but openly and bitterly partisan, albeit there were both Republican and Democrat papers. The way the press was balanced with with competing biased outlets.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

klezman


quality posts: 178 Private Messages klezman
rpm wrote:1. What Mark said: the lying by
Obama administration press people was never called out by the press and was epidemic.



Interesting points that you make.
I am, however, interested in clarification of the quoted one. What was the daily litany of intentional lying about facts that was committed by the Obama administration? Not spin, not being choosy about what to say, not normal politicking, but outright lies. What was the lie to truth ratio? When - and what was the rate - were they proven false and simply doubled down on the lie?

Edit: this isn't a matter, to me, of defending Obama and vilifying Trump. I'm honestly unable to think of anything approaching the level of disregard for the truth shown by Trump. From any prior administration since I started paying attention, with the closest being Bush/Cheney on WMD in Iraq.

I stopped counting bottles. My CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 236 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:Interesting points that you make.
I am, however, interested in clarification of the quoted one. What was the daily litany of intentional lying about facts that was committed by the Obama administration? Not spin, not being choosy about what to say, not normal politicking, but outright lies. What was the lie to truth ratio? When - and what was the rate - were they proven false and simply doubled down on the lie?

Edit: this isn't a matter, to me, of defending Obama and vilifying Trump. I'm honestly unable to think of anything approaching the level of disregard for the truth shown by Trump. From any prior administration since I started paying attention, with the closest being Bush/Cheney on WMD in Iraq.



Just some highlights ...

1) Libya springs to mind. First, our reason for going in (Obama lied and people died). Second, the reason for Benghazi .... it was not due to a "video". Third, the Benghazi (Rhodes) email wasn't about Benghazi! Lies upon lies.


2) American Legion Thinks The White House Is Handling The Veterans Administration Beautifully. The actual American Legion statement was, “the move by VA is not a corrective action, but a continuation of business as usual. Dr. Petzel was already scheduled to retire this year, so his resignation now really won’t make that much of a difference.”


3) Obama Will Warn Congress If He Engages in a Taliban Swap. Back on June 21, 2013, Carney stated, “there are some issues that we would like to discuss with the Taliban directly, and this includes the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl, who has been gone for far too long….As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.” Right. We know how that went. Repeated.

4) If You Like Your Health Plan, You Can Keep Your Health Plan. Carney was one of many Obama officials who repeated this lie over and over again. As late as October 2013, Carney stated, “The fact of the matter is, if you had insurance on the individual market prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and you have that plan today, you can keep it, you’re grandfathered in forever. No matter how crummy the plan is.” Politifact named it the 2013 Lie of the Year.

5) IRS Scandal Limited. Jay Carney repeated over and over that the IRS scandal was limited to a few rogue employees in Cincinnati. Totally false.

6) Obamacare Enrollment Goal In January 2014, Carney told Major Garrett that the 7 million Obamacare enrollment goal was never a White House figure, it was a Congressional Budget Office estimate, and that other estimates varied. Even after Garrett interrupted him with, “Kathleen Sebelius said on Sept. 30 — this is a direct quote: ‘I think success looks like at least 7 million people having signed up by the end of March 2014,'” Carney continued to try and spin his way out of it.


So, no, he wasn't lying, he was "spinning the truth"!


Edit: You may not remember many, but that's because most of the media looked the other way.

And by all means, keep believing the Bush knew WMD lies. And ignoring the lies that came out of the Obama White House!

       x20             
Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 236 Private Messages MarkDaSpark

But let's not forget the last doozie from Obama's last Press Secretary (Josh Earnest) ... that Obama has been the "most transparent President".


Obamacare, Benghazi, TPP, Bergdahl deal, Iran deal ... so many hidden and not transparent scheming.


But hey, it's not like pointing out lies the first day is new .

       x20             
Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 236 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:Interesting points that you make.
I am, however, interested in clarification of the quoted one. What was the daily litany of intentional lying about facts that was committed by the Obama administration? Not spin, not being choosy about what to say, not normal politicking, but outright lies. What was the lie to truth ratio? When - and what was the rate - were they proven false and simply doubled down on the lie?

Edit: this isn't a matter, to me, of defending Obama and vilifying Trump. I'm honestly unable to think of anything approaching the level of disregard for the truth shown by Trump. From any prior administration since I started paying attention, with the closest being Bush/Cheney on WMD in Iraq.



As to the rate? I'll let this speak to that ....


A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. It went so high and so far off into the distance that the man couldn’t see where it ended.

He asked, “What are all those clocks?”

St. Peter answered, “Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock.

Every time you lie, the hands on your clock will move.”

The man, a bit nervous because he knew he had lied a time or two during the course of his lifetime, pointed to a clock that seemed to be at midnight. “Whose clock is that?” he asked.

“That’s Mother Teresa’s. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie.”

“Incredible,” said the man”. And whose clock is that one?”

St. Peter responded, “That’s Abraham Lincoln’s clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life.”

“Where’s Barack Obama’s clock?” asked the man.

“Obama’s clock is in Jesus’ office.

He’s using it as a ceiling fan.

       x20             
Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

rpm


quality posts: 210 Private Messages rpm
MarkDaSpark wrote:Just some highlights ...

Solid list of real LIES

Edit: You may not remember many, but that's because most of the media looked the other way.

And by all means, keep believing the Bush knew WMD lies. And ignoring the lies that came out of the Obama White House!



I won't try to improve on your list. I should point out that none of these were spin, even though they involved spin. They were intentional lies that the people giving the orders to go out and spin the stories knew were out and out lies.

There's probably a better argument that the things the media calls Trump lies are spin than any of the things in Sparky's list (and there are other examples).

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

tiger7610


quality posts: 21 Private Messages tiger7610

How much of the keep your plan lie was part of Aca and how much was it insurance companies having to drop the plan because they did not fillfill the criteria?

rpm


quality posts: 210 Private Messages rpm
tiger7610 wrote:How much of the keep your plan lie was part of Aca and how much was it insurance companies having to drop the plan because they did not fillfill the criteria?



You should really listen to Gruber's interview in which he admits they knew you wouldn't be able to keep your plan because they knew plans wouldn't comply. It was intentional that the plans wouldn't comply, but they wanted the blame to fall on the insurance companies, not the administration for the design.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

bhodilee


quality posts: 34 Private Messages bhodilee
rpm wrote:Ah, Grasshopper! You're too young, and too Canadian, (and quite possibly too sensible) to fully appreciate the importance of the Kennedys in the liberal pantheon. Any Kennedy trumps both Clintons, and an Obama.

I'm not a fan of any of them, from patriarch Joe the securities manipulator, to St. John, Robert the Martyr and Edward the Pretender, or any of their respective progeny. But, they really do make liberals of an age quiver, and during their lifetimes, induced many a liberal young woman to throw themselves shamelessly at them.



A Kennedy in the hand is worth two Bernie's in the bush?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

tiger7610


quality posts: 21 Private Messages tiger7610

At this point, I know a few people who are not sure where their funding is going to come from because of the freezing of EPA/USDA grants. But what is even scarier is the gag order. Someone explain how it is legal to tell a national park to stop posting facts about climate change on their twitter. What happened to the first amendment?

bhodilee


quality posts: 34 Private Messages bhodilee
tiger7610 wrote:At this point, I know a few people who are not sure where their funding is going to come from because of the freezing of EPA/USDA grants. But what is even scarier is the gag order. Someone explain how it is legal to tell a national park to stop posting facts about climate change on their twitter. What happened to the first amendment?



1. Whose facts? The president does nto believe in climate change. Which is stupid, we know the climate changes. The impact of man on the rate of change can be debated, not that it can/does/will/is changing.
2. They're a federal agency telling their boss to go Mentos himself. Go do that to your boss right now and tell me how it goes. Or use twitter and see how it goes.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

rpm


quality posts: 210 Private Messages rpm
bhodilee wrote:1. Whose facts? The president does nto believe in climate change. Which is stupid, we know the climate changes. The impact of man on the rate of change can be debated, not that it can/does/will/is changing.
2. They're a federal agency telling their boss to go Mentos himself. Go do that to your boss right now and tell me how it goes. Or use twitter and see how it goes.



1. Of course Trump knows the climate changes.... the term "climate change" is a shorthand, not a very accurate one, for the proposition that anthropomorphic activity is the prime cause of change in the climate. Silly.

2. Agree. Your employer certainly has the right to determine the conditions under which you can speak using the employer's resources, on the employer's time, or in any way identified with the employer such that third parties would associate you with the employer and/or reasonably believe you are speaking for the employer.

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

bhodilee


quality posts: 34 Private Messages bhodilee
rpm wrote:1. Of course Trump knows the climate changes.... the term "climate change" is a shorthand, not a very accurate one, for the proposition that anthropomorphic activity is the prime cause of change in the climate. Silly.

2. Agree. Your employer certainly has the right to determine the conditions under which you can speak using the employer's resources, on the employer's time, or in any way identified with the employer such that third parties would associate you with the employer and/or reasonably believe you are speaking for the employer.



1) Climate change is an accurate term. Global Warming was the biggest mistake Climate Change activists made. It was easy to undermine. When he said it was a hoax by the Chinese, did he say Global Warming or Climate Change? I don't remember which terms he used, but they're critical towards understanding what he actually thinks.

2) Yep, even posted from their personal twitter using the Feds Internet/computer/whatever, you just can't do that. I tell people here all the time, I don't care if you use your personal cellphone, if you're using my Network, that means it's mine. You don't want me to get angry, use youre phones data!

Edit: Also, you might be the only person I know that would appreciate this. The other morning my wife got mad at me and said "you can't answer a question with question!" To which I replied, "I HAVE TO!" She did not understand Socrates.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

rpm


quality posts: 210 Private Messages rpm
bhodilee wrote:1) Climate change is an accurate term. Global Warming was the biggest mistake Climate Change activists made. It was easy to undermine. When he said it was a hoax by the Chinese, did he say Global Warming or Climate Change? I don't remember which terms he used, but they're critical towards understanding what he actually thinks.

2) Yep, even posted from their personal twitter using the Feds Internet/computer/whatever, you just can't do that. I tell people here all the time, I don't care if you use your personal cellphone, if you're using my Network, that means it's mine. You don't want me to get angry, use youre phones data!

Edit: Also, you might be the only person I know that would appreciate this. The other morning my wife got mad at me and said "you can't answer a question with question!" To which I replied, "I HAVE TO!" She did not understand Socrates.



Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

klezman


quality posts: 178 Private Messages klezman
bhodilee wrote:1. Whose facts? The president does nto believe in climate change. Which is stupid, we know the climate changes. The impact of man on the rate of change can be debated, not that it can/does/will/is changing.
2. They're a federal agency telling their boss to go Mentos himself. Go do that to your boss right now and tell me how it goes. Or use twitter and see how it goes.



While I agree with #2, the fact that anybody is still debating whether human-emitted CO2 is a major contributor to climate change is scary.
I am very worried for the progress of science during this administration. We're not off to a good start.

I stopped counting bottles. My CT

bhodilee


quality posts: 34 Private Messages bhodilee
klezman wrote:While I agree with #2, the fact that anybody is still debating whether human-emitted CO2 is a major contributor to climate change is scary.
I am very worried for science during this administration. We're not off to a good start.



Fixed that for you

Edit: Also, we never hear about Methane and N2O which also suck, it's always CO2 and just like "Global Warming' I think it's harmful to preach and preach about CO2. I know that you know, but most don't know, you know?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)