Politifact: 76% of what Trump says are Mostly False to Pants on Fire lies. Does it matter?

[Iceweasel]

I don't think his policies matter as much as he speaks his mind and isn't establishment.

So, in other words for you, anyone who speaks their mind is pretty much all that you are looking for in a president. Well, that and no experience or knowledge of governmental policy of course.

Yeah...kinda like Obama.....or should it say...just like Obamy ?

Except Obama had been a community organizer who taught constitutional law for 10 years at the university level. Being president is being the world's most powerful community organizer. And his teaching is why he always wins when it comes to constitutional issues.

He mostly lectured. The fact is he spent his entire life suckling on the public titty. It's all he knows. He couldn't run a hot dog stand. Only the delusional think the economy is doing well, obamanomics doesn't work. We can spend our way into prosperity and learning from others' mistakes somehow isn't doable for liberals.

What liberals want is power and they don't really care about the consequences.

 

[Fueri]

I don't think his policies matter as much as he speaks his mind and isn't establishment.

So, in other words for you, anyone who speaks their mind is pretty much all that you are looking for in a president. Well, that and no experience or knowledge of governmental policy of course.

Yeah...kinda like Obama.....or should it say...just like Obamy ?

Except Obama had been a community organizer who taught constitutional law for 10 years at the university level. Being president is being the world's most powerful community organizer. And his teaching is why he always wins when it comes to constitutional issues.

Gawd, there are times when the 'funny' button just ain't enough....

 

[Camp]

The fact that Trump's pathological lying is indisputable and proven beyond any doubt makes no difference to those who fall into the category of "cult follower". They march like lemmings to the sea.

Name one with a link and lets discuss it then.

I dont know of any deliberate lies he has told.

And note, Trump saying something that you disagree with is not a lie. He has to know that it is false when he says it or it is not a lie. Hyperbole is also not a lie.

So what was this awful lie Trump told?

roflmao

I agree that the first utterance of what may be called a "lie" can be something less than a lie. It can be as you say, hyperbole, misunderstanding, embellishment, exaggeration, etc. It does not become a real lie until factual data of indisputable source are brought forward to show the comment is wrong and of a need of correction. When the person accused of misrepresentation refuses to adjust their comments the misrepresentation becomes an actual lie.
Trump has told a long list of misrepresentations and refused to correct himself after indisputable evidence has shown his comments to be misrepresented. His failure to adjust even the most obvious misrepresentations is disturbing because it says he is comfortable with even the most serious lies and made more serious that his followers accept him being such a pronounced liar on so many serious subjects.

 

[OldLady]

One of my favorites is Trump's stump lie that refugees are coming in with no documentation, we have no idea who they are. He was using this one earlier in the race, but recently used it again in an interview. Now, if Trump is serious about national security, you'd think he might actually take the matter seriously and tell the truth about it. He could still argue for halting immigration and win, I think, just not basing it on bald faced lies.

Why does he keep it up? It's sad there are a bunch of people out there who BELIEVE him.

Below, from Politifact on Trump's stance on immigration:

Do the refugees get background checks?

The refugees admissions program, created in 1980 and retooled after 9/11, does actually perform background checks on all refugees, to the extent possible.

Before refugees face U.S. screening, they must get a referral from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (or occasionally a U.S. embassy or another NGO). The UN refers about 1 percent of refugees for resettlement through its own vetting process, which takes four to 10 months. During that process, UN officials decide if people actually qualify as refugees, if they require resettlement, and which country would accept them.

Once the cases are passed along to the United States, the refugees undergo security clearances. Their names, biographical information and fingerprints are run through federal terrorism and criminal databases. Meanwhile, the refugees are interviewed by Department of Homeland Security officials. If approved, they then undergo a medical screening, a match with sponsor agencies, "cultural orientation" classes and one final security clearance.

Syrian refugees in particular must clear one additional hurdle. Their documents are placed under extra scrutiny and cross-referenced with classified and unclassified information.

The process typically takes one to two yearsor longerand happens before a refugee ever gets onto American soil.

According to the State Department, Syrians tend to have more identity documents than other refugee groups around the world, and the reasons they give for missing documents (a bomb dropping on their house) can be verified.

Experts also warned against conflating the European vetting process, which is extremely chaotic, with the process used by the United States.

In the United States, very few resettled refugees — three since 9/11, according to theWashington Post’s Fact Checker — have been implicated in terrorist situations. Daryl Grisgraber of Refugees International pointed out that the Tsarnaevs came to the United States as children from Chechnya and applied for asylum, but were radicalized here.

Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any traveler category to the United States. So for ISIS to take advantage of the refugee program "makes no operational sense," said Anne Speckhard, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University.

PolitiFact Sheet: 5 questions about Syrian refugees

========
" to the extent possible " is where the problem comes in.

The ONLY source of information about a refugee comes from the government of his country 99.9% of the time. And the government of the country the refugees are fleeing from hates the United States with a passion.

So we have no way of knowing how much of what they tell us is true and for the most part they won't tell us anything. Why would they?

They tell us to go **** ourselves.

How are you supposed to get valid dependable information to do a background check on someone when their government won't co-operate at all?

Not only in the article I cited, but in other news I have seen and read, Syrians are more likely than any other group of refugees to have their papers with them. They have long had to carry their documentation at home, so they are more likely to have it on them when they flee. Trump's assertion that "thousands and thousands are coming in without documentation, we don't know who they are" is simply not true. Now, if you want to take the stance that the Syrian government is lying to the UN and to us, there is nothing more I can say. Except that if that is the case, Trump will never rescind a 'temporary' ban on Muslims, because he (and you) will never be satisfied with their information. Do pay attention, though, to the glaring fact that terrorists aren't dumb enough to come to the US as refugees when they can come in on a tourist or work or student visa instead.

 

[OldLady]

The fact that Trump's pathological lying is indisputable and proven beyond any doubt makes no difference to those who fall into the category of "cult follower". They march like lemmings to the sea.

Name one with a link and lets discuss it then.

I dont know of any deliberate lies he has told.

And note, Trump saying something that you disagree with is not a lie. He has to know that it is false when he says it or it is not a lie. Hyperbole is also not a lie.

So what was this awful lie Trump told?

roflmao

Did you read my posts?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I agree that the first utterance of what may be called a "lie" can be something less than a lie. It can be as you say, hyperbole, misunderstanding, embellishment, exaggeration, etc. It does not become a real lie until factual data of indisputable source are brought forward to show the comment is wrong and of a need of correction. When the person accused of misrepresentation refuses to adjust their comments the misrepresentation becomes an actual lie.

OMG, thank you for answering my question!

But you are wrong, of course, as a lie is not an 'erroneous statement' but a 'statement made KNOWING it was erroneous'.

So stop trying to move the goal posts so you can make a shorter kick and just answer the freaking question; what has Donald Trump said that you can prove he KNEW WAS A LIE?

Trump has told a long list of misrepresentations and refused to correct himself after indisputable evidence has shown his comments to be misrepresented. His failure to adjust even the most obvious misrepresentations is disturbing because it says he is comfortable with even the most serious lies and made more serious that his followers accept him being such a pronounced liar on so many serious subjects.

He continues to disagree with a liberal even after the liberals shows cooked data, slanted presentations of questionable facts and spits on Baby Jesus.

None of that amounts to a lie and you still provided no specific cases.

Thank you for playing.

hohum

 

[JimBowie1958]

The fact that Trump's pathological lying is indisputable and proven beyond any doubt makes no difference to those who fall into the category of "cult follower". They march like lemmings to the sea.

Name one with a link and lets discuss it then.

I dont know of any deliberate lies he has told.

And note, Trump saying something that you disagree with is not a lie. He has to know that it is false when he says it or it is not a lie. Hyperbole is also not a lie.

So what was this awful lie Trump told?

roflmao

Did you read my posts?

I replied to one. Did you read it?

What response numbers in this thread are they and I will go back and read them and respond if I think I can add anything of value.

 

[Camp]

I agree that the first utterance of what may be called a "lie" can be something less than a lie. It can be as you say, hyperbole, misunderstanding, embellishment, exaggeration, etc. It does not become a real lie until factual data of indisputable source are brought forward to show the comment is wrong and of a need of correction. When the person accused of misrepresentation refuses to adjust their comments the misrepresentation becomes an actual lie.

OMG, thank you for answering my question!

But you are wrong, of course, as a lie is not an 'erroneous statement' but a 'statement made KNOWING it was erroneous'.

So stop trying to move the goal posts so you can make a shorter kick and just answer the freaking question; what has Donald Trump said that you can prove he KNEW WAS A LIE?

Trump has told a long list of misrepresentations and refused to correct himself after indisputable evidence has shown his comments to be misrepresented. His failure to adjust even the most obvious misrepresentations is disturbing because it says he is comfortable with even the most serious lies and made more serious that his followers accept him being such a pronounced liar on so many serious subjects.

He continues to disagree with a liberal even after the liberals shows cooked data, slanted presentations of questionable facts and spits on Baby Jesus.

None of that amounts to a lie and you still provided no specific cases.

Thank you for playing.

hohum

A mistaken or erroneous statement becomes a lie when the person is shown the statement is factually wrong but makes a conscious decision to keep telling the mistaken or erroneous statement anyway. Trump did not see thousands of Muslims celebrating in the streets of New Jersey on 9/11, nor did the hijackers fly their wives and families out of America days before the 9/11 attack. He has never recanted or corrected himself on these comments that are deemed malicious because of the way they alienate and misinform the attitudes and actions of the American Muslim community.
Putin did not refer to Trump as a genius the way Trump has been claiming for over two months, despite the fact that it has been public knowledge that Putin never called him a genius, rather, he called him colorful, bright and flamboyant. The word bright was used in the context of colorful and flamboyant. The word used by Putin also means eccentric. Putin never said anything close to the Russian word genii which means genius. There is no mistake about what Putin said.
How long a list do you require to understand how much of a liar Trump is? Trump steaks?

 

[OldLady]

The fact that Trump's pathological lying is indisputable and proven beyond any doubt makes no difference to those who fall into the category of "cult follower". They march like lemmings to the sea.

Name one with a link and lets discuss it then.

I dont know of any deliberate lies he has told.

And note, Trump saying something that you disagree with is not a lie. He has to know that it is false when he says it or it is not a lie. Hyperbole is also not a lie.

So what was this awful lie Trump told?

roflmao

Did you read my posts?

I replied to one. Did you read it?

What response numbers in this thread are they and I will go back and read them and respond if I think I can add anything of value.

Yes, you said the information on vetting refugees was "bullshit." The bullshit came from a long list of reputable organizations that provided the information for the article. I can't argue with a stance like that, Jim; it's like arguing in a conspiracy theory thread. If you can't accept credible information from the source, there is nothing more I can say.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, you said the information on vetting refugees was "bullshit." The bullshit came from a long list of reputable organizations that provided the information for the article. I can't argue with a stance like that, Jim; it's like arguing in a conspiracy theory thread. If you can't accept credible information from the source, there is nothing more I can say.

I didnt respond with merely 'it is bullshit' or that it is a conspiracy.

Please READ my response again.

There is no way to vet the past jobs, residences and relationships of these people while they are from a WAR TORN NATION.

See the difference?

 

[paulitician]

Sorry Politifact, ain't voting for the corrupt witch and her rapist husband. Go Trump!

 

[Camp]

Yes, you said the information on vetting refugees was "bullshit." The bullshit came from a long list of reputable organizations that provided the information for the article. I can't argue with a stance like that, Jim; it's like arguing in a conspiracy theory thread. If you can't accept credible information from the source, there is nothing more I can say.

I didnt respond with merely 'it is bullshit' or that it is a conspiracy.

Please READ my response again.

There is no way to vet the past jobs, residences and relationships of these people while they are from a WAR TORN NATION.

See the difference?

There is a way to investigate and vet refugees Jim. Those people have neighbors, friends and people from their communities that are also available for being interviewed. In addition, there are years of local news media accounts and years of foreign intelligence sources.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A mistaken or erroneous statement becomes a lie when the person is shown the statement is factually wrong but makes a conscious decision to keep telling the mistaken or erroneous statement anyway.

No, that could also mean that the person knows of contrary data or that he does not trust the source of the information or its validity in other ways. That does not constitute a lie.

Telling the whole nation that the ACA will allow you to keep your old insurance plan when you KNOW it will not, that is a lie.

Trump did not see thousands of Muslims celebrating in the streets of New Jersey on 9/11, nor did the hijackers fly their wives and families out of America days before the 9/11 attack.

Trump saw thousands of muslims celebrating the fall of the Trade center across the globe and of some muslims in New Jersey that celebrated it also. At worst Trumps statement was hyperbole, but having seen what he saw, I dont think characterizing it as 'I saw thousands of Muslims celebrating the fall of the Trade Center (some) right here in New Jersey' is a lie. Not even close.

Where are the celebrating Muslims crowds SUPPORTING our nations war effort?

He has never recanted or corrected himself on these comments that are deemed malicious because of the way they alienate and misinform the attitudes and actions of the American Muslim community.

lol, you say that as if the Muslim leaders are publicly demonstrating their solid support of the war against he Jihadists. That is a myth. Muslims will never denounce Jihadis for various reasons, one of which is that it is central tenet of their religion.

Putin did not refer to Trump as a genius the way Trump has been claiming for over two months, despite the fact that it has been public knowledge that Putin never called him a genius, rather, he called him colorful, bright and flamboyant. The word bright was used in the context of colorful and flamboyant. The word used by Putin also means eccentric. Putin never said anything close to the Russian word genii which means genius. There is no mistake about what Putin said.

Lol, now you engage in semantic quibbling. Maybe Trump met Putin privately and told Trump that Trump was a genius? How do you know that has not happened? It would make Trumps statement true.

Which is an example of what is actually happening here; yo are making a list of things that could be lies and asserting that they ARE PROVABLE lies, when they are not. Which kind of makes YOU the bigger liar.

How long a list do you require to understand how much of a liar Trump is? Trump steaks?

Well for it to be a significant list I would say at least three, but you have failed to prove even one lie that Trump has knowingly told.

And Trump Steaks, WTF?

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is a way to investigate and vet refugees Jim. Those people have neighbors, friends and people from their communities that are also available for being interviewed.

Roflmao, that is not a valid verifiable source for vetting, dude. You apparently dont understand the nature of the topic. 'Fellow refugees' could be lying too and are therefore unreliable. You are really willing to put national security at risk to get Hillary more votes? lol, you're a Democrat, so of course you are.

In addition, there are years of local news media accounts and years of foreign intelligence sources.

From the Assad regime, or the Syrian State Media?

Dear Gawd!

You dont know what the hell you are talking about!

 

[Arizona Willie]

One of my favorites is Trump's stump lie that refugees are coming in with no documentation, we have no idea who they are. He was using this one earlier in the race, but recently used it again in an interview. Now, if Trump is serious about national security, you'd think he might actually take the matter seriously and tell the truth about it. He could still argue for halting immigration and win, I think, just not basing it on bald faced lies.

Why does he keep it up? It's sad there are a bunch of people out there who BELIEVE him.

Below, from Politifact on Trump's stance on immigration:

Do the refugees get background checks?

The refugees admissions program, created in 1980 and retooled after 9/11, does actually perform background checks on all refugees, to the extent possible.

Before refugees face U.S. screening, they must get a referral from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (or occasionally a U.S. embassy or another NGO). The UN refers about 1 percent of refugees for resettlement through its own vetting process, which takes four to 10 months. During that process, UN officials decide if people actually qualify as refugees, if they require resettlement, and which country would accept them.

Once the cases are passed along to the United States, the refugees undergo security clearances. Their names, biographical information and fingerprints are run through federal terrorism and criminal databases. Meanwhile, the refugees are interviewed by Department of Homeland Security officials. If approved, they then undergo a medical screening, a match with sponsor agencies, "cultural orientation" classes and one final security clearance.

Syrian refugees in particular must clear one additional hurdle. Their documents are placed under extra scrutiny and cross-referenced with classified and unclassified information.

The process typically takes one to two yearsor longerand happens before a refugee ever gets onto American soil.

According to the State Department, Syrians tend to have more identity documents than other refugee groups around the world, and the reasons they give for missing documents (a bomb dropping on their house) can be verified.

Experts also warned against conflating the European vetting process, which is extremely chaotic, with the process used by the United States.

In the United States, very few resettled refugees — three since 9/11, according to theWashington Post’s Fact Checker — have been implicated in terrorist situations. Daryl Grisgraber of Refugees International pointed out that the Tsarnaevs came to the United States as children from Chechnya and applied for asylum, but were radicalized here.

Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any traveler category to the United States. So for ISIS to take advantage of the refugee program "makes no operational sense," said Anne Speckhard, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University.

PolitiFact Sheet: 5 questions about Syrian refugees

========
" to the extent possible " is where the problem comes in.

The ONLY source of information about a refugee comes from the government of his country 99.9% of the time. And the government of the country the refugees are fleeing from hates the United States with a passion.

So we have no way of knowing how much of what they tell us is true and for the most part they won't tell us anything. Why would they?

They tell us to go **** ourselves.

How are you supposed to get valid dependable information to do a background check on someone when their government won't co-operate at all?

Not only in the article I cited, but in other news I have seen and read, Syrians are more likely than any other group of refugees to have their papers with them. They have long had to carry their documentation at home, so they are more likely to have it on them when they flee. Trump's assertion that "thousands and thousands are coming in without documentation, we don't know who they are" is simply not true. Now, if you want to take the stance that the Syrian government is lying to the UN and to us, there is nothing more I can say. Except that if that is the case, Trump will never rescind a 'temporary' ban on Muslims, because he (and you) will never be satisfied with their information. Do pay attention, though, to the glaring fact that terrorists aren't dumb enough to come to the US as refugees when they can come in on a tourist or work or student visa instead.

========
If they come as " refugees " the government ( taxpayer ) gives them housing aid ... often gives them a house ... helps them find a job ... gives them medical care etc. etc. but they don't get those things as a tourist or student.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If they come as " refugees " the government ( taxpayer ) gives them housing aid ... often gives them a house ... helps them find a job ... gives them medical care etc. etc. but they don't get those things as a tourist or student.

And our own vets often cant get housing and die int he streets homeless, cant get their due medical treatments and 300k have died waiting for it, and commit suicide at a rate of about one very hour of every day.

And we are arguing about bringing in more noncitizens to take jobs and government benefits so corporations can get labor on the cheap?

 

[OldLady]

Yes, you said the information on vetting refugees was "bullshit." The bullshit came from a long list of reputable organizations that provided the information for the article. I can't argue with a stance like that, Jim; it's like arguing in a conspiracy theory thread. If you can't accept credible information from the source, there is nothing more I can say.

I didnt respond with merely 'it is bullshit' or that it is a conspiracy.

Please READ my response again.

There is no way to vet the past jobs, residences and relationships of these people while they are from a WAR TORN NATION.

See the difference?

There is no way to vet the past jobs, residences and relationships of these people
To me, that means you don't trust the information we are receiving. I didn't say you thought it was a conspiracy, but if you refuse to believe the vetting information we receive, there is absolutely no way to defend vetting anyone.
THAT is why it's similar to arguing against a conspiracy theory--the assertion can't be disproven when the facts are discarded.

 

[OldLady]

One of my favorites is Trump's stump lie that refugees are coming in with no documentation, we have no idea who they are. He was using this one earlier in the race, but recently used it again in an interview. Now, if Trump is serious about national security, you'd think he might actually take the matter seriously and tell the truth about it. He could still argue for halting immigration and win, I think, just not basing it on bald faced lies.

Why does he keep it up? It's sad there are a bunch of people out there who BELIEVE him.

Below, from Politifact on Trump's stance on immigration:

Do the refugees get background checks?

The refugees admissions program, created in 1980 and retooled after 9/11, does actually perform background checks on all refugees, to the extent possible.

Before refugees face U.S. screening, they must get a referral from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (or occasionally a U.S. embassy or another NGO). The UN refers about 1 percent of refugees for resettlement through its own vetting process, which takes four to 10 months. During that process, UN officials decide if people actually qualify as refugees, if they require resettlement, and which country would accept them.

Once the cases are passed along to the United States, the refugees undergo security clearances. Their names, biographical information and fingerprints are run through federal terrorism and criminal databases. Meanwhile, the refugees are interviewed by Department of Homeland Security officials. If approved, they then undergo a medical screening, a match with sponsor agencies, "cultural orientation" classes and one final security clearance.

Syrian refugees in particular must clear one additional hurdle. Their documents are placed under extra scrutiny and cross-referenced with classified and unclassified information.

The process typically takes one to two yearsor longerand happens before a refugee ever gets onto American soil.

According to the State Department, Syrians tend to have more identity documents than other refugee groups around the world, and the reasons they give for missing documents (a bomb dropping on their house) can be verified.

Experts also warned against conflating the European vetting process, which is extremely chaotic, with the process used by the United States.

In the United States, very few resettled refugees — three since 9/11, according to theWashington Post’s Fact Checker — have been implicated in terrorist situations. Daryl Grisgraber of Refugees International pointed out that the Tsarnaevs came to the United States as children from Chechnya and applied for asylum, but were radicalized here.

Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any traveler category to the United States. So for ISIS to take advantage of the refugee program "makes no operational sense," said Anne Speckhard, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University.

PolitiFact Sheet: 5 questions about Syrian refugees

========
" to the extent possible " is where the problem comes in.

The ONLY source of information about a refugee comes from the government of his country 99.9% of the time. And the government of the country the refugees are fleeing from hates the United States with a passion.

So we have no way of knowing how much of what they tell us is true and for the most part they won't tell us anything. Why would they?

They tell us to go **** ourselves.

How are you supposed to get valid dependable information to do a background check on someone when their government won't co-operate at all?

Not only in the article I cited, but in other news I have seen and read, Syrians are more likely than any other group of refugees to have their papers with them. They have long had to carry their documentation at home, so they are more likely to have it on them when they flee. Trump's assertion that "thousands and thousands are coming in without documentation, we don't know who they are" is simply not true. Now, if you want to take the stance that the Syrian government is lying to the UN and to us, there is nothing more I can say. Except that if that is the case, Trump will never rescind a 'temporary' ban on Muslims, because he (and you) will never be satisfied with their information. Do pay attention, though, to the glaring fact that terrorists aren't dumb enough to come to the US as refugees when they can come in on a tourist or work or student visa instead.

========
If they come as " refugees " the government ( taxpayer ) gives them housing aid ... often gives them a house ... helps them find a job ... gives them medical care etc. etc. but they don't get those things as a tourist or student.

Nope, Willie, ISIS employed terrorists don't need welfare. Believe me.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is no way to vet the past jobs, residences and relationships of these people
To me, that means you don't trust the information we are receiving. I didn't say you thought it was a conspiracy, but if you refuse to believe the vetting information we receive, there is absolutely no way to defend vetting anyone.
THAT is why it's similar to arguing against a conspiracy theory--the assertion can't be disproven when the facts are discarded.

I am an old fogey, so maybe the standards have changed a whole bunch since I was investigated, but maybe not.

At any rate, there are methods that are 100% certain, and methods much less so.

I consider asking other camp refugees and taking data from a hostile totalitarian dictatorship and its controlled media to be less than reliable sources of information.

It is certainly substandard from back in the old days when they would go to your school, talk to anyone that was there when you attended and look for you picture in that years school book, talk to your parents, to your priest, to your past employers, etc.

If our background checking system has become that much of a joke, then the fault is not yours or anyone else who makes the mistake of trusting these incompetents.