<div>
<div>
<div>Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
Ninfan is no troll in any sense of the word. He may be hurting your feelings and enraging your inner safe spaces but that’s your lookout not his.
The only thing that hurts is my sides and the occasional glass injury when the irony meter blows...
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
Count%ero, it’s like you read my points above on the weakness of the Neilsen live television viewing figures in the age of recorded and global live-stream internet viewing, webcasts, YouTube and twitter… and <i>literally</i> absorbed none of them
But I assume Trump has actual figures with a solid explanation of how they were calculated? Or are they just bigley huge like his ego that is getting bruised on a daily basis?
</div>
<div>
</div>
rebuttal’ to Trumps suggestion that it was the most viewed relies on (good old MSM reportage) interpretation of his claim and them rebutting it with ‘Neilsen’ live TV viewing figures
Your glaring weakness is his tweet/claim states those figures, ad they are surpassed by many other presidents, so you , and he, are the fake news here as anyone who uses facts understands Its amusing to argue those figures are wrong when they are the ones he used.
instead of saying “not proven” you called it not true – that make you FAKE NEWS
so Trump himself is guilty of fake news then even according to trolls who try to support him
A progress of sorts I guess there
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12px;">even the CNN coverage accepts that IF Trump is including web viewing</span>
But Trump isn't claiming that, he's claimed in a tweet that 45 million watched it, which he then goes onto say "was the highest number in history" he doesn't say "plus some other folk who streamed it, or watched it later", or anything, just says 45 million, highest number, which it isn't.
So anyway you cut it, his statement is wrong. Fake News, if you like...
And you still don’t get it do you?
Trumps said something that’s quite literally true (would you really dispute that including global interest, internet viewing etc. the numbers surpass previous figures) but put it out there with a disputed figure behind it.
again making the story about “actually, a hell of a lot lot of people saw Trump SOU, and in essence the story is true, even if you want to quibble on the nature of the figures’
What happened with £350 million?
getting it yet
it reaches far more people this way than otherwise - because it dominates the conversation. Just like 350m kept people talking about how much money was sent to the EU
So if Trump uses the figures and lies it's fine, if anyone else uses the same figures to tell the truth it's fake news. Okay think I'm up to speed now. Maybe he's just not good at numbers? It would explain a lot.
Hold it, the figures that you can't tell us because there is no way to verify them are definitely higher than the other figures you don't know as there's no way to verify them? You pitching for a job as Press Secretary?
Just to remind you:
it massively offends/upsets al, the people who already hate trump
the people who are ambivalent shrug their shoulders, it’s “Donald being Donald”
the people who support trump see through the figure to the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">underlying</span> message
the media is dominated by Trump coverage
after the furore over the inauguration viewership you would have to be stupid not to see the pattern. (Once is a mistake...) . It’s utterly deliberate, remember This is the guy who won the election despite having zero chance of winning - and this is how he did it.
Clip clop,clip clop.
By lying, yes we know that's how he won it. Not sure what your point is.
“By lying”
Name a president who didn’t
Name one who lied more?
ninfanMember
“By lying”Name a president who didn’t
Name a POTUS who was as blatant and shameless about it, while accusing his critics of pushing ‘fake news’.
Nixon is possibly the closest.
“Name one who lied more”
Ok, so now it’s ok to lie if you only do it occasionally, or limit it a few particuarly egregious whoppers? (”you’ll be able to your health care plan”, “there is no spying on Americans”, and that’s before we even mention WMD...)
I wonder if Trump gets to use the IRS to go after his political opponents now he's the boss?
Yes or no answer, please Ninfan.
Does The Donald lie?
From a December 2017 article published in the New York Times
They don't call them lies, but in the first 10 months of his presidency Donald Trump told almost 6 times as many falsehoods as Barack Obama did in 8 years.
resubmitted the image because I've not got to grips with the forum changes and I couldn't edit the original post. Trump is the red line, Obama the blue
Did they include the 37 times he said you can keep your care plan as one lie or as individual ones?
They only included distinct and clearcut falsehoods for both presidents. They didn't include misleading statements, mild exaggerations or anything that could be open to reasonable interpretation but stated that if they had the divide between the two presidents would have been even greater.
Sorry, I can only find video of 36 - wouldn’t want to be accused of lying about the numbers...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=soxiEoHyZq0
Do they include every time Trump golfs after saying he wouldn't have time for golfing?
Quick maths estimates 980 lies against Obama's 18 if you extrapolate out. So pretty close. Obviously you can't verify these figures but apparently that doesn't matter.
Original article here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunday/trump-lies-obama-who-is-worse.html
and yes they do include Obama's comments on healthcare, in these two paragraphs:
"We have used the word “lies” again here, as we did in our original piece. If anything, though, the word is unfair to Obama and Bush. When they became aware that they had been saying something untrue, they stopped doing it. Obama didn’t continue to claim that all Americans would be able to keep their existing health insurance under Obamacare, for example, and Bush changed the way he spoke about Iraq’s weapons capability.
Trump is different. When he is caught lying, he will often try to discredit people telling the truth, be they judges, scientists, F.B.I. or C.I.A. officials, journalists or members of Congress. Trump is trying to make truth irrelevant. It is extremely damaging to democracy, and it’s not an accident. It’s core to his political strategy."
“Obama didn’t continue to claim that all Americans would be able to keep their existing health insurance under Obamacare”
No, he just lied about ever having made the promise in the first place 😆
[quote=Ninfan]Why bother when so few of the lefties on here have the intelligence to hold a halfway decent conversation?
Funny how a bad workman blames his tools eh! If everyone you try to converse with comes across as an idiot to you then one of the following is true:
1) Every single person on this forum you talk to is actually an idiot
2) You are actually an idiot yourself
I'll leave the reader to come to their own conclusion on the likely probability of each suggestion
That politifact website is rather good,
[url] http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/ [/url]
vs
[url] http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ [/url]
So the conclusion is others learn from their mistakes, Donald throws a strop and blames everyone else.
Next Batter Please....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42910377
A Republican-drafted memo alleging FBI bias against US President Donald Trump will be released on Friday, a senior White House official says.
Mr Trump is expected to declassify the document and send it to Congress for release, according to US media.
The FBI has voiced "grave concerns" about the release of the memo, which is expected to have redactions.
It reportedly says the FBI misled an intelligence court to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump election campaign.
Democrats say the memo is a ruse to discredit a federal inquiry into links between President Trump's presidential campaign and Russia.
A crude attempt to influence public opinion and undermine the investigation by the FBI. It's very obvious but his ever decreasing lunatic fringe base will lap it up along with the cuts to their healthcare and not getting anything from the tax cuts for the rich. Now does this revolution prefer the Guillotine or the Firing Squad?
[b]ninfan[/b] wrote:
And you still don’t get it do you?
Trumps said something that’s quite literally true (would you really dispute that including global interest, internet viewing etc. the numbers surpass previous figures) but put it out there with a disputed figure behind it.
Let me remind you what he wrote:
"45.6 million people watched, the highest number in history." The number is centre stage of his claim. Is that quite literally true? Do you quite literally understand what literally means?
Though of course this is just one example of the many times Donnie has blatantly lied and you've rushed in to defend him by obfuscating. Because you like obfuscating. I have to admit I'm surprised you're still here, I'd have expected you to go for the job when Spicer left - you'd do a much better job than Sanders.
This is well worth a read
http://www.stonekettle.com/2018/01/dirty-tricks.html
Before I comment - my personal opinion is that I hate Trump and everything he stands for.
However - ninfan has a point. It doesn’t matter whether he was wrong or not about the biggest audience ever. As ninfan quite rightly points out, the democrats/left will be enraged, the middle will shrug and the right will lap it up. Either way he’s got the coverage he wanted.
Having spent quite a bit of time in the US last year, the sentiment seems to be ‘he’s better than the alternative’. To most (me included) he’s a racist, sexist, corrupt man who is making a mockery of everything the whitehouse and US government stands for. Not to mention a danger to the rest of the world. But for the majority of people in the US he’s an improvement over what they had. He’s spun this so well that he could probably shoot a baby in the face and get away with it. Fake news. Corrupt media. To his supporters if he passes one bill out of 100 he’s a success.
We can’t get our head round it, similar to us not being able to understand their desire for guns. But to a lot of Americans, making America great again takes priority over building foreign relations or reducing environmental impact and on that front he’s golden.
He’ll make a second term unless the Russia stuff means he’s impeached or shot. If that happens it’ll be bedlam and he’ll go down as a martyr. Sadly I think we’re stuck with him for the foreseeable
He’ll make a second term unless the Russia stuff means he’s impeached or shot.
Give it a few days for the memo to hit. The Russian stuff is about to take a whole new meaning.
for the majority of people in the US he’s an improvement over what they had.
How come he did not win the popular vote ?Have you seen his record breaking popularity scores?
I will be surprised if he last that long ,surprised if he stands, and amazed if he then winsHe’ll make a second term
However – ninfan has a point. It doesn’t matter whether he was wrong or not about the biggest audience ever. As ninfan quite rightly points out, the democrats/left will be enraged, the middle will shrug and the right will lap it up. Either way he’s got the coverage he wanted.
I was there last year, in a very very red bit of Utah, the support is flagging in many areas. If he doesn't deliver they will not support him.
He’ll make a second term unless the Russia stuff means he’s impeached or shot. If that happens it’ll be bedlam and he’ll go down as a martyr. Sadly I think we’re stuck with him for the foreseeable
Current predictions is he will end up costing them control of at least one house. The Republican Party will be the ones who decide if he is going to take them there, if he loses both then there will be impeachment as the Dems could easily have the numbers.
I truly hope it does mean he’s gone, but I fear for them if that does happen - it’ll play right into the spin he’s created and in turn there will be some very angry people, stirred up by the media.
[b]flange[/b] wrote:
However – ninfan has a point. It doesn’t matter whether he was wrong or not about the biggest audience ever. As ninfan quite rightly points out, the democrats/left will be enraged, the middle will shrug and the right will lap it up. Either way he’s got the coverage he wanted.
It's distraction pure and simple. I suspect he also believes his own BS and it's nowhere near that calculated. Though actually looking at the figures and what ordinary people are saying, ninfan is wrong about the middle - they're moving away from Donnie, and I expect the realisation of the difficult relationship he has with the truth has contributed to that.
In any case, ninfan is spinning it here - his main point is apparently that Donnie wasn't lying, despite the key sentence being "45.6 million people watched, the highest number in history". His argument that Donnie was including people watching on the internet (despite quoting TV viewing figures) is pretty much par for the course for ninfan's defences of the indefensible.
And how many watched it for the comedy value? The Morecambe and Wise show is one of the most watched shows in UK history, but I wouldn't want them running the country (although they'd probably do a better job than May or Trump).
You have to put it all in the context of Trump having a personality disorder with narcissistic tone. Whatever he says is true no matter the evidence. what he wants to happen will and must happen. When seen thru this prism then Trump becomes obvious and easy to understand
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12px; background-color: #eeeeee;">It’s distraction pure and simple.</span>
I don't think it is, when Donald took office he said something like "i will never lie to you" or something like that. What he meant I think, is that he will always tell his base what he thinks in a straightforward way without any of the "politician stuff" those other people put in their speeches. His base are a group of people who feel they've been belittled, patronised, and taken for granted, and they like that very much.
The difference however is that that doesn't mean he should be allowed to get away with whoppers, it's just that there's a group of folk that don't care, they don't need to be distracted.
Its not deliberate lying and certainly not done for a specific effect. ~to Trump every word he says is true - thats a part of the personality disorder. He simply cannot say anything that is untrue ( in his mind) so that those calling him out for being wrong must themselves be wrong hence " fake news"
Personality disorder or not, the other thing that springs to mind is the collection of young loaded socialites around here who have managed about 12 months of marriage, take 2 people who nobody has ever said no to and put them together and you get fireworks, Trump's business model is he is right and then he will just get out of it with bankruptcy, it's his only play in the game. Now people dare to say no to them, his response fire them! But he can't he is now having to work to rules he doesn't get in a game he doesn't understand. You can see the strain.
I know ninfan etc will take great joy in picking out individual events that other presidents have made mistakes in, Trump does on nearly every day.
Just like ninfan he is not as dumb as believe the shit he comes out with.to Trump every word he says is true
the best explanation i read was he says what is needed to "win" the debate at that point in time and then does this at the next debate. The fact there is no consistency is irrelevant as he won.
IMHO he know his fake news claim is BS but it wins bigly with his base - ie morons who dot understand the fact based world
Junkyard
its how a personality disorder like Trumps works - he does believe everything he says 'cos in his mind he is infallible therefore everyone that claims he is wrong is lying to him.
He simply is incapable of believing he can be wrong
Or he it just falls out of his brain once he said it.
As an aside I am grateful for Ninfan for his insight. It's easy to disagree with someone ideologically, but if we abandon basic civilized discourse then it all becomes a mess. I do wish that Enfht would step up and respond to my previous post replying to them.
The comparison between the US's nuclear policy change under Trump and Reagan is fascinating - Reagan started out as hawkish on defence, apparently it took several years for his attitude to change but I've read a lot of anecdotal reports that he became a passionate supporter of disarmament. Now the policy of basing intermediate range tactical nuclear weapons in Germany and the UK while expanding research into SDI was to force the USSR into an expensive doctrinal change that would put huge pressure on it's own economy. In the background, US diplomats - remember that the US diplomatic corps wasn't hollowed out as it is today - manoeuvred behind the scenes to entice the Soviets to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, the post Soviet doctrine has also been revised toward an escalatory and automatic strategic posture hand in glove with the use of battlefield tactical nukes as a matter of course.
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/russias-nuclear-doctrine/
Ironically, Russia's stance has been in part dictated by the expense of modernising conventional forces and is regarded as a stop gap measure until such modernisation has been completed.
Which leads me to Trump (and I mean the GOP) and their strategy. Clearly, western powers have little answer for the asymmetric warfare being waged by states like Russia, China, North Korea, etc. In order to plug that gap, they're investing heavily in conventional forces and an aggressive nuclear doctrine. Nations that are ostensibly NATO partners such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Turkey are rapidly lurching towards Russia-friendly authoritarianism and America seems to have no answer to this. More worryingly still, they also seem to be lurching towards authoritarianism at the behest of a relatively small, but extremely wealthy ultra-conservative donors to the GOP.
This from 2013 is quite interesting: http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/26/republican-debt-ceiling-demands-straight-koch-brothers.html
The lifting of a cap on individual donations to political parties (back in 2009, I believe) has meant that a small group of spendy individuals can turn off the funding to a political party at will and control policy agenda. This is why we're seeing GOP politicians telling us that there's no such thing as climate change for example and why environmental protection is being rolled back.
Which leads me to Trump (and I mean the GOP) and their strategy. Clearly, western powers have little answer for the asymmetric warfare being waged by states like Russia, China, North Korea, etc. In order to plug that gap, they’re investing heavily in conventional forces and an aggressive nuclear doctrine.
Enough reading around tells us that Trump and the GOP are struggling to coexist, there has been a well documented trail from before Trump appeared that Sessions and Bannon saw the death of the republican party, they are literally dying out, immigration for on is eroding the majorities they have. The 2 were looking for a candidate to push through something to give them a last hurrah to stave off the inevitable end.
On the <span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12px;">authoritarianism</span><span style="color: #444444;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"> as said above it's also Trump's way, it only works while he controls the narrative, the bluster to sue everyone (before dropping it and paying out when it's all gone quiet) to the way that the brand is everything. The only way to get rid of the uncomfortable voices is to silence them or try an discredit them, the analogue man meets the internet world, as good as it's been to him it allows people to get the truth out if you care to read it.</span></span>
