The Trump Administration's War With Reality

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
We both use the available data but do not assign the same weight to the facts as we see it.

Oh do we really?


Ok then.


I'm using the findings of over half a dozen congressional investigations (that said there was no lying or coverup), the content of the intelligence assessments being provided at the time which said what Clinton and the State Department were then passing on (which mean... no lies), and the actual content of the things Clinton and state said on the subject which matched those assessments (therefore, not lies).

Hence, no lying.

You are using....


"Well, she suspected something different". (which doesn't make communication of the content of the initial intelligence assessments a lie. It makes it doing her job while she waits for the intel to update and finalize and then communicate that too...)



Aaaaaaand.... what? When do you present the data we are both apparently looking at that contains the... you know.... "she lied" part? Rather than just proclaiming you are certain she did?


And I noticed you never addressed motivation. WHY would she have lied? It's ridiculous. There's no purpose to it.

If someone skirts actual lying but dissembles none the less with artful phrases, am I obligated to rely on their words in the future? No, I am not. If I cannot rely on a person's words, does it matter if they are legally or technically lying? NO, it does not.

I don't care what her motivations were. Her words in this case as in many other cases in her history indicate what she says cannot be relied on. The distinction between this and lying matter not a whit to me. To save words I qualify this as lying.

She lied. This is again not an attempt to persuade, but inform you of my opinion on the matter.

PeterZ wrote:
If someone skirts actual lying but dissembles

Show me the "dissembling" then. Where the heck is THAT data?

Because passing along the current intelligence assessments isn't dissembling. Of any kind.

none the less with artful phrases, am I obligated to rely on their words in the future? No, I am not. If I cannot rely on a person's words, does it matter if they are legally or technically lying? NO, it does not.

How does your head not explode from the cognitive dissonance of writing those words and defending Trump all the time.... the man whose picture could be used as the illustration next to those phrases?



And of course you "don't care" about the motivation, because you can't provide one. Claims they would have lied about this don't even make *sense*.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
If someone skirts actual lying but dissembles

Show me the "dissembling" then. Where the heck is THAT data?

Because passing along the current intelligence assessments isn't dissembling. Of any kind.

none the less with artful phrases, am I obligated to rely on their words in the future? No, I am not. If I cannot rely on a person's words, does it matter if they are legally or technically lying? NO, it does not.

How does your head not explode from the cognitive dissonance of writing those words and defending Trump all the time.... the man whose picture could be used as the illustration next to those phrases?



And of course you "don't care" about the motivation, because you can't provide one. Claims they would have lied about this don't even make *sense*.

I already did show and am done with this topic.

PeterZ wrote:
We will not convince the other on this. Believe as you will.

You´re embarassing.

As I said I am morally certain that Clinton lied

That´s usually spelled "delusional" when it contradicts every single piece of evidence.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Show me the "dissembling" then. Where the heck is THAT data?

Because passing along the current intelligence assessments isn't dissembling. Of any kind.

I already did show and am done with this topic.

No you didn't. The one and only single solitary piece of data you have referred to is her suspicion communicated to her daughter that it was an Al Qaeda like attack.

But that does not in any manner make the communication to the public of the current intelligence assessment of what happened "dissembling". That is just proper procedure. And when the assessment updated, the public communication updated to reflect it.

No dissembling. No lying. Just people doing their job. You have showed absolutely nothing to the contrary.

Tenshinai wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
I don't view the world with the same lens as you do. I saw a hostile press get its head handed to it. I saw a bunch of self serving egomaniacal morons attack the President and the President push back hard. I saw an egotistical President bloviate and embellish upon rather unimportant things while his actions comport with my expectation given his campaign promisses.

In short I saw political theater at its finest which will tend to promote those policies I generally support. All else is dross at the moment.

Point of view doesn´t matter if you are lying beyond any shadow of doubt.


Seriously, Trump managed to get the Swedish PM to chastise him about keeping to the facts, this is something that has not happened since Palme spoke up to critique USA about the Vietnam war, and unlike Palme, our current PM, Löfven, is very softspoken and unlikely to speak out like this against anything at all.


Fox news falsified an interview and used fake facts to create a story, and then Trump comes along and takes it a step further, using national ad hominem for his own sick propaganda?

Your country is heading down the drain and you´re cheering on the people doing it.
Real smart.

http://www.infowars.com/trump-was-right ... in-sweden/

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendez ... b64f96b4f2

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/0 ... /21718595/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.ibtimes. ... %3Famp%3D1?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/225366

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how- ... migration/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.expres ... ent=safari

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/07/11/eur ... ewer-jobs/

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday ... ent=safari

https://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/justinh ... t-n2288671

It not just FOX.

biochem wrote:http://www.infowars.com/trump-was-right ... in-sweden/

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendez ... b64f96b4f2

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/0 ... /21718595/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.ibtimes. ... %3Famp%3D1?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/225366

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how- ... migration/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.expres ... ent=safari

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/07/11/eur ... ewer-jobs/

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday ... ent=safari

https://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/justinh ... t-n2288671

It not just FOX.

Do you even realise that part of Trumps statements was based on a guy trolling? He did a FAKE broadcast, and that was picked up on by too many ignorant people.

Everything mentioned that actually happened is old news, in some cases over 10 years old.
Sometimes shit happens, that does not make it normal.

Also, the point was that IMMIGRATION and RECENT IMMIGRANTS/REFUGEES were the cause.
That´s completely blown. Even more so if you check for socioeconomic factors. Even further so if you check for world economic status at the time.

What i posted in the other thread:
The claims made by Fox?

#1, No go zone for the police? Lolnope. In fact it's the OPPOSITE. The 15 "most troublesome" zones identified gets EXTRA police presence.

#2, Islamist terrorist attack? Eh, i seem to have missed that one, and probably just about everyone else as well. There was an incident in 2016 that IS claimed responsibility for, but the police investigation have found zero and nil connections or evidence to support that and plenty of evidence that completely rejects it.
And the person arrested for it is arrested for arson, not terrorism.

The only known "islamist terrorist attack" in Sweden was Stockholm 2010, that´s not recent, and the perpetrator then came to Sweden 18 years earlier as a ten year old, so talking about terrorism caused by "recent arrivals" is beyond stupid.

#3, "more than 160000 asylum seekers came to Sweden in 2016" LOLNOPE!
That was 2015, in 2016 there were 29000.
And that those are mostly unemployed is technically correct, but that´s simply because of the extreme numbers arriving over a very short time, making it impossible for the authorities to process work permits as normal.

#4, "refugee immigrants is the cause of increased criminality".
Nope. The police introduced a specific code in 2015 to specify if someone involved in a crime was waiting for yes/no to asylum, and if you´re TRULY amazingly INCOMPETENT, you could maybe read that as the claimed statements. But that´s on the level of Hitler and Goebbels style of "reporting".
Or for a more recent comparison, "Baghdad Bob".

#5, "increase in gun violence since "Sweden opened its borders""?
This has absolutely nothing at all to do with immigration, it has simply become far easier to smuggle guns into the country ever since the Öresunds-bridge was completed and connected Sweden with Denmark directly. It also allowed easier mobility across the border by criminal gangs, which now try to use Germany/Holland/Denmark/Sweden as a single area to move around in to make it harder for the police.

And any connection the addition of this bridge has with immigration, is essentially the fact that the rest of the EU nations are not upholding their side of treaties. Immigrants/refugees are supposed to be processed in the nation they first come to in the EU. Yet >95% of those arriving to Sweden do so through other EU nations.


It also needs to be firmly remembered, that immigrants and refugees are not what is causing criminality, a very small minority of that group is behind a disproportionately large part of criminal activity, and the majority of this group were often criminals long before they came here anyway as well as making up the great majority of immigrants that are later deported.


And SVTs factcheck:
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/svt-granskar- ... -pratar-om



Also, the Fox news "interview" with 2 Swedish policemen was so badly cut and paste to change what was said, because on Fox it was about immigration and refugees causing problems, the ACTUAL interview was about criminality and organised crime, it was so far out, that the 2 are considering legal action against Fox, quite possibly with the support of their employer.


Seriously, Fox and Trump have finally gone so far with the lies that they should just be "dragged into an alley and shot", Garfield style.

biochem wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:Point of view doesn´t matter if you are lying beyond any shadow of doubt.


Seriously, Trump managed to get the Swedish PM to chastise him about keeping to the facts, this is something that has not happened since Palme spoke up to critique USA about the Vietnam war, and unlike Palme, our current PM, Löfven, is very softspoken and unlikely to speak out like this against anything at all.


Fox news falsified an interview and used fake facts to create a story, and then Trump comes along and takes it a step further, using national ad hominem for his own sick propaganda?

Your country is heading down the drain and you´re cheering on the people doing it.
Real smart.

http://www.infowars.com/trump-was-right ... in-sweden/

Ah, infowars. Alex Jones' site. The guy who also thinks the government is making people gay through chemical warfare.

Boy, you sure are discerning about your choice of news sources.


But.... hmmmm... this can't possibly be talking about what Trump was referring to considering that happened AFTER Trump spoke. Nor does it back up the faked Fox news claim.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/trump-was-right-about-sweden-so-ignore-the-predictable-ridicule/news-story/c05e16875de9bf7ebaff75b64f96b4f2

That appears to be a paid subscriber only article, or at least that's the message I'm getting.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/21/riots-break-out-in-stockholm-in-wake-of-trumps-rally-remarks-on/21718595/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.ibtimes. ... %3Famp%3D1?

Neither of those appear to have anything to do with anything Trump could possible have been referencing in his made up remarks, or anything Fox news was referring to, considering it happened AFTER he made them and AFTER the Fox report. Unless we're attributing him psychic powers or time travel abilities now?

Seriously, did you just think you could spam random articles that came up on a "Sweden Violence" google search and somehow win the point???

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/225366

Snort...

"Dramatic rise" in Swedish crime rate to... what?

(Hint, don't compare it to the US crime rate or you'll be embarrassed.)

And once again, this makes no reference to anything Trump could have been talking about when he said "last night in Sweden..." 3 days ago.

(Oh, and if you want to actually know about Swedish crime rates, maybe try asking Sweden...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... /98187090/ )

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how-sweden-became-an-example-of-how-not-to-handle-immigration/

Pretty sure an article from almost a year ago isn't talking about Trump's mystery "last night in Sweden" claim either.


You really DID just google "Sweden Violence" or maybe "Sweden immigrant Violence" then spam links didn't you??? What you just thought seeing that imposing list of "citations" would make anyone think you had provided a bunch of relevant evidence without actually going and, you know, reading them?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.expres ... ent=safari

3 months old... nope...

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/07/11/europeans-fear-wave-of-refugees-will-mean-more-terrorism-fewer-jobs/

A 7 month old opinion poll??????

Umm... nope. This is just getting more sad.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/97633012/?client=safari

A crime happened in Sweden a few months ago (Wait, Sweden has crime??? Revelation!)


Ummm... nope. Still nothing that Trump possibly could have been referring to happening 3 days ago. And nothing backing up Fox's claim.

https://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2017/02/21/the-chaos-in-sweden-nobody-is-talking-about-n2288671

Another right wing site attempting to spin an incident that happened after Trump made his remarks to claim his remarks were somehow true. Blowing a single incident out of proportion and trying to turn it into the impression of refugee caused "chaos" across the nation.


Umm... nope. I refer you once again back to the actual Swedish reports on their crime rates.

It not just FOX.

No, quite right!

In regard to - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendez ... b64f96b4f2

Unfortunately in Australia we too have our share of fake news conspiracy people. I feel that it is the price we have to pay for freedom of speech.

http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/nyheter/sw ... -a-madman/

About the Fox interview:
"He has edited the answers. We were answering completely different questions in the interview."