For those who doubt claims about the American president's dishonesty
On occasion in these forums, a poster will dispute, always without evidence, the widespread claim that Donald Trump is the most mendacious president - perhaps the most dishonest politician - in American history. For those posters and others curious about the extent to which the president lies, HERE'S A LINK to a factcheck.org analysis of the president's statements about immigration, our southern border, fencing/barriers, crime in El Paso, Texas, and trade that he made on Friday when he announced his national emergency proclamation.
In my view, the cumulative impact of so many falsehoods communicated by the same American president during a single event is devastating to the cause of those who believe Mr Trump is no more dishonest than the average politician. And it is a powerful indicator of the accuracy of the Washington Post's assertion that to-date in his term of office, Mr Trump has made more than 8,000 false or misleading statements.
One of the important self-examination questions lots of followers of Jesus will have to ask themselves once Mr Trump leaves office - whether by electoral loss, resignation, impeachment, or arrest - is how their faith allowed them to support a politician who lied as repeatedly, frequently, and consequentially as Donald Trump did. Why didn't the truth set them free from their support for Mr Trump?
Comments
-
Fake news
-
@reformed said:
Fake news
Your two word reply here, reformed, typifies the responses to which I referred when in my previous post I wrote... (emphasis added)
- "On occasion in these forums, a poster will dispute, always without evidence, the widespread claim that Donald Trump is the most mendacious president - perhaps the most dishonest politician - in American history."
"Fake news," of course, is a rallying cry of the Trumpsters union. As our president regularly demonstrates in his public communications, it is also usually a falsehood-filled and/or fact- and evidence-free cry of the Trumpsters union.
The factcheck.org analysis to which I again provide a link offered analysis of the president's national emergency address in twelve areas. You claim their analysis was "fake news." Please prove your claim by demonstrating the falsehood of even one of the assertions of fact presented in their article.
If you can't do so - spoiler alert: you can't - then you will prove to us that the only real "fake news" in our current exchange has been your two word accusation, "Fake news."
-
No I didn't even follow the link.
-
@reformed said:
No I didn't even follow the link.
Then exactly what from my previous post did you label "fake news"? My claim that on occasion, a CD poster has disputed "the widespread claim" that Donald Trump lies more than any president in American history? If not that, I don't know what it could be since the rest of that post expressed my personal opinions about the meaning and consequences of the article you chose not to read. Please identify the target of your two word indictment.
-
Well the WaPo database for one is demonstrably fake as we have discussed here in the past. They twist things.
-
You don't really be this. It's just Republican "talking points".
-
-
@reformed said:
Well the WaPo database for one is demonstrably fake as we have discussed here in the past. They twist things.
Two observations:
- You offer no proof of your claim... because you can't offer proof of your claim. No serious analysis of the Post's work or the work of other fact checkers such as the Toronto Star's Daniel Dale has concluded such outlets "twist things" or that the results of their efforts are "demonstrably false." But as always when you make unfounded statements, reformed, I invite you to prove me wrong. Please provide links to the studies or examinations of fact checkers' work that are the basis of your claim. If your claims are true, you will be able to back them up. If they are false, as I claim they are, you will either acknowledge that fact (highly unlikely) refuse to answer (your most common response) or reassert the truth of your claims, again without evidence.
- My OP in this thread did not link to the Washington Post's fact checker, a fact you might have missed because you chose not to "follow the link"... or because you didn't notice that in the OP and my first reply to you in this thread I noted that my source was an article at the factcheck.org website, which as I'm sure you know, has no affiliation with The Washington Post.
Given those two observations, I ask again: Exactly what from my OP do you label as "fake news"?
