Broadly speaking, most of the falsehoods levelled against Trump fall into one or more of four categories, each of them drawing from and feeding into four public personas inhabited by the President. They are:Much detail at the link.
• Donald Trump: International Embarrassment
• Trump the Tyrant
• Donald Trump: Bully baby
• Trump the Buffoon.
Some of these claims are downright fake... But the rest... provide a fascinating insight into the tactics and preoccupations of the broad anti-Trump movement.... Generally speaking, we discovered that they are characterized and driven by four types of errors of thought:
• Alarmism
• A lack of historical context or awareness
• Cherry-picking of evidence (especially visual evidence)
• A failure to adhere to Occam’s Razor — the common-sense understanding that the simplest explanation for an event or behavior is the most likely.
July 14, 2017
"An in-depth analysis of the false allegations and misleading claims made against the 45th President since his inauguration."
At Snopes!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
264 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 264 of 264"Yeah. Well, good luck on that effort of yours to get the monopoly on the use of coercive power that is socially contracted to the state to be less valuable. "
Funny that. The Swiss or the Singaporeans and the Australians have the same monopoly, but somehow they don't have quite as bad a mess as the US does in Washington (or Sacramento, or Chicago...). Somehow, for them, it actually is less valuable.
I suspect that in their case there is much less to buy. Things are way simpler.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Yeah. Well, good luck on that effort of yours to get the monopoly on the use of coercive power that is socially contracted to the state to be less valuable.
This is the core of the argument. In a more free society fewer policies will be under the purview of those with a monopoly on force. More interactions will be between people who must obtain the consent.
The more topics are under control of the government then obviously consent and agreement is no longer necessary.
I will also point out on a tangent the second amendment was one step in making coercive power less valuable.
So is Singapore more business-friendly. But rather less liberal and socialistic, though rather more fascist (in a good way!).
Asians are more interested in blind obedience than we Westerners are. That's why their culture finds fewer markets and their inventions are less, er, revolutionary than ours. Their technocracy is good for a few neat technical innovations here or there. But again, not as "revolutionary." Or as creative. Great inventions require free minds. And many Asians, esp. the Chinese, HATE freedom of thought.
But keep on keeping on with those Confucian values, buwaya. I'm sure someday they'll lead Asia (under China's overwhelming influence) into Australia's standard of living.
In a more free society fewer policies will be under the purview of those with a monopoly on force. More interactions will be between people who must obtain the consent.
Sounds just utopian enough for a persuasive (if not entirely rational) majority to agree to. So why don't you get on with the business of rallying people to this utopian vision?
Oh, that's right. The free-market ideologues running the GOP show already have. But they had the necessary funding to do it, first. To convince enough people to vote against their economic self-interest.
"That's why their culture finds fewer markets and their inventions are less, er, revolutionary than ours."
This is a very unsafe assumption.
A point of interest -
https://www.livescience.com/59810-quantum-teleportation-record-shattered.html
You haven't been there. Go have a look. The Chinese of Singapore and HK are not behind Australia (well, they have less room to spread out). The mainland would purchase Australia outright if the Australians would let them, which is why Australia is discouraging property purchases by foreigners. The Chinese are getting very very rich.
"Republicans want a system of bribed campaigns and Democrats don't. It's really that simple. Republicans want a corrupt government and every time they attain power, they demonstrate how one can be identified."
There are 3 words that I marked in bold that mess up the whole statement. Both parties are clearly corrupt. Not sure why you think the democrats are not inherently corrupt to the core.
I understand and fully accept that there are a number of corporatist Democrats who are completely attached to their payola. (The empty suit known as "Cory Booker" would be a good example). And that's his just across the river from Wall Street constituency.
But if you can find an equal number of Republicans to reject corporate funding or agree to public financing or whatever as you could Democrats, then I'll believe your apparent contention that this is a completely non-partisan issue. I agree that it's not completely partisan. But I find it doubtful that it's completely non-partisan, either.
I am willing to wager that I am far more familiar with big cities than you are with flyover country, Ritmo.
I'm sure you're a big mover and shaker in the Big Apple, though. It's a mystery how you find time to write comments here.
God ! A Ritmo monologue seems to be forming.
But I oppose Trump because my extensive research showed ... blah, blah, blah.
Campaign finance has little to do with it. In fact the elected politicians have a minor part of your problems, no matter their corruption. France and Spain are very corrupt for instance, but there it works largely through the bureaucracy
Some of the problem, not the cause of Trump, but some of it, is the "Campaign Finance Laws" that have thoroughly corrupted politics and driven us into the hands of the bureaucracy.
Congress men these days spend their time "dialing for dollars," as fund raising is called. The business of governing and writing legislation is done by staffs. They govern us, not Congress.
I'm listening to Caro's Lyndon Johnson biography as I commute to Phoenix and back. I'm now to the part where he has a job as "Secretary" to Dick Kleberg, the Congressman from the 14th district of Texas.
Kleberg was a rich playboy and let Johnson run his office. What Johnson built as an empire is what every Congressmen's staffs do today.
We are governed by bureaucrats and lobbyists. It was the insurance lobbyists who wrote Obamacare.
So what, buwaya. The Chinese immigrants to the U.S. also have a high income. How did Hong Kong become rich? The British... and Britain's laws and Western values. And same with Britain's hold on Singapore as a trading post of theirs.
"I understand and fully accept that there are a number of corporatist Democrats who are completely attached to their payola. "
The entire California Democratic Party is a criminal conspiracy, end to end, top to bottom, in every town hall and agency office and courthouse. Everyone is a Dianne Feinstein or Kamala Harris or Antonio Villaraigosa or would-be-thems. Cory Booker is small time.
We are governed by bureaucrats and lobbyists. It was the insurance lobbyists who wrote Obamacare.
Pro-lobbying regulations have been written since Reagan. And that's for every industry, not just one.
But you keep going ahead and throwing out terms like "bureaucrats" as if you're really onto something. Very precise language, there. Bureaucrats and autocrats and wiffle wall bats and sandy cats! Gnats and ants and sandlot hats! Make America too small for government agencies, again!
Oh God ! A Michael K monologue!
Oh no!
Help me, Althouse! Help me! I'm meeeeeeelting!
The entire California Democratic Party is a criminal conspiracy, end to end, top to bottom, in every town hall and agency office and courthouse. Everyone is a Dianne Feinstein or Kamala Harris or Antonio Villaraigosa or would-be-thems. Cory Booker is small time.
The economic might, pristine environment, and socially equanimity of the world's 7th largest and most innovative economy just must be stopped! It's too horrible to bear! Make it more draconian and controlling like the cane-wielding disciplinarians of Singapore! Please! We just can't tolerate all this niceness and dynamism and largesse! Oh no! Chaos! Horror!
Seriously, man. Piss off. You're defending a country that spanks adults. For spitting gum out on the sidewalk.
Go to Singapore to be a robot. It's not Saudi Arabia, but closer to it than California is!
"How did Hong Kong become rich? The British... and Britain's laws and Western values."
But with no British, they are still rich. Or rather, even richer. And they are far richer (well, some of them) in Guangdong and Shanghai. Britain shielded a population of Chinese somewhere out of range of nasty Chinese history - very nasty at the time, and let them approach their natural potential.
The Chinese are something else. They needed to be shocked out of their solipsistic rut by Western Colonialism - there really was something of interest, outside, that wasn't Chinese!
But they were duly shocked and have learned something. These aren't your great-grandpas Chinese.
"The Chinese immigrants to the U.S. also have a high income. "
Actually the US Indians (granted, admitted selectively) and the Filipinos (not admitted selectively) beat the US-Chinese.
I am willing to wager that I am far more familiar with big cities than you are with flyover country, Ritmo.
I am ten times more the Saint Pauli Girl than you are, ManStreet.
"But you keep going ahead and throwing out terms like "bureaucrats" as if you're really onto something."
But we are on to something. Been there, done that, 40 years of bureaucrats.
Much detail at the link.
The snopes thing is lame. Lots of speculative "analysis" not much evidence. A stronger case could be made that there have been errors made by people criticizing Trump but this isn't it.
Ok buneewaya. It wasn't the Western values of the British and their trading laws and ways that influenced Singapore to become rich, but the butt-spanking behavior and controlling ways of the Chinese.
Did you need me to call a dominatrix for you tonight? You are behaving very badly!
Bad buwaya! Bad! Down, boy!
Now stop humping my leg, already.
Been there, done that, 40 years of bureaucrats.
Yes, I know. Poor you. Clearly the environment is not dirty enough. And Wall Street not unregulated enough.
Whatever you say, True Believer.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
I understand and fully accept that there are a number of corporatist Democrats who are completely attached to their payola. (The empty suit known as "Cory Booker" would be a good example). And that's his just across the river from Wall Street constituency.
But if you can find an equal number of Republicans to reject corporate funding or agree to public financing or whatever as you could Democrats, then I'll believe your apparent contention that this is a completely non-partisan issue. I agree that it's not completely partisan. But I find it doubtful that it's completely non-partisan, either.
I do not trust public funding of campaigns. All that will happen will be republicans and democrats will team up to turn it into more of an incumbent protection scheme than they already have. You also pretty much have to gut the first amendment to make it work.
Term limits would ameliorate this issue.
But that just transfers power to whomever decides gets the public funding. I am 100% positive that if I wanted to run for Senator or whatever I would be denied public funding. Somehow some way my guess is that public funding would end up supporting graduates of Yale and Harvard almost exclusively. Lets call it a hunch.
Term limits would ameliorate this issue.
Terms are already limited, though. By elections.
I am less a fan of the idea of government of, by and for the inexperienced. Fresh blood is fine. A government completes of by and for the young and completely naive will just be more warped by lobbyists. Kids are not particularly known for their wise counsel and purchasing and selling (out) decisions.
The results are in. We, for all our lack of public financing, are still near the top for corruption. As untrustworthy as the other way may be.
The monologue by lefties gets pretty boing pretty fast but here is another source to go with the Snopes piece.
I think this Russian DJT Jr thing is a set up by Obama and his intel agencies, which are completely corrupt.
Veselnitskaya’s presence in the United States alone ought to be the source of suspicion that not only is the Trump-Russian collusion narrative suspect in this case but that the real inquiry ought to be into whether the encounter was a small part of a larger attempt to trap the Trump campaign.
The Russian lawyer wasn’t even supposed to be here. She had been denied a visa for entry into the United States in late 2015, but given a rather extraordinary “parole” by the federal government to assist preparation for a client subject to an asset forfeiture by the Justice Department.
She has apparently gone back and forth several times with no visa.
Grassley may unravel it.
Sorry to interrupt Ritmo's graduate level seminar on something or other,
I think this Russian DJT Jr thing is a set up by Obama and his intel agencies, which are completely corrupt.
(.....)
Sorry to interrupt Ritmo's graduate level seminar on something or other,
Hahahhaa. Now provide for us your "graduate level" seminar on that stupendously unevidenced blurt about how Obama most definitely surveilled Trump!
You can reduce it to the brevity of a tweet, even.
It would be more bearable, that way.
"The economic might, pristine environment, and socially equanimity of the world's 7th largest and most innovative economy just must be stopped! "
None of these - well, see below - are due to CA Dem politicians.
As a matter of personal welfare, CA is one of the poorer states; its been my hobby to maintain a median income series adjusted for COLA (in my case, using the MERIC database). CA ranks below South Carolina most years. This is the same as the PPP calculations so often used in international comparisons (and I know this very well, I used to consult for the Asian Development Bank, this was our thing). CA has a very high proportion of welfare (Medicaid, EBT, etc.). Lots of poor people outside the rich enclaves. Much of the reason for this is a very lousy business climate unless one is in a particular, licensed industry in a rich enclave.
Its very Latin American in many ways, not just the obvious ones.
Pristine environment is a matter of opinion. If you are talking no Bethlehem Steel and the outskirts of Pittsburgh, its because CA has no coal. If you are talking about the terrain and the weather, I think you have to credit John C Fremont and some friends of his, for grabbing it in the first place.
"but the butt-spanking behavior and controlling ways of the Chinese."
This is why you need travel and education. I have known Chinese my whole life.
An anecdote -
While in engineering school (@ 80% of the class was Chinese, a clue there yes?) we had a study group that had been tossed out of the University library. So we were in Manila's Chinatown (Binondo) that night looking for a place to study for an exam, of course. One of my pals suggested that his dad, who owned a bunch of office and apartment buildings, a very wealthy man, might let us borrow an empty apartment. So we went to his place of business. It turns out the man was a tinsmith by trade. We found this fellow, a mega millionaire, in his old shop, in shorts and flipflops at midnight working a metal press.
That's why they are rich.
"And Wall Street not unregulated enough. "
This is part of the lesson of regulation. The reason it is regulated the way it is is a consequence of regulatory capture (by the regulated industries) that benefit from the regulation as this gives them a competitive advantage, economies of scale, versus potential competition. Regulation can be an asset in establishing a degree of monopoly. Which is the point of business strategy. A good MBA program will explain the whole thing.
The short and high level story is in Schumpeter -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism,_Socialism_and_Democracy
Go read it.
California was a delightful place 60 years ago when I arrived. Especially Los Angeles. San Francisco had working people's neighborhoods.
The books of Dashiell Hammett. describe old San Francisco. I was in a small hotel there one time about 15 years ago and looked across the street. There was the street corner where Sam Spade's partner Miles Archer was shot. The area still looked the same.
The novels of Philip Marlowe described old Los Angeles in the 1930s but most of that has been torn down.
There are a few place names that survive. Malibu was "Bay City" in The Big Sleep.
Los Angeles now resembles Tlaquepaque in Mexico with mostly poor an few very rich who must barricade themselves off from the rst.
The only good things about California are the things that were there before it got a government. L.A, was just named the poorest run city in America. Detroit put on a thong, got wasted, and shot up the neighborhood to celebrate not winning this time.
I wonder if Snopes change of tune has to do with the owners going through a bitter divorce. One half sold of their interest to a 3rd party and the remaining half (husband) accused of buying prostitutes is trying to hold on to Snopes for dear life? I agree with their current assessment on Trump and am dumbstruck it came from Snopes of all people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html
@Michael K Thanks for the link. Regardless of what Ritmo says you and the article make a good point. I am happy that Grassley is looking into this. I still remain hopeful that he is going to find the key to this and it's going to belong to the DNC/Obama and friends - it is the kind of crap they are really good at.
Buwaya , once again,
the steamroller in the cartoon patiently flattening the smart alec.
I am in Los Angeles at the moment. Had occasion to be in Malibu and then drove up Topanga for the hell of it. Drove back via the 101 to the 405 and then back to the hotel on Sunset. Lot of rich people here in west L.A. Extraordinary when you think of the neighborhoods where every living soul is rich, miles and miles of rich people in the hills and on the flats, on the shore at Malibu and the Pallisade in Santa Monica. Stunning wealth.
TTR is one of those who wants more regulation for "Wall Street" but likely would also want local community banks to thrive. It is a conundrum for the dull witted for sure.
And the funniest part is that when the next GOP President comes around, Trump will be held up as the paragon of virtue that makes that guy looks like Hitler.
Sodal ye--
You're thinking too far west...The N. Koreans don't want to hit Seattle. It's Kentucky they are after. Irradiate the American gold supply at Ft. Knox and in the resulting global economic chaos, they and their Commie pals rule the world. It's an odd job, I'll grant you that.
FullMoon,
"My sentiments exactly" (in Groucho Marx's voice and eyebrows)
lol
This is a pretty good forum if we can filter out the trolls.
"How did Hong Kong become rich? The British... and Britain's laws and Western values."
No. Hong Kong has had very little government regulation of banking and business. it had nothing to do with the British except that they left the Chinese population alone to do what they do best.
buwaya said...
"And Wall Street not unregulated enough. "
"This is part of the lesson of regulation. The reason it is regulated the way it is is a consequence of regulatory capture (by the regulated industries) that benefit from the regulation as this gives them a competitive advantage, economies of scale, versus potential competition. Regulation can be an asset in establishing a degree of monopoly. Which is the point of business strategy. A good MBA program will explain the whole thing.
The short and high level story is in Schumpeter -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism,_Socialism_and_Democracy
Go read it."
Regulations are written to keep the small players out of the market.
FAA regulations aren't written by the government. The government doesn't know shit about passenger air travel. The regulations are written by the airlines.
It never seems to work very long though. Look at iphones. Apple once had a monopoly on iphones. Now how many players are there?
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"Republicans want a system of bribed campaigns and Democrats don't. It's really that simple. Republicans want a corrupt government and every time they attain power, they demonstrate how one can be identified."
In a small town near me two years before Trump a political neophyte launched a 3rd party write in campaign against the incumbent mayor. And won. And 2 years later, Trump won the Republican primaries then won the general election.
Trump and this mayor have two things in common. One, they were both outsiders, and the voters seemed primed to throw the rascals out. Two, they both spent far, far less money then their opponents to win. GA-06, the winning side, PAC, independents supporters, the campaign itself, spent far less then the losers. In SC-05 the DCCC spent $275K, the RNCC put up $100K, with a Republican PAC spending another $50K. Can't find other spending, but it looks like the winner spent less. Can't find a breakdown of Montana, but wouldn't be surprised if Gianforte spent less to win. And if we add in the dollar value of free media support for the Democrat....
Any candidate who spends a penny on television ads today is wasting their money.
Bloviate.
Who is our best bloviator?
No question.
I think he ought to run for office.
Then he can take cruises on private yachts.
And have pictures taken.
Shhh.
Donald Trump doesn't embarrass me half so much as the profound ignorance of his well-credentialed predecessor. Harvard Law must be one of the most overrated schools in existence today, and Columbia College not far behind.
This is a pretty good forum if we can filter out the trolls.
Yeah. But for some reason you and your mother keep showing up.
it had nothing to do with the British except that they left the Chinese population alone to do what they do best.
You mean like violently repressing themselves and depriving their population of basic freedoms?
Yip! Yip! Yip!
Ankle biter.
I am ten times more the Saint Pauli Girl than you are, ManStreet.
7/14/17, 7:20 PM
I believe that. You probably have a bust like the St. Pauli Girl too.
Hire boy.
Where goats or donkeys are cheaper, but...
...at least he squeals in delight...
Let's look at a Snopes 'unbiased' look into Philadelphia voter fraud.
It is true that 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia recorded no votes for Mitt Romney, but given the voter composition of the Philadelphia area (and some Philadelphia wards in particular), and the number of voters in each division, that outcome was hardly a “mathematical and statistical impossibility.”
59 precincts with not one crank in any of them. OK, whatever, let's look at their "Investigation."
Eighteen Republicans reportedly live in the nearby 15th Division, according to city registration records. The 15th has the distinction of pitching two straight Republican shutouts — zero votes for McCain in 2008, zero for Romney. Oh, and 13 other city divisions did the same thing in 2008 and 2012.
Three of the 15th’s registered Republicans were listed as living in the same apartment, but the tenant there said he had never heard of them. The addresses of several others could not be found.
So I guess the next logical question would be, "Did any of these probably fraudulent registrations cast a ballot?" You know, because it seems likely that somebody creating a huge pile of fraudulent voter registrations would throw in a few Republicans so it doesn't look too suspicious.... It's a perfect test, if they voted, they voted Democrat, then clearly, voter fraud was committed on behalf of the Democrats.
Snopes was incurious about the matter.
This is because Snopes is a partisan outfit run by admitted liberals who can't shed their blinders, no matter how hard they pretend to try, and Google is going to them to rate the factuality of stories? Ha ha ha ha!
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
it had nothing to do with the British except that they left the Chinese population alone to do what they do best.
You mean like violently repressing themselves and depriving their population of basic freedoms?"
Reading comprehension isn't a strong point with you is it?
The subject is economics. You might want to read up on it sometime.
As an asside.
In 1945 Hong Kong had 750,000 people per square mile. By 1995 there were 6,500,000 per square mile. Not too shabby considering the gross violation of human rights and all. Wonder what Hong Kong had that would attract that many people to have their basic human rights violated?
Anybody want to guess?
"Trump's horrifying taste in furnishings alone...."
...are grounds for impeachment!
It's in the Constitution,you can look it up.
Once again, I am deeply impressed by Buwaya's ability to spin golden commentary from Ritmo's puerile dross. Well done, sir. <Golf clap>
Something happened to cause this change in biase at Snope.
My guess is somebody high up looked at the trust in the Media,their traffic is down, or a survey they did to their users and got a clue their reputation is on the line. Or enough people complained that nothing like this existed at Snopes.
>Leftists like Snopes are largely incapable of this. Their only goal is to push an >agenda forward. In this case Snopes is aiming for self preservation.
Why did nothing happen after the South Korean Corvette was sunk, with loss of 46 people?
1. There was no 100% proof at the time it was North Korean.
2. South Korea did not, and does not want a war. They pursued a sunshine policy for many years in an attempt to make it so NK does not collapse. The sinking killed the last remnants of the sunshine policy, and caused a huge shift in SK opinion.
3. The US can do little physically in NK without SK approval. Clinton's potential attack on NK was shot down by the SK.
4. Obama had a lot of bluster, but after the red line fiasco his credibility was significantly hurt.
Does China view Trump as a push over?
China's leadership is a consensus driven one, where decisions take time. Trump with his actions in Syria and Iraq have messaged the Chinese, he is willing to take action.
Truthfully, all the options with NK are bad. I still favor mine of pushing China on the NK refugees. Trump is putting pressure on China.
Paco Wové: Once again, I am deeply impressed by Buwaya's ability to spin golden commentary from Ritmo's puerile dross. Well done, sir.
Second that.
One hopes that, for every brick-headed responder haplessly forcing it through his personal parochial ideological grinder, there are at least ten readers availing themselves of the insight available.
Ray
I don't think S Korea wants all those hungry mouths to feed. They've got it pretty good now. I'm sure they're looking at their bottom line and can see that millions of unskilled semi literate citizens will be a drain for decades.
Antiphone,
Who ever said Obama was not a citizen? Link? Name?
Even if he had been born in Kenya his citizenship was never questioned, that I saw.
Had he been born in Kenya he would have been a statutory rather than a constitutional citizen. Like Ted Cruz or john McCain but he would have been a US citizen.
Our gracious hostess opined, as a professor of constitutional law, that this still madehim a "natural born citizen".
Others, of equal stature, have disagreed. Me too, fwiw.
Me, I think he was born in HI and is a constitutional, natural born citizen.
John Henry
"China's leadership is a consensus driven one, where decisions take time. Trump with his actions in Syria and Iraq have messaged the Chinese, he is willing to take action."
I think that it is probable that Trump scares the heck out of the Chinese. And, significantly, he made that one Syrian strike, in response to them using chemical weapons on their civilians, in between meetings with the Chinese leader at his resort in FL. I mentioned at the time that I thought that the way it was done was probably an intentional notice to the Chinese that we no longer had a Ditherer-In-Chief in charge, but, rather, a Commander-in-Chief willing to react quickly and decisively, far more so than the Chines are probably capable of or comfortable doing.
John Henry, Antiphone is a "dirtbag" lefty. Its a movement on their side, that's what they call themselves, although now that they have been written about, they have probably changed that. The Unknown Troll is another one, he even admitted that was his goal here. They come only to disrupt, distract, and to attempt ridicule. It's easy to ignore him. You should try it.
I always like it when "liberals" (and by that I mean "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellators") complain about corruption. You want to decrease corruption? Then decrease the size of the government and the State's ability to dispense favors, geniuses. I know it's a crazy idea--but it just may work!
Post a Comment