Don the Con's endless lies

[One Bad Pig]

Near as I can tell both sides lie desperately, but Christians should always embrace the truth, even if it is not always favorable to President Trump.

Are you meaning to imply that Christians only follow Trump? I don't understand why you added the qualifier to the end of your sentence. If both sides lie desperately, but Christians on both sides should always embrace the truth, shouldn't they do that regardless of whether or not it is favorable or unfavorable to President Trump? What if what someone is claiming as truth is actually a lie, by commission or omission? Wouldn't it be great to be able to consistently discern the truth in order that we could embrace it?

[robrecht]

Are you meaning to imply that Christians only follow Trump? I don't understand why you added the qualifier to the end of your sentence. If both sides lie desperately, but Christians on both sides should always embrace the truth, shouldn't they do that regardless of whether or not it is favorable or unfavorable to President Trump? What if what someone is claiming as truth is actually a lie, by commission or omission? Wouldn't it be great to be able to consistently discern the truth in order that we could embrace it?

No, but it does seem like the great majority of US Christians here are very partisan in their favor for Trump.

[robrecht]

Or any other politician, correct?

Of course.

[robrecht]

Did you miss the point? Most of what the left insists are Donald Trump's lies, aren't actually lies.

You mentioned a few examples of differing interpretation, but you did not establish this point, nor did you establish that the same fact-checkers did not apply their methodology fairly to opposing candidates. That seems to have been assumed on your part.

[Zymologist]

No, but it does seem like the great majority of US Christians here are very partisan in their favor for Trump.

By "here" do you mean tweb? Because from what I've seen, many of them didn't even vote for him (such as myself), and at least several of the ones that did have been vocal about doing so reluctantly (CP and rogue06 come to mind).

[Mountain Man]

You mentioned a few examples of differing interpretation, but you did not establish this point, nor did you establish that the same fact-checkers did not apply their methodology fairly to opposing candidates. That seems to have been assumed on your part.

"Differing interpretation"? So if I make a statement that I in good faith think is essentially true, but you have a "differing interpretation", does that make my statement a lie? Not to mention that some of the "differing interpretations" employed by the media are so specious that they're basically lies themselves.

As for whether or not "fact-checkers" apply their methodology consistently, that's not something I ever addressed in this thread. I think it's pretty obvious that they don't, but proving it would take a lot more time and effort than I'm willing to invest.

[One Bad Pig]

No, but it does seem like the great majority of US Christians here are very partisan in their favor for Trump.

As far as I can tell, there are maybe 3 US Christians here who voted enthusiastically for Trump. If rather more than that are defending Trump now, it's because the alternative is so much worse, not because he's objectively the best thing since sliced bread.

[robrecht]

"Differing interpretation"? So if I make a statement that I in good faith think is essentially true, but you have a "differing interpretation", does that make my statement a lie?

No. Do you think that Candidate Trump always said what he believed to be true in good faith?

Not to mention that some of the "differing interpretations" employed by the media are so specious that they're basically lies themselves.

I agree, but I think partisan media can be found on both sides of the aisle.

As for whether or not "fact-checkers" apply their methodology consistently, that's not something I ever addressed in this thread.

Precisely my point.

I think it's pretty obvious that they don't, but proving it would take a lot more time and effort than I'm willing to invest.

That which is subjectively obvious to someone without proof, especially regarding highly partisan subject matter, may indeed be a presumption based on one's own political ideology and loyalties.

[Darth Ovious]

As for what happened "last night in Sweden"..............

Well this did happen.

Last Night In Sweden.jpg

[robrecht]

As far as I can tell, there are maybe 3 US Christians here who voted enthusiastically for Trump. If rather more than that are defending Trump now, it's because the alternative is so much worse, not because he's objectively the best thing since sliced bread.

I'm glad you agree that Trump is not as good as sliced bread, 'though I don't care so much even for sliced bread. What current alternative are you referring to? That sounds more like a justification for voting for Trump in the past than a discussion of current alternativesm

[Starlight]

As for what happened "last night in Sweden"

Trump's "last night in Sweden" falsehood was pretty embarrassing not merely for him but for the US.

And the more people looked into it, the more embarrassing for him it got. Because his comments were a product of him watching a right-wing propaganda documentary on Fox News the night before, and then that documentary turned out to be deliberately deceptive with the maker interviewing Swedish police and editing the footage to have him asking one question and then cutting to their answers to a different question. And in the deceptive documentary maker's haste to prove immigrants are terrible for crime, he apparently didn't even look at Sweden's crime statistics which show no rise over the past 10 years despite Sweden having taken in huge numbers of immigrants. Amusingly, it turns out that crime is much higher in the Florida cities near the Florida resort that Trump spends huge amounts of time holidaying in when he's supposed to be being president, than it is in Sweden.

And Trump also likes to rant about crime in Chicago, describing living there as being like "living in hell" due to the high crime rate. Yet Chicago doesn't feature on a list of cities with the highest crime in the US. And actually, once again, there are Florida cities near where Trump holidays that have a crime rate as high as Chicago.

The guy seems to have no conception of reality when it comes to crime. He's claimed things like "The murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years" and used such false claims to justify draconian policies to crack down on crime. When, actually, the murder rate in his country is close to the lowest it's been in 47 years. Crime has been dropping over the last couple of decades. But he refuses to acknowledge that.

Incidentally, one reasonably evidenced theory as to why crime has gone down is the general removal of lead from fuel. Lead gets absorbed into the brain and causes all sorts of negative effects including decreased IQ and increased violent behavior. So if Trump wanted to do the US a favor, instead of getting 'tough' on the low rates of crime, he could instead spend money on places like Flint that have problems with lead in their water. He's talked about wanting to do infrastructure spending, and so he could spend a few billion replacing lead pipes throughout America, which would have the long term effect of decreasing crime.

[One Bad Pig]

Trump's "last night in Sweden" falsehood was pretty embarrassing not merely for him but for the US.

And the response to Trump's alleged falsehood from Swedish immigrants... was to riot. Derp. There's nothing that screams "I'm not violent" like erupting in violence.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm glad you agree that Trump is not as good as sliced bread, 'though I don't care so much even for sliced bread.

Why do you say that? I wasn't being literal about sliced bread.

What current alternative are you referring to? That sounds more like a justification for voting for Trump in the past than a discussion of current alternativesm

Why do you think that sounds like a justification for voting for Trump in the past? In the present, I see a whole lot of petulance and emotion and partisanship from the other side, slow rolling nominees just because, deliberate leaking of secret information just to make one's ideological opponent look bad.... I'm seeing unprecedented levels of rank hypocrisy and poor losing from the Democrat side, and that's all in the present.

[Raphael]

And the response to Trump's alleged falsehood from Swedish immigrants... was to riot. Derp. There's nothing that screams "I'm not violent" like erupting in violence.

Yeah, I had to shake my head at that. Even if Trump was wrong in his statement (and for the record he was) that there was increased terrorism in Sweden (increased crime and violent crime yes, terrorism no), erupting in violent riots about it is going to help Trump's case, not the case of the refugees who are claiming to be peaceful.

[Starlight]

And the response to Trump's alleged falsehood from Swedish immigrants... was to riot. Derp. There's nothing that screams "I'm not violent" like erupting in violence.

As far as I can find out, it's not clear that it was immigrants rioting. That suburb has had issues for a while - four years ago it had week long riots Baltimore-style.

Sweden has taken in a lot of refugees and immigrants since then, who being generally pretty poor, have ended up living in low income and crime-ridden areas such as that neighborhood because it's all they can afford. So to once again see an outbreak of rioting in that suburb isn't all that unusual or surprising, but jumping to a conclusion that it's the immigrants doing it, as opposed to the people living there previously who have a history of rioting, seems unwarranted.