ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Impeacher, as I've previously demonstrated, you are quite literally capable of looking at a page of clear language and imagining things that aren't even there. You routinely twist my words into things I haven't even said.

I seriously wonder why I even bother replying to you. But I digress.

I've read the ICA. There are things I doubted about it, and I was correct to do so — the combination of the WikiLeaks dumps, the released IRA ads, and the Mueller Report prove my doubts were justified — the WikiLeaks emails were genuine, the Intel agencies lied about how partisan the IRA activity was, and there wasn't anything else. Again: Mueller could find ONLY those two instances of Russian election meddling, so "much more than that" is disagreement with the Mueller Report.

After the "WMDs in Iraq" fiasco you can't just trust a CIA assessment.

The_reporter/The_impeacher, is politic a second religion for you? Can you befriend someone with different political views?

"

Turtledove wrote:

High confidence from the intelligence agencies is about as good as it gets in that arena.

There are a lot of military operations that have and would be scuttled if the best intel they had was "high confidence".

"

Turtledove wrote:

It is wonderful that you all know more than the FBI and the CIA. We must be very lucky that you are here to correct their bad conclusions!

The FBI has data they do not share with the CIA.
The CIA has data they do not share with the FBI
The NSA has data that it does not share with either agency.

Trump can access any of that data - which makes him "smarter" than those agencies, by your logic.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Independent: Cites another WaPo article I can't read without subscribing.

If the page is still up in the free section when someone is looking at it and they want to cite it, they should archive the page. Otherwise, it might as well be a 404 for most other people.

Not that it is worth reading, but here is that first WaPo article as an example:
http://archive.is/zbdPH

"

Head_Less wrote:

The_reporter/The_impeacher, is politic a second religion for you? Can you befriend someone with different political views?

I very much doubt it. Unlike conservatives, centrists, and even the Jimmy Dore variety of far left, the corporatist media propaganda addicts can't seem to even process the concept of difference of opinion. Kellyanne Conway tried to explain it to them and they be like

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Head_Less wrote:

The_reporter/The_impeacher, is politic a second religion for you? Can you befriend someone with different political views?

I very much doubt it. Unlike conservatives, centrists, and even the Jimmy Dore variety of far left, the corporatist media propaganda addicts can't seem to even process the concept of difference of opinion. Kellyanne Conway tried to explain it to them and they be like

Dwight Schrute about that shit.

It is not a left/right thing.

I have some friends that won't be friends with people aligned with the opposing party. I'm sure it happens on both sides. People can choose their friends however they like.

Twelve years ago when I was dating I didn't even put my political affiliation on my eHarmony profile. I communicated with plenty of women that were only interested in dating someone from their own party affiliation. I ended up marrying a Republican.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

the corporatist media propaganda addicts can't seem to even process the concept of difference of opinion.

It is fascinating watching the left become the new orthodoxy. I remember railing against the evangelical Christian right when I was younger when they were the ones "setting the rules of society" and enforcing their bullshit with tut-tutting mommy voices. Why can't I drink on a Sunday, anyway?

For the moment, at least, the Christians are pretty much only around to talk about abortion whereas the left is telling everyone what to think, what to say, and when to say it on every topic from economics to movies to sexual preference, and using censorship and ostracism (and increasingly, violence) as tools to accomplish it.

And there is no forgiveness. In this respect, I actually prefer the religious orthodoxies that believe in the concept of grace. For instance, I don't care that Louis CK whipped his dick out however long ago, especially after he apologized for it. But no, he must be "punished" for his "sin" until "such a time as we decide he has atoned".

I'm sure there are lots of historical examples of secular orthodoxy, but it's new to me and I presume many other Americans.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Head_Less wrote:

The_reporter/The_impeacher, is politic a second religion for you? Can you befriend someone with different political views?

I very much doubt it. Unlike conservatives, centrists, and even the Jimmy Dore variety of far left, the corporatist media propaganda addicts can't seem to even process the concept of difference of opinion. Kellyanne Conway tried to explain it to them and they be like

Dwight Schrute about that shit.

It is not a left/right thing.

"

pneuma wrote:

It is fascinating watching the left become the new orthodoxy. I remember railing against the evangelical Christian right when I was younger when they were the ones "setting the rules of society" and enforcing their bullshit with tut-tutting mommy voices.

TD, it's not permanently a left thing, but it is temporarily a left thing. And as pneuma points out, a couple decades ago it was a right thing.

It's a basic function of the political trichotomy. The three main forces are the authoritarian true Right, the authoritarian true Left, and classical Liberalism (aka "libertarianism"). The first two have their own proper political parties, but Liberalism, being a minarchist ideology, doesn't — those who would want nothing in particular from government don't have an inherent need to lobby it. Liberalism is naturally centrist because a small government doesn't have much power to swing things right nor much power to swing things left.

However, it is rarely the case that Liberals take no side in particular. If the Right is much stronger than the Left, as it was 60 years ago, then their will be plenty of authoritarian Right policy for the Liberals to be upset with, and the persecuted Left would rather adopt the guise of Liberalism than outing themselves as radicals. In this way the Left and Liberalism formed an alliance of convenience. Meanwhile, on the other side there was no such coalition of diverse thought, no need for a heterodox Big Tent — and as such, there was only the orthodoxy of the Right.

Things aren't much different now. The main difference is the political parties switched sides after a series of Left victories and Right loses, many of which came with the assistance of Liberals. And as the Liberals increasingly wake up to the horrifying realization that they're on the wrong side, more will go to the Republican Party until, sooner or later, it is once again the Right that is a bit OP and the Left that is struggling — and then the Right will once again be sanctimonious and the Left open to difference of opinion.

Trump is a pathological liar. Washington Post has tabulated over 10,000 false and misleading statements by our pathological lying President. It has also been stated that according to this database, Trump publicly made on average 15 false or misleading statements a day in 2018.

The purpose of this post is to question the accuracy of the WP database.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.0b8646a3bca4

Note that a subscription is not required to access this database.

My idea is that "No Collusion" has been stated by Trump many many times. Mueller found that to be a true statement by Trump. Most of those 10,000 statements in the data base were added well before Mueller's findings. So, my idea is that the best place to look might be "No collusion". The database returns 169 entries for "no collusion". Here's the results of my analysis.

First I'll post one interesting tangent from my search.

False or misleading statement.

"

APR 12 2019
"Why should Radical Left Democrats in Congress have a right to retry and examine the $35,000,000 (two years in the making) No Collusion Mueller Report, when the crime committed was by Crooked Hillary, the DNC and Dirty Cops?"

WP comments

"

Mueller is careful to break down direct and indirect costs from his investigation, as we've reported, and is far below what independent counsels spent investigating Clinton. Mueller through September 2018 had reported $25.2 million in costs. Presumably, this figure will rise when the final costs are released. But Mueller also made money for the government, namely by seizing properties owned by former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Independent journalist Marcy Wheeler has estimated the value of Manafort’s seized assets at $46 million.

HAHAHAHA! The Mueller investigation actually seems to have made money not cost money! I find that hilarious!

False or misleading statement.
[quote]OCT 13 2018
“I think it's a very unfair investigation because there was no collusion of any kind.”[/quote]

WP comments
[quote]The special counsel investigation into potential collusion between Russia and Trump's campaign and obstruction of justice continues, and no conclusions have been announced.[/quote]

I'm going to underline entries that I disagree should be in the data base. I think Trump calling the investigation unfair is stupid and wrong but that's not enough IMHO.

False or misleading statement.
[quote]JUL 15 2018
“But I do feel that we have both made some mistakes. I think that the -- the probe is a disaster for our country. I think it's kept us apart, it's kept us separated. There was no collusion at all. ”[/quote]

WP comments
[quote]There's no evidence that the special counsel investigation is a witch hunt or a hoax. In fact, the special counsel has revealed significant criminal activity by some of Trump's campaign advisers and by Russian individuals and entities. The investigation into potential collusion between Russia and Trump's campaign continues, and no conclusions have been announced.[/quote]

I disagree with this one being there.

False or misleading statement.
[quote]JUN 30 2018
“Now, there's no collusion with me, there's no Russia with me, there's no nothing.”[/quote]

WP comments
[quote]There's no evidence that the special counsel investigation is a witch hunt or a hoax. In fact, the special counsel has revealed significant criminal activity by some of Trump's campaign advisers and by Russian individuals and entities. During the campaign, Trump continued negotiations with Russians about building a Trump tower in Msocow.[/quote]

If the WP comment had been something like Trump was working on a Trump Moscow hotel during the campaign and lying about it to the American people then it would have been a good entry.

False or misleading statement.
[quote]JAN 09 2018
“There has been no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians, or Trump and Russians, no collusion.”[/quote]

WP comments
[quote]Trump repeatedly claims the Russia investigation is made up or "Democratic-inspired," but the information on Russian efforts to sway the 2016 election was developed by the intelligence community and published in a declassified report, in which the agencies said they had "high confidence" it was correct. Whether or not there was collusion is still under investigation.[/quote]

Disagree

I found some, 4 to be exact!

There were 169 entries in the database for "no collusion". Out of those 169 entries I was able to find only 4 entries that I disagree were false or misleading statements. Actually, I was expecting to find a lot more. This seems to be a pretty good validation of the database unless someone can come up with something much more rich that the "no collusion" try.

Note that it took me almost an hour to go through all 169 entries.