The tweeter-in-chief tweets another lie about Obama

[Endus]

Where do you draw the conclusion that me stating that "It is when you create a thread about it." is engaging is Baghdad-Bob apologizism?

Because you're taking issue with the people who don't like that the POTUS is lying to them, rather than taking issue with the fact that the POTUS is lying to them.

It's like telling someone they should stop whining about their car being stolen, because maybe the guy who stole it needed it. It's apologism. It's making light of the actual issue, by pretending that being angry about it is worse than the issue itself.

[Allybeboba]

So let's say it is one of his lackeys tweeting crap in his name. Does that make it ok?

No different than one of Obama's "lackeys" line tapping Trump Tower if in fact that happened.

[Kujako]

No different than one of Obama's "lackeys" line tapping Trump Tower if in fact that happened.

Show us on the doll where the bad man touched you.

[Allybeboba]

Because you're taking issue with the people who don't like that the POTUS is lying to them, rather than taking issue with the fact that the POTUS is lying to them.

We don't know if in fact he is lieing. He may not be. We just might not have that information.
He may be me might not be. We should give him the benefit of the doubt.

[LaserSharkDFB]

So at what point can Obama legally win a case of libel against Trump?

Is Trump saying slanderous things about a political figure that he knows to be false?

Keep tweeting, Trump. We'll find out soon enough.

Probably never. Libel's nearly impossible to prove, and they'd take the defendant's history into account. Trump lies and exaggerates all the time, therefore no reasonable person should assume anything he says is honest and believable, therefore it isn't libelous. That's exactly how it would go.

[GreenJesus]

I understood that's what you meant.

It's just completely false and is nothing more than an attempt to shift the blame for Trump from Trump voters, to Hillary Clinton somehow. I repeat; there was nothing wrong with Clinton as a candidate, on her actual merits. She had plenty of experience and a solid career background. Every issue that was used against her, and which damaged her candidacy, was slander. It amounted to nothing. For all the bleating about BENGHAZI and EMAILS and whatnot, none of that turned out to have any real meat to it. It was a lie told to bias the election, and voters who couldn't be arsed to look into those accusations allowed themselves to be led by the nose by those liars who spread them. The blame for being led by such falsehoods lies with those ignorant voters, not the person the lies were told about.

Hillary wasn't the problem. It was the lies from the Trump campaign, and the willful ignorance of some voters. Stop shifting the blame away from those who actually elected Trump.

And because those lies won him the election, it's hardly surprising he's continuing to lie. Americans chose a liar, and are shocked that he lies. This shouldn't surprise anyone. You elected a liar, now you can either accept that he's going to lie to you about basically everything, or you can start writing your Congressmen and demanding they work to oppose this asshat.

Hillary never accomplished anything major in her career. As Secretary of State her HUGE "couple hour ceasefire" was her big sell point. She represented TPP and didn't care at all about whites or the low-middle class in her campaign. She thought California and New York could carry her. And then there was the "Wipe it? Like with a cloth?" "There were no secret emails" she said "Benghazi was not my fault and it randomly happened because of a YouTube video" straight faced to the families of the victims while Chelsea knew what the reality was already. Her healthcare thing in the 90s was a failure and got nowhere and she is two-faced. She lost to a nobody 3 year senator (Obama) in 2008 primaries.

Don't tell me "if it wasn't for trump she was totally fine"

[Venant]

See, this is exactly what people mean. You're engaging in Baghdad Bob-level apologism, at this point.

It's a major issue. POTUS lying to the public is a really big deal, and should be a topic of discussion. It isn't unexpected that we'd be talking about it, and it's by no means unusual for people to think the POTUS blatantly lying to people isn't a huge deal.

Trumps claims have more actual evidence (the reports relating to the FISA requests) than ANY of the allegations of Trump being somehow connected to the Russians, and yet the media portrayal of both of these 'narratives' makes it clear that there is an institutional bias against Trump in the corporate media.

The major issue here is that we no longer have an independent press to do proper investigation into such matters. During the Obama administration we had to rely solely on internal leaks for such information, because the corporate media was too busy inviting Obama into their editorial board meetings.

A press that makes up narratives in order to undermine the president is just as bad as one filled Barry 'Everyone's boyfriend' Obama sycophants, so right now we have the worst of both worlds.

Also, I hope the wikileaks information release on the reckless actions of the CIA gets some coverage, but I believe that this too will be politicized by the corporate media.

[zorkuus]

No different than one of Obama's "lackeys" line tapping Trump Tower if in fact that happened.

if if if if if

And what if the moon is made of cheese?

[Allybeboba]

Show us on the doll where the bad man touched you.

Not quite sure what response is suppose to mean. Can you explain it to us?

[Endus]

We don't know if in fact he is lieing. He may not be. We just might not have that information.
He may be me might not be. We should give him the benefit of the doubt.

And there's the straight-up Baghdad Bob apologism.

No. There's no reason to give him the "benefit of the doubt". At all. That's a ridiculous and completely unjustifiable statement.

Hillary never accomplished anything major in her career. As Secretary of State her HUGE "couple hour ceasefire" was her big sell point. She represented TPP and didn't care at all about whites or the low-middle class in her campaign. She thought California and New York could carry her. And then there was the "Wipe it? Like with a cloth?" "There were no secret emails" she said "Benghazi was not my fault and it randomly happened because of a YouTube video" straight faced to the families of the victims while Chelsea knew what the reality was already. Her healthcare thing in the 90s was a failure and got nowhere and she is two-faced. She lost to a nobody 3 year senator (Obama) in 2008 primaries.

Don't tell me "if it wasn't for trump she was totally fine"

This is such a mess of straight-up conspiracy nonsense and straight-up lies that have been proven false that I'm not going to derail the thread any further by getting into detail.

Literally every single thing you said there is a lie of misrepresentation. Every. Single. Thing.

[Venant]

if if if if if

And what if the moon is made of cheese?

if if if if if...
but muh Russia!

[Allybeboba]

if if if if if

And what if the moon is made of cheese?

Has it been proven yet?

[Venant]

And there's the straight-up Baghdad Bob apologism.

No. There's no reason to give him the "benefit of the doubt". At all. That's a ridiculous and completely unjustifiable statement.

In light of the Snowden revelations of a completely out of control surveillance state that grew exponentially under Obama, then there really isn't any reason to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt either.

[zorkuus]

Has it been proven yet?

You're trying to shift the burden of proof.

There's no need to entertain the idea that he might not be lying anymore than a claim that there's an invisible blue whale under my bed.

[LaserSharkDFB]

We don't know if in fact he is lieing. He may not be. We just might not have that information.
He may be me might not be. We should give him the benefit of the doubt.

Here's the thing, though. He tweeted about this right after Fox & Friends reported the exact same number of re-engaged insurgents. So we're left with three possibilities:

1) Fox & Friends is privy to the same classified/not-available-to-the-general-public information that Trump is getting his numbers from
2) The actual number of such prisoners released under Obama exactly matches the previous known number of such prisoners released under Obama and Bush combined, and this is all a huge coincidence
3) Trump, who is known to watch cable news religiously, heard it from Fox & Friends and ran with it

#1 is extremely implausible, and #2 is technically possible but also highly unlikely (especially given the timing of the F&F report). #3 is the only possibility that is even remotely likely.

Trump has lied about everything since before he began his campaign. He doesn't get any benefit of the doubt, especially on provable lies.

[cubby]

So, by me pointing out that people are going out of their way to create threads that display someone in a negative light I am "supporting" them? I guess so in your mind if I "not with you I must be against you".

You're supporting them by falsely claiming them to be negative. They are factual. You spinning the issue into a positive/negative point makes you as bad as Breitbart. What's worse, you don't realize you're doing it - making you precisely the reason someone like Trump can get into the White House in the first place.

And then making it a with-or-against issue just clarifies your own internal bias. This isn't a with or against issue - I'm not sure why you think it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Both sides were wrong. And the reporting is incomplete. That was my point.. way to miss it. I know.. it is just so much simpler (read: lazy) to bash Trump without doing research.

The deep, deep irony of your statement is probably beyond you. The entire point is that Trump didn't research it before commenting.

Let us know when you're caught up.

[bowchikabow]

You're supporting them by falsely claiming them to be negative. They are factual. You spinning the issue into a positive/negative point makes you as bad as Breitbart. What's worse, you don't realize you're doing it - making you precisely the reason someone like Trump can get into the White House in the first place.

And then making it a with-or-against issue just clarifies your own internal bias. This isn't a with or against issue - I'm not sure why you think it is.

- - - Updated - - -



The deep, deep irony of your statement is probably beyond you. The entire point is that Trump didn't research it before commenting.

Let us know when you're caught up.

I am going on the notion that he, as President, has information the public doesn't have. I fully admit that the report I linked is probably not complete either. I am won't argue that Trump may be wrong in what he posted.. but there is pages and pages of nothing more "bush did more, Trump is a moron" And at no point had I seen actual counter arguments, or data other than a news report. I am not behind, I just grow tired of one simple one sentence, blame transfer answers.

[TZucchini]

We don't know if in fact he is lieing. He may not be. We just might not have that information.
He may be me might not be. We should give him the benefit of the doubt.

Jesus Christ.

If this isn't Baghdad Bob apologism, I don't know what is....

[Endus]

I am going on the notion that he, as President, has information the public doesn't have. I fully admit that the report I linked is probably not complete either. I am won't argue that Trump may be wrong in what he posted.. but there is pages and pages of nothing more "bush did more, Trump is a moron" And at no point had I seen actual counter arguments, or data other than a news report. I am not behind, I just grow tired of one simple one sentence, blame transfer answers.

That's not how this works.

If he makes a statement based on info that isn't publicly available, then the proper public response is to demand that he either provide that evidence, or admit that he's lying.

The one exception is if he was talking about material that's classified at some level and which shouldn't be made public, in which case his tweet is legally actionable.

[TZucchini]

We don't know if in fact he is lieing. He may not be. We just might not have that information.
He may be me might not be. We should give him the benefit of the doubt.

Let me guess. You were one of the people screaming "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE" when the news about Russia meddling in the election was coming out.