GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[L'Emmerdeur]

Indeed, and that's from Politifact, which is not a measurement of how often a candidate lies vs tells the truth in all their statements. It's a measure of what is considered mostly false, etc., by Politifact, and only considering those statements that are selected for analysis. There is subjectivity in the analysis, and subjectivity in the selection of statements. We can go into specific statements and see how that works if you like.

But, it boils down to calling trump a liar for saying it will cost $X to build a wall when the government estimates are $Y to build the wall. That can be analyzed as either "false" if the government stat is accepted as true. Or, it can be considered "half true" if it is acknowledged that Trump may be referring to a different kind of construction, or has alleged cost saving measures that have not been verified. That kind of thing.

Feel free to cherry-pick some statements from Trump that they've examined, and show how their analysis is incorrect, and that Trump is actually telling the truth.

[Forty Two]

Just take a look at the first one --

Trump claimed that he won 66 out of 67 counties, and that's unprecedented. So, they classified that not as "half true" (he was right that he won 66 of 67 counties, but he was wrong that it was "unprecedented." Instead of crediting him of half true, they said that he was "pants on fire" because his landslide victory of 66 out of 67 counties was not exactly "unprecedented." And, what kind of a "lie" is that anyway? A landslide win not really being "unprecedented" but moreso just "really really awesome." I would suspect that this would not get a "pants on fire" rating if Obama incorrectly stated that something was unprecedented, even though his statement was factually correct.

Then look at the second one -- he says that once the 15 years expires on the Iran deal, Iran will have an "industrial sized nuclear CAPABILITY ready to go." Politifact then says it's "false" because Politifact believes, based on its research, that Iran is not LIKELY to have a working nuclear weapon immediately upon expiration of the treaty. But, that's not what Trump said -- trump said that the deal is weak, which will allow Iran to have, at the expiration of the 15 years, an industrial sized nuclear CAPABILITY ready to go. This is arguably in line with Politifact's quoted expert, Matthew Kroenig, who said that "it's true that once the enrichment limit is gone, that could set the stage for a nuclear weapon." Having the "capability" of having a weapon is not the same thing as actually having the weapon. So, Kroenig says "It is hard to know how long this would take because Iran never came clean on its past weaponization work, and we don't know how much progress they might be able to make covertly over the next 15 years. But again, several months is a reasonable assumption." So, they prove Trump false by quoting an expert who himself says that there would be "several months" between the expiration of the treaty and an actual nuclear weapon in Iran's hands, but the expert acknowledges that it's "hard to say" how long (so it could be a shorter period of time, too). They went on to discuss other expert's opinions, who in the end said it's "unlikely" to be the case that Iran would have deliverable nuclear warheads on missiles right away. But, so what? How does that make what Trump said "false?" It doesn't. This is not a true/false statement, and even the experts who they used to declare Trump's statement false were talking in terms of generalities and likelihoods.

Then look at the third one, where they declare him half true. In that one, Trump agrees with the experts that say that Iran is very likely -- there is the likelihood thing -- seeding terrorist groups and thereby perpetrating terrorism in 25 countries around the world. They declare that only half true, because the experts who believe that to be the case haven't caught the Iranians read handed, but only have significant suspicions that they are doing it. Well, if you apply that analysis to the last item, if Trump had said "the Iranians won't have an industrialized capability" after the expiration of the treaty, then we'd have to judge that only as "half true" because the experts aren't saying they're sure - they're only saying that if Iran adheres to the treaty provisions, they won't have that capacity, and the treaty is supposed to give warning if Iran cheats. See how the subjectivity works there?

The next one on the list attributes to Donald Trump a false statement made by a group which was ATTACKING Donald Trump. Club for Growth. That is, Politifact said that something Club for Growth said was not true, and listed it as a statement made by Trump.

On the issue of the winery, Trump said it's the largest, and by acreage it certainly is the largest in Virginia, and he is possibly correct in terms of acreage of wineries on the east coast. However, they said he was lying because if you go by quantity of wine produced, it's not the largest. Well, so they just declare him "false" because they don't like his measuring stick. That's like saying that the largest farm in the country is not the largest, because they don't produce the most. That's two different measure - physically largest vs. greatest quantity produced. It doesn't make what he said "false."

See?

[L'Emmerdeur]

I see that you've been completely unable to show that Trump was being truthful in any of those statements. In other words, he was blatantly lying in some cases, and in others he was using weasel words, which is lying by another name.

The page is called "Donald Trump's file,", and subtitled "Recent statements involving Donald Trump," which is why the Club for Growth item is included. It's not listed as a statement made by Trump, which maybe you'd have noticed if you weren't in such a hurry to defend the lying dirtbag.

[Hermit]

He's not wrong, though, about nuclear weapons being the greater, more immediate risk.

... a “limited” regional nuclear war between antagonistic nuclear nations India and Pakistan could result in 300 million deaths, with 6.5 million tons of black soot released into the atmosphere. It would be enough to block out the sun and change global temperatures by 1.3 degrees Celcius. For comparison, global temperature only changed seven-tenths of 1 degree from 1880-2010. Precipitation in some parts of the world would fall by 50 percent, and the growing season would not be long enough to sustain staple crops. Two billion people would die of starvation, Helfand said.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/201 ... ate-change

How stupid can one presidential candidate be? Turns out a nuclear war would solve two global problems: warming and over-population. Too many US voters swallow Trump's idiocies.

Where do you get the idea that Trump suggested nuclear war would solve any problem?

Where do you get the idea that I suggested that Trump suggested nuclear war would solve any problem?

[JimC]

This could be an ever-lengthening exchange...

[Hermit]

It was and is funny. In fact I have the add on on my browser which turns all instances of 'Trump' into 'Drumpf'.

What's so funny about it? I mean, other than the ethnocentric that German names sound funny to English speakers, what's so funny about Drumpf?

In the local dialect (Heinern)
of Hessen, Germany,where I was born, Drumpf is short for Dummkopf.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Just take a look at the first one --

Trump claimed that he won 66 out of 67 counties, and that's unprecedented. So, they classified that not as "half true" (he was right that he won 66 of 67 counties, but he was wrong that it was "unprecedented." Instead of crediting him of half true, they said that he was "pants on fire" because his landslide victory of 66 out of 67 counties was not exactly "unprecedented." And, what kind of a "lie" is that anyway? A landslide win not really being "unprecedented" but moreso just "really really awesome." I would suspect that this would not get a "pants on fire" rating if Obama incorrectly stated that something was unprecedented, even though his statement was factually correct.

Your suspicions are irrelevant; Politifact does not shy away from pointing out when Obama lies. In reality, as opposed to what one might hear in the bubble of right wing propaganda, Politifact has been accused by various people of having both a bias in favour of the right wing as well as having a bias in favour of the left. For instance, Rachel Maddow has said something along the lines of they should just be ignored.

And, what kind of a "lie" is that anyway?

It's an out and out lie. His victory in Florida was not unprecedented.

Then look at the second one -- he says that once the 15 years expires on the Iran deal, Iran will have an "industrial sized nuclear CAPABILITY ready to go." Politifact then says it's "false" because Politifact believes, based on its research, that Iran is not LIKELY to have a working nuclear weapon immediately upon expiration of the treaty. But, that's not what Trump said -- trump said that the deal is weak, which will allow Iran to have, at the expiration of the 15 years, an industrial sized nuclear CAPABILITY ready to go.

Apparently you've been picking up some bad habits from your hero. In its analysis, Politifact addresses the actual statement in detail, rather than misrepresenting it as you've said they did. He said that "when those restrictions expire, Iran will have an industrial-size military nuclear capability ready to go, and with zero provision for delay no matter how bad Iran's behavior is. Politifact's sources pointed out that Trump was ignoring the reality of creating that capability and that he also "simply ignores the other limitations and monitoring provisions that will extend well beyond the 15-year mark of the agreement," as well as elucidating other facts that contradict his statement.

This is arguably in line with Politifact's quoted expert, Matthew Kroenig, who said that "it's true that once the enrichment limit is gone, that could set the stage for a nuclear weapon." Having the "capability" of having a weapon is not the same thing as actually having the weapon. So, Kroenig says "It is hard to know how long this would take because Iran never came clean on its past weaponization work, and we don't know how much progress they might be able to make covertly over the next 15 years. But again, several months is a reasonable assumption." So, they prove Trump false by quoting an expert who himself says that there would be "several months" between the expiration of the treaty and an actual nuclear weapon in Iran's hands, but the expert acknowledges that it's "hard to say" how long (so it could be a shorter period of time, too). They went on to discuss other expert's opinions, who in the end said it's "unlikely" to be the case that Iran would have deliverable nuclear warheads on missiles right away. But, so what? How does that make what Trump said "false?" It doesn't. This is not a true/false statement, and even the experts who they used to declare Trump's statement false were talking in terms of generalities and likelihoods.

Trump presented his opinion as a fact, which it simply is not. He didn't say "I believe that Iran will have an industrial-size military nuclear capability ready to go," he didn't say that "it's possible." He said that it will. That is not true, because he has no way of knowing what the actual situation will be in fifteen years, and actual experts on the issue have pointed out why Trump's scenario is rather unlikely. Trump was lying.

Then look at the third one, where they declare him half true. In that one, Trump agrees with the experts that say that Iran is very likely -- there is the likelihood thing -- seeding terrorist groups and thereby perpetrating terrorism in 25 countries around the world. They declare that only half true, because the experts who believe that to be the case haven't caught the Iranians read handed, but only have significant suspicions that they are doing it. Well, if you apply that analysis to the last item, if Trump had said "the Iranians won't have an industrialized capability" after the expiration of the treaty, then we'd have to judge that only as "half true" because the experts aren't saying they're sure - they're only saying that if Iran adheres to the treaty provisions, they won't have that capacity, and the treaty is supposed to give warning if Iran cheats. See how the subjectivity works there?

The actual ruling from Politifact is useful here. Not subjective at all.

Trump said that "during the last five years, Iran has perpetrated terror attacks in 25 different countries on five continents."

He has a point that Iran is widely believed to be supporting, or trying to support, armed or terrorist groups in many countries around the world, though the exact number is not known with any specificity outside Tehran.

However, that’s not the same thing as actually perpetrating terrorist attacks, as Trump indicated, even though his apparent source material only referred to activity, not attacks.

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.

I'd say that Politifact was actually being soft on Trump for this one. He said that Iran has perpetrated terror attacks in 25 different countries, when even his apparent source didn't say that. He was lying.

On the issue of the winery, Trump said it's the largest, and by acreage it certainly is the largest in Virginia, and he is possibly correct in terms of acreage of wineries on the east coast. However, they said he was lying because if you go by quantity of wine produced, it's not the largest. Well, so they just declare him "false" because they don't like his measuring stick. That's like saying that the largest farm in the country is not the largest, because they don't produce the most. That's two different measure - physically largest vs. greatest quantity produced. It doesn't make what he said "false."

Conveniently you ignore the fact that Trump said that he owned the winery "100%," which contradicts what is on the winery website.

Trump Winery is a registered trade name of Eric Trump Wine Manufacturing LLC, which is not owned, managed or affiliated with Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their affiliates.

Let's get to your defense of Trump's lie. He didn't say that the winery was the largest in Virginia, so that's a red herring. He said that it's the largest on the East Coast. By any legitimate measure, it's not. From Politifact:

The Wagner Vineyards Estate Winery in the Finger Lakes region of New York says it cultivates 250 acres of grapes (and makes 50,000 cases of wine a year). The vineyard manager at Pindar Vineyards on New York’s Long Island said in a November 2015 interview that its vineyard has more than 300 acres of grapes. Pindar says it makes 70,000 cases of wine a year.

The Trump Winery has 200 acres of grapes, and produces about 36,000 cases of wine each year. Trump was lying.

[Forty Two]

I see that you've been completely unable to show that Trump was being truthful in any of those statements.

Of course I have. Arguably truthful on all of them. And, that's all that matters. Differences of opinion, even reasonable ones, don't make what one side or the other side says "false." These are really silly "fact checks" and they're using a standard they don't apply to the other candidates. I've read a lot of Politifact's stuff. Where there is an issue like the Iran nuclear weapons thing, if the words were uttered by Hillary, they'd rate it "mostly true" with the caveat that experts aren't sure...

In other words, he was blatantly lying in some cases, and in others he was using weasel words, which is lying by another name.

None of theme can be deemed lies, let alone "blatant" lies. Differences of opinion on the likelihood of Iran having nuclear weapons after the iran treaty expires are not blatant lies, particularly when the expert cited by the Poltiifact to debunk Trump actually comes fairly close to agreeing with Trump.

The page is called "Donald Trump's file,", and subtitled "Recent statements involving Donald Trump," which is why the Club for Growth item is included. It's not listed as a statement made by Trump, which maybe you'd have noticed if you weren't in such a hurry to defend the lying dirtbag.

I went to the link, and I went down, one by one, the statements you said were Trump lies. The Club for Growth statement is not a Trump lie.

[Forty Two]

He's not wrong, though, about nuclear weapons being the greater, more immediate risk.

... a “limited” regional nuclear war between antagonistic nuclear nations India and Pakistan could result in 300 million deaths, with 6.5 million tons of black soot released into the atmosphere. It would be enough to block out the sun and change global temperatures by 1.3 degrees Celcius. For comparison, global temperature only changed seven-tenths of 1 degree from 1880-2010. Precipitation in some parts of the world would fall by 50 percent, and the growing season would not be long enough to sustain staple crops. Two billion people would die of starvation, Helfand said.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/201 ... ate-change

How stupid can one presidential candidate be? Turns out a nuclear war would solve two global problems: warming and over-population. Too many US voters swallow Trump's idiocies.

Where do you get the idea that Trump suggested nuclear war would solve any problem?

Where do you get the idea that I suggested that Trump suggested nuclear war would solve any problem?

In the post to which I responded.

[Forty Two]

It was and is funny. In fact I have the add on on my browser which turns all instances of 'Trump' into 'Drumpf'.

What's so funny about it? I mean, other than the ethnocentric that German names sound funny to English speakers, what's so funny about Drumpf?

In the local dialect (Heinern)
of Hessen, Germany,where I was born, Drumpf is short for Dummkopf.

You mean dumpf?

But, who cares? So what? President Gerald Ford was born Leslie Lynch King. It's a wonder nobody laughed at his name. I mean, especially with the word lynch in there -- we have college protest movements to tear down images of people named Lynch and change the names of buildings called "Lynch Memorial Hall" because it's too triggering.

Bill Clinton was born "Blythe" -- Hilarious.

[piscator]

A Week on the Trail With the “Disgusting Reporters” Covering Donald Trump

What it’s like to write about a candidate who hates you.

Seth Stevenson

On March 11, an hour before the scheduled start of a Donald Trump rally in Chicago, I checked into the venue’s media pen—a rectangle of metal bike racks corralling the press—and introduced myself to a few of the journalists there. I was talking to Sopan Deb, a CBS News reporter who’s been following the Trump campaign for months, when the first protest erupted in the crowd. Trump supporters had encircled some guys wearing “Muslims United Against Donald Trump” T-shirts. Deb excused himself, hoisted his video camera onto his shoulder, and sprinted out of the pen for a better angle on the hubbub.

When he returned, he set down his camera and resumed chatting with me as though nothing had happened. A newspaper writer sidled over to join our pleasant conversation. Within a minute or two, another protester was yelling. My new pals swiveled their heads, quickly pinpointed the disturbance, and raced back into the crowd.

Was this the normal gig? “Totally normal,” said Deb, safely in the pen once more, unfazed by the brewing rancor. “People think it’s new, but this has been going on at Trump rallies since at least November. There’ll be 10 more of those tonight.”

As the planned start time for the event drew near, a pair of men with Trump pins on the lapels of their suits sealed the media pen’s exit. “They’re not allowed to leave anymore,” I overheard one suit instruct the other. “Not until he”—the “he” being Trump—“has left the building.”

The flare-ups continued and intensified. Police swarmed into the stands. Everyone was on their feet, shouting and pointing. When a PA announcement informed us that the event had been canceled, the place detonated.

Reporters scurried to edges of the media pen, still hemmed in, and leaned their cameras over the barricades. Realizing this was folly, they soon mounted a jailbreak. I followed them and found myself amid a churning mob on the arena floor—scuffles everywhere, people shrieking at each other, ripping signs from hands, knocking hats from heads, shoving, stumbling. The cameras raced from one brawl to the next.

When the bedlam flowed outside, I went to a spot where protesters were screaming at people trying to exit the parking garage in their cars. Trump supporters on the garage’s upper levels were jeering at the protesters below, throwing popcorn. “Oh, you’re gonna spit on us now?” said an angry protester, looking up into what did appear to be a hail of expectoration. I saw a newspaper reporter I’d just met inside wading into the fray with her notebook in hand, trying to gather quotes.

The next morning, scanning news about the rally, I learned that Deb—while attempting to film the ruckus in the streets—had been thrown to the ground by Chicago cops, handcuffed, arrested, and detained in jail.*


...Covering a Trump event is like watching a 1970s Black Flag concert from inside a shark cage....

“How many times can you write that the same statement is untrue? At some point, the lie stops being news.”

...The first thing they all said about Trump’s press operation was that “there is no Trump press operation.” There’s just Hope Hicks, a twentysomething former Ralph Lauren model who’s never previously worked in politics. She functions more like a celebrity PR shop than a political communications team. And she remains a remote figure. On other campaigns, the press operatives develop chummy relationships with the press corps. “There’s no collegiality,” said one reporter. “No one’s getting dinner with Hope.”

While Hicks writes up the emails and press releases, Trump is his own media strategist. And in some ways he’s the most accessible candidate of all—as long as you’re a TV host like CNN’s Don Lemon or MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. But there’s no behind-the-scenes information coming from his campaign, no one else but Trump (and occasionally his campaign manager) to talk to. Where other candidates might have a dozen aides a journalist can develop as sources, along with donors and pollsters and ad-makers who’ll leak inside scoop, with Trump there’s none of that. Maybe you get some state-level operatives on the phone, but it doesn’t matter because they never know anything. “You don’t get sourced up like you normally would,” one reporter told me. “It all happens on the surface. You just try to interpret it.”

Asking policy questions is like throwing a rock down a bottomless well. “If I have a question about women’s issues, or Hispanic issues,” said one reporter, “it’s not like they point me to specific press liaisons who handle those. There aren’t any such people.” Most policy queries simply go unanswered. When a response does come back, it’s rarely sufficient. “There’s no point anyway,” said another reporter. “You might get a response to a question about immigration policy, but the next day on TV, Trump will contradict it.”



And of course there are the lies. Politico Magazine tallied more than 60 in a week of Trump appearances. At a rally in Boca Raton, Florida, on March 13, I heard him utter at least two bald untruths in the first two minutes of his speech (he said there were 25,000 people at his Chicago rally when the arena holds fewer than 10,000, and then he repeated the falsehood that no one had been injured at the event). But journalists I talked to who continue to report the lies as such don’t feel their efforts have much effect. “How many times can you write that the same statement is untrue?” mused one reporter. “At some point, the lie stops being news.” And debunking a claim doesn’t stop Trump from making it again.

The hokum washes over you after a while. A reporter sitting next to me at the Saturday rally in Cleveland chuckled when Trump bragged there were 29,000 people in the room. “That can’t be remotely possible,” she said, lifting her head for a moment to assess the crowd, then giving up and returning her gaze to her laptop. A fire marshal later announced the attendance had been about 7,000. The lie, though, never made it into her piece. Why bother to spend the time and column space to correct a silly exaggeration, when this same man has said he might want to summarily execute enemy combatants and defile their bodies? You need to pick your battles.

“We used to fact-check everything, every day,” another reporter told me, “but it gets hard to keep up.” For a writer filing on deadline an hour after a rally ends, there’s not enough time to thoroughly fact-check the dozens of fabrications that spilled from the stage. It’s also hard to know who the fact-checking is for. At this point, anyone who hates Trump has ample evidence he’s a liar. And anyone who loves Trump doesn’t care.

...

Lots more:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... corps.html

[Forty Two]

Just take a look at the first one --

Trump claimed that he won 66 out of 67 counties, and that's unprecedented. So, they classified that not as "half true" (he was right that he won 66 of 67 counties, but he was wrong that it was "unprecedented." Instead of crediting him of half true, they said that he was "pants on fire" because his landslide victory of 66 out of 67 counties was not exactly "unprecedented." And, what kind of a "lie" is that anyway? A landslide win not really being "unprecedented" but moreso just "really really awesome." I would suspect that this would not get a "pants on fire" rating if Obama incorrectly stated that something was unprecedented, even though his statement was factually correct.

Your suspicions are irrelevant; Politifact does not shy away from pointing out when Obama lies. In reality, as opposed to what one might hear in the bubble of right wing propaganda, Politifact has been accused by various people of having both a bias in favour of the right wing as well as having a bias in favour of the left. For instance, Rachel Maddow has said something along the lines of they should just be ignored.

.
Fuck off with the "right wing propaganda" bullshit. I'm not right wing. I don't even support Donald Trump. I just like him better than Ted Cruz. They should just be ignored, because Politifact is selective in the "facts" they check, and very inconsistent on how they apply their standards. I haven't accused them of a particular ideological bent. They just aren't accurate or consistent. And, they're evaluations of Trump show significant issues.

And, what kind of a "lie" is that anyway?

It's an out and out lie. His victory in Florida was not unprecedented.

LOL, right. Just like when Politifact found that Harry Reid "Mostly True" when he said that the Democrats never held up a Supreme Court nomination. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ts-never-/ This is flat out false, but Politifact goes through mental gymnastics to call it mostly true. Why? If Trump made this direct statement, would Politifact be parsing it for "slight errors" which can be ignored to consider it "mostly true?" Of course not. Because we can see from Politifacts review of trump that even "reasonable differences of opinion" are counted as falsities or mostly false.

Now, I hate Ted Cruz with unbridled passion, but here Politifact rules as "mostly false" that literally true statement made by Ted Cruz that Obama has presided over American jobs going overseas for seven years. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -barack-o/ Politifact agreed that the statement was literally true -- ""We found that Cruz has a point that the United States has seen jobs go overseas during the seven years that Obama has been in office." But, they thought there should be a caveat, because in Politifact's opinion -- ".... the trend has little to do with policy choices a president can make." They just say that the President couldn't have done anything about it, so what Cruz said becomes "mostly false." Not half true, or mostly true -- "mostly false." A "literally true" statement becomes "mostly false" because Politifact things that American job losses have little to do with policy choices of President Obama.

See what they did there?

Then look at the second one -- he says that once the 15 years expires on the Iran deal, Iran will have an "industrial sized nuclear CAPABILITY ready to go." Politifact then says it's "false" because Politifact believes, based on its research, that Iran is not LIKELY to have a working nuclear weapon immediately upon expiration of the treaty. But, that's not what Trump said -- trump said that the deal is weak, which will allow Iran to have, at the expiration of the 15 years, an industrial sized nuclear CAPABILITY ready to go.

Apparently you've been picking up some bad habits from your hero. In its analysis, Politifact addresses the actual statement in detail, rather than misrepresenting it as you've said they did. He said that "when those restrictions expire, Iran will have an industrial-size military nuclear capability ready to go, and with zero provision for delay no matter how bad Iran's behavior is. Politifact's sources pointed out that Trump was ignoring the reality of creating that capability and that he also "simply ignores the other limitations and monitoring provisions that will extend well beyond the 15-year mark of the agreement," as well as elucidating other facts that contradict his statement.

He's not my hero. I just review these things fairly, unlike you.

I read the Politifact detail, and their expert was quoted by politifact as saying that Iran could have nuclear weapons within months after expiration of the deal, and that the time frame is might be more OR LESS because it's hard to know exactly. Trump says the treaty is not strong enough, allows Iran to cheat, and that they will cheat because they cheated before, and that he believes they will have this capability, and that capability is possible even according to the Politifact experts cited. They only think it's unlikely. So, that, to Poltifact makes it "mostly false." However, if you look at the examples they gave above of how they they review Harry Reid, do you not see an inconsistency?

This is arguably in line with Politifact's quoted expert, Matthew Kroenig, who said that "it's true that once the enrichment limit is gone, that could set the stage for a nuclear weapon." Having the "capability" of having a weapon is not the same thing as actually having the weapon. So, Kroenig says "It is hard to know how long this would take because Iran never came clean on its past weaponization work, and we don't know how much progress they might be able to make covertly over the next 15 years. But again, several months is a reasonable assumption." So, they prove Trump false by quoting an expert who himself says that there would be "several months" between the expiration of the treaty and an actual nuclear weapon in Iran's hands, but the expert acknowledges that it's "hard to say" how long (so it could be a shorter period of time, too). They went on to discuss other expert's opinions, who in the end said it's "unlikely" to be the case that Iran would have deliverable nuclear warheads on missiles right away. But, so what? How does that make what Trump said "false?" It doesn't. This is not a true/false statement, and even the experts who they used to declare Trump's statement false were talking in terms of generalities and likelihoods.

Trump presented his opinion as a fact, which it simply is not. He didn't say "I believe that Iran will have an industrial-size military nuclear capability ready to go," he didn't say that "it's possible." He said that it will. That is not true, because he has no way of knowing what the actual situation will be in fifteen years, and actual experts on the issue have pointed out why Trump's scenario is rather unlikely. Trump was lying.

What are you talking about? All politicians present their opinion as fact. They make their speeches based on what they believe. Stating X, when there is room for difference of opinion, doesn't make X a lie or mostly false.

You say "that is not true" that Iran will have nuclear capability ready to go. No. You don't believe it's true, or it's not a proven certainty that it will happen. Obviously, nobody can know that. It's like a statement that "there will be another terrorist attack." Nobody knows that for sure, but people still say it because they believe the track record and known information about terrorist groups makes it pretty fucking likely. That doesn't make them liars for not saying IN MY OPINION there will be another terrorist attack.

If Trump's statement is considered a lie, then that same standard should be applied across the board. If you really think Politifact considers statements of opinion offered as fact to be false, unless couched with "in my opinion" words, then you don't read Politifact.

[pErvinalia]

It was and is funny. In fact I have the add on on my browser which turns all instances of 'Trump' into 'Drumpf'.

What's so funny about it? I mean, other than the ethnocentric that German names sound funny to English speakers, what's so funny about Drumpf?

In the local dialect (Heinern)
of Hessen, Germany,where I was born, Drumpf is short for Dummkopf.

You mean dumpf?

But, who cares? So what? President Gerald Ford was born Leslie Lynch King. It's a wonder nobody laughed at his name.

If he had of made fun of someone else changing their name, then people probably would have laughed at him. But we've been through this at least three times. Why do you keep pretending that there is no context to the joke?

[Forty Two]

It was and is funny. In fact I have the add on on my browser which turns all instances of 'Trump' into 'Drumpf'.

What's so funny about it? I mean, other than the ethnocentric that German names sound funny to English speakers, what's so funny about Drumpf?

In the local dialect (Heinern)
of Hessen, Germany,where I was born, Drumpf is short for Dummkopf.

You mean dumpf?

But, who cares? So what? President Gerald Ford was born Leslie Lynch King. It's a wonder nobody laughed at his name.

If he had of made fun of someone else changing their name, then people probably laughed at him. But we've been through this at least three times. Why do you keep pretending that there is no context to the joke?

Trump never changed his name. We've been through that dozens of time.

Why do you keep making false equivalencies?

Jon Stewart changed his own name.

Trump's grandfather changed the grandfather's name.

[pErvinalia]

So? It makes Trump a hypocrite. That's what the joke is about. Stop playing dumb.