Can Trump's Administration be relied upon to tell the truth even when it's not favorable to them?

[usmbguest5318]

On Thursday, Jim Hoft, the founder of The Gateway Pundit, said the White House was giving his site an official press credential. The Gateway Pundit promoted hoaxes such as one alleging that protesters in Austin, Tex., were bused in by the liberal donor George Soros. (The originator of that story told The New York Times that his assertions were not supported by fact.)

Oh, dear.....

 

[The Great Goose]

No, I don't mean that. I mean exactly what I asked. Thanks, but I am more than adequately capable of expressing precisely what I mean. I mean neither more nor less than what I write.

Ok. For clarity, the behavior you are referencing...would that be, as a random, non-specific example...like he might lie to the public, blaming a terrorist attack where a sitting U.S. Ambassador was killed on a demonstration caused by a YouTube video, when he knew for a fact that those details were absolutely false, to give himself political cover before an election?

The sad thing is the people have been fooled by this confusion presented in the video for decades, if not centuries. It seems a cult of personality is the only way to snap them out of it.

They said "gaslighting" but the media is the one gaslighting us.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you mean would he lie to the public blaming a terrorist attack where a sitting U.S. Ambassador was killed on a YouTube video to give himself political cover before an election?

I really can't say...but I can say for certain that the last guy did...

This deserves to be posted again.

 

[The Great Goose]

Trump could rape a 10 year old girl, and the conservative right would say she deserved it.

He could deny it, and they'd believe it even if given a video of it.

It's a shame it had to take one man to fix this mess up. Go Trump.

 

[Missourian]

Will you believe the Washington Post Fact Checker?

Sept. 27, 2012: The Fact Checker compiled the first detailed timeline showing how administration statements had evolved on the Benghazi incident.

For political reasons, it was in the White House’s interest to not portray (honestly identify) the attacks as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Instead, the administration kept the focus on (lied about) what was ultimately proved to be a political red herring (another euphemism for 'lying') — anger in the Arab world over an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube.

With key phrases and message discipline (by deceiving the public), the administration was able to conflate (deceptively link) an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi.

Fact-checking the Benghazi attacks (translated from MSM-ese into English by poster)
​

Which is exactly what I said. I humbly await your contrition.

​

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump has taken office with a promise to change the way Washington works. If that change is to be for the better and better for the American public, it must include the Trump Administration being unambiguous, complete and accurate in its disclosure of information and representations it makes about actions, events, people, places and things. Quite simply, that is not the nature of disclosure I've observed from Trump or his factotums.

 

[Missourian]

Dude, what part of the meaning of "interrogative sentence" do you not understand? I didn't reference anything outside of whether the qualitative nature of the topics about which the Trump Admin. may be called to discuss, that nature pertaining to events, situations, details and outcomes that may not be favorable to the Trump Administration. I asked a question. Do you care to provide a direct answer to it or not?

What others have done in the past doesn't matter. Trump is POTUS now, so I care what he and his aides, advisors, appointees, etc. do.

Just wanted to make sure I understood exactly what kind of lying to the public by a President of the United States you were asking about.

And you still haven't answered my simple question.

Are you talking about a situation similar to a president lying to the public about something like a planned attack on an American Consulate on 9/11, attempting to mislead the American people into believing it was only a spontaneous riot incited by a YouTube video...just to cover his own ass during an election cycle to protect his political ambition to win a second term? Is that the kind of thing you're asking us if Trump might do?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[xband]

Life is a bitch and then you die.

Will you believe the Washington Post Fact Checker?

Sept. 27, 2012: The Fact Checker compiled the first detailed timeline showing how administration statements had evolved on the Benghazi incident.

For political reasons, it was in the White House’s interest to not portray (honestly identify) the attacks as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Instead, the administration kept the focus on (lied about) what was ultimately proved to be a political red herring (another euphemism for 'lying') — anger in the Arab world over an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube.

With key phrases and message discipline (by deceiving the public), the administration was able to conflate (deceptively link) an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi.

Fact-checking the Benghazi attacks (translated from MSM-ese into English by poster)
​

Which is exactly what I said. I humbly await your contrition.

​

Not only no but fuck no. Katherine Graham was sole owner of the Washington Post who was born and bred a liberal.

 

[xband]

Facts muddy the water.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Will you believe the Washington Post Fact Checker?

Sept. 27, 2012: The Fact Checker compiled the first detailed timeline showing how administration statements had evolved on the Benghazi incident.

For political reasons, it was in the White House’s interest to not portray (honestly identify) the attacks as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Instead, the administration kept the focus on (lied about) what was ultimately proved to be a political red herring (another euphemism for 'lying') — anger in the Arab world over an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube.

With key phrases and message discipline (by deceiving the public), the administration was able to conflate (deceptively link) an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi.

Fact-checking the Benghazi attacks (translated from MSM-ese into English by poster)
​

Which is exactly what I said. I humbly await your contrition.

What? What is "MSM-ese?" The crossed out language in your post is not jargon that one may use to obfuscate reality.

• "Portray" -- standard English word
• "Kept focus on" -- verbose way to say "emphasized"
• "Red herring" -- "Red herrings" are not lies, they are deflections and diversions, some might call a red herring a "pivot," which when done in the political context it most often is these days, is jargon.
• "With key phrases and message discipline" -- not at all a conclusive statement as is the one you've substituted in parentheses. The job of news and fact presentation requires authors to refrain from making qualitative declarations. Statements of that sort fall into the purview of editorial content, not news content. One cannot legitimately and unilaterally declare a person or statement's intent is to deceive, thus that they did indeed deceive, without also presenting a sound argument showing that to be at least preponderantly so based on the available facts and and a well reasoned weighting of them.
• "Conflate" -- standard English word.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Will you believe the Washington Post Fact Checker?

Sept. 27, 2012: The Fact Checker compiled the first detailed timeline showing how administration statements had evolved on the Benghazi incident.

For political reasons, it was in the White House’s interest to not portray (honestly identify) the attacks as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Instead, the administration kept the focus on (lied about) what was ultimately proved to be a political red herring (another euphemism for 'lying') — anger in the Arab world over an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube.

With key phrases and message discipline (by deceiving the public), the administration was able to conflate (deceptively link) an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi.

Fact-checking the Benghazi attacks (translated from MSM-ese into English by poster)
​

Which is exactly what I said. I humbly await your contrition.

​

As goes Benghazi, I arrived at my conclusions about it by listening to/reading the testimony before Congress as well as reading summarizations of that and other details. The summarizations I used came from a variety of sources. Most recently I have used these:

• Benghazi Attack, Revisited
  
• Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality

 

[usmbguest5318]

Dude, what part of the meaning of "interrogative sentence" do you not understand? I didn't reference anything outside of whether the qualitative nature of the topics about which the Trump Admin. may be called to discuss, that nature pertaining to events, situations, details and outcomes that may not be favorable to the Trump Administration. I asked a question. Do you care to provide a direct answer to it or not?

What others have done in the past doesn't matter. Trump is POTUS now, so I care what he and his aides, advisors, appointees, etc. do.

Just wanted to make sure I understood exactly what kind of lying to the public by a President of the United States you were asking about.

And you still haven't answered my simple question.

Are you talking about a situation similar to a president lying to the public about something like a planned attack on an American Consulate on 9/11, attempting to mislead the American people into believing it was only a spontaneous riot incited by a YouTube video...just to cover his own ass during an election cycle to protect his political ambition to win a second term? Is that the kind of thing you're asking us if Trump might do?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

And you still haven't answered my simple question.

Are you talking about a situation similar to a president lying to the public about something like a planned attack on an American Consulate on 9/11, attempting to mislead the American people into believing it was only a spontaneous riot incited by a YouTube video...just to cover his own ass during an election cycle to protect his political ambition to win a second term? Is that the kind of thing you're asking us if Trump might do?

Again, I posted an interrogative sentence as my thread title; thus I was not talking about -- that is making an affirmative statement -- any class of situation. I asked others to share their reasoned answers to the thread question I asked.

 

[Claudette]

Trump could demand every one of his supporters to abandon their faith and worship him, and a good 85% would probably do it.

The shit I've seen, the self delusion and unwavering devotion to the man I've seen... tells me these people support trump over god, country or family.

I think Trump could be the anti-Christ.

I think you are tree stump dumb. What an idiot.

You have no problem with all the lies douchebag told in his eight years in office but have a problem with Trump and call him the anti-Christ?

Grow a brain you fucking moron.

 

[candycorn]

We’re going to find out pretty soon I imagine. In the end it doesn’t matter much what the President says about reality; it only matters if people believe it.

So far, it is clear that anyone who believes him does so at her/his own peril.

 

[Tehon]

No and I'm not sure what administration could, certainly not in my lifetime.

One thing that I like about Trump though is that he is shining a big spotlight on the media in this country. Long overdue!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump's had a scandal free Administration

 

[BULLDOG]

Trump's had a scandal free Administration

The minute he was inaugurated he was in violation of ethics standards.

 

[pinqy]

What did he do Matthew...first president in U.S. HISTORY not to achieve a single quarter of 3% growth...after a recession no less.

Well, that's not true. I count at least 5 such quarters:

 

[Skull Pilot]

No,

Trump is a snake and a liar! I wouldn't be surprised if he was satan himself and he will lie and lie to get his way.

Every administration spins and lies so as to look as good as possible to the public

have you people lived under a fucking rock your entire lives that you don't know this yet?

It's one thing to "spin" debatable concepts. It's wholly another to misrepresent objectively ascertained facts.

• Whether tax cuts for the wealthy actually benefit the entire population and to what extent they do/don't is debatable The weightings one assigns to the factors used on calculating the impact can be argued ad nauseum.
• Whether one said "X" or whether "Y" occurred is not debatable.

Trump and his advisors seem given to representing information of the second type noted as fact when it is not.

and every administration has done both since the beginning of the country

so I ask again where the hell have you people been?

 

[Dschrute3]

I would say no. But Trump certainly wouldn't be unique. All past Administrations have lied. Government always lies. It's what it does. I'm sorry, but that is the reality.