World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[marurun]

Well, Trump's free-wheeling communication style is finally back, and at least now he is answering press questions. His answers, however, give me no fewer reasons to worry.

[marurun]

So, Sarge, since I know you often take issue with so-called fact checking, I wonder what you think of USA Today's supposed fact check of Trump's address. I don't see a lot of interpretation in how they did their fact checking, but perhaps I'm missing some nuance, and I'm curious how you perceive their effort.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /98009514/

[dsheinem]

What do you make of this, CRT? This is the Holy Mother Fox News, calling Trump's bullshit out for what it is...

[Tanooki]

Pfft, so fed up with the liberal garbage that Faux News doesn't cover things right. No, what they don't do right is just only RIGHTY coverage on all their opinion shows throughout the day and primarily evenings.

Smith there, he's a good one and I really like that guys style. He won't take crap from people on either side, keeps himself apolitical and just hammers stupid people when they have it coming. Another on there that's fairly straight forward and clear about it too is Chris Wallace son of 60Minutes Mike Wallace.

That's no surprise Newsom would be on facebook linking up that nugget in the least bit because he can play how even 'corrupt' fox is fed up with his crap. Fox on the whole doesn't boot lick the cheeto messiah, but it appears as such as their loudest mouthpieces are the evening block that do (in particular Carlson and Hannity.)

[Sarge]

Be aware that when I do this, there may be a bit of me playing devil's advocate. I (sometimes) like doing that kind of stuff.

• The president praised his administration’s implementation of his anti-terrorism executive order, which has been largely blocked by the courts. “The rollout was perfect,” he said. But the order caused confusion at the nation’s airports, including for green-card holders and dual citizens.

Agreed with this. Although it could be possible that they had reasons for not letting all the other agencies know about it until it happened for fear of the order being undermined before it could be implemented. So the chaos may have been anticipated. (Seriously playing devil's advocate, if you can't tell.)

• Trump said that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously decided not to reinstate Trump’s travel ban, has had its rulings overturned by the Supreme Court “at a record number.” Not true.

Perhaps not, but it's close. I see this as a typical political exaggeration. I'm not upset over a difference of 80% versus 83.3% over time, as mentioned in the article.

• Trump wrongly said that Hillary Clinton “gave” Russia 20% of the uranium in the United States. Clinton was one of nine votes approving the deal. She alone couldn’t have stopped the deal, which involved 20% of U.S. production capacity, not stocks, and the uranium can’t go to Russia without export licenses.

This feels a little pedantic. This is one of those cases where Trump's imprecision with language doesn't quite capture what happened, but this would be like arguing that a representative or senator didn't "give" us a piece of legislation because they were only one of many that voted on it, and their vote alone couldn't have stopped it.

• The president claimed his November victory was “the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan.” It wasn’t. Three presidents since Reagan captured a larger share of electoral votes than Trump did, including Republican George H.W. Bush.

Yeah, it's not true. Not surprised that he's throwing that out there, though. Probably in response to those that are trying to delegitimize his victory. But no, it's not true. I knew it when he said it.

• Trump said “jobs have already started to surge” since his election, citing investments by Ford, Fiat Chrysler and Intel. But the investments, much of which were in the works before the election, were largely market driven.

This I would say is partly true. Many companies have various plans in the works, but don't implement them until they feel the market is in the right place for it. It could very well be argued that Trump's proposed policies have influenced companies to push forward with plans that were going to happen at some point in the future.

Another interesting thought: While Ford says Trump had nothing to do with it in the interview with Cavuto, there may be a bit of playing market expectations from Ford as well. If they don't care to curry favor with Trump (very possible), then they would instead wish to portray strength in their marketplace. So communicating that they would have pushed ahead regardless of who was in office would show that they are in great shape financially, and in expansion mode.

• Contrary to the president’s claim that “nobody mentions that Hillary received the questions to the debates,” there was plenty of press coverage in October when it was revealed that former CNN contributor Donna Brazile shared several questions with the Clinton campaign during the primary election.

Yes, the initial reports were out there, but the story didn't "have legs". My guess is that you could ask folks about it, and most would have absolutely no clue about it.

• Trump said he thought the media had “a lower approval rate than Congress.” No — the public’s approval of Congress is lower than its trust in the media.

True. The curse of speaking extemporaneously. It's not good, however! Media trust is apparently at around 32%. Congress is far worse, and has been for a while. And he did note that he wasn't entirely sure, so there's that. This is another that I knew wasn't right, mainly because I know how low Congress' approval rating is!

Remember, I'm not saying that fact-checkers are always wrong. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, and sometimes it's up in the air.

[Tanooki]

Seems like a fairly fair break down being the advocate as you put it. Trump does like to play in his word pasta of choice which sometimes ends up making him look stupid, other times unhinged, and yet again in other ways just untrue. If he'd clean up how he speaks it could help shut down doors and open others on going along with or tearing him down.

[Sarge]

Yeah, as someone that prefers precision in how people speak, sometimes he drives me up the wall. I've just learned to take Trump's statements with a grain of salt... which is what I do with all politicians.

[marurun]

Be aware that when I do this, there may be a bit of me playing devil's advocate. I (sometimes) like doing that kind of stuff... Remember, I'm not saying that fact-checkers are always wrong. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, and sometimes it's up in the air.

I concur. As with everything, you do have to dig down to evaluate claims. That's one reason I really like fact-checking; they usually give me enough information that I can often evaluate the veracity of their own fact-checking.

I'd like to address a couple of these, specifically...

• Trump said that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously decided not to reinstate Trump’s travel ban, has had its rulings overturned by the Supreme Court “at a record number.” Not true.

Perhaps not, but it's close. I see this as a typical political exaggeration. I'm not upset over a difference of 80% versus 83.3% over time, as mentioned in the article.

I agree that those numbers don't differ much, but there's more in the explanation:
"The ABA wrote that the “common perception” that the 9th Circuit is the “rogue circuit” is not true.

The ABA noted that the Supreme Court overturns most circuit court decisions that it reviews, but reviews less than 1% of all circuit court rulings."

And that's really what Trump was trying to imply, that the 9th Circuit is this rogue liberal circuit that puts politics above the law, but Trump's attempt to paint it that way isn't supported by his claim, so the fact check is accurate for the purpose of countering Trump's implication. That said, reversal rates are only so helpful. These percentages are just of cases that have gone on to the SCOTUS. I think the information that would be much more helpful isn't included in Trump's assertion or the fact-checking response. What we really would want to see is what percentage of the circuit court's total rulings have gone on to be reversed by the Supreme Court, rather than just the reversal rate of those considered. Do 9th Circuit rulings go before the SCOTUS more often than other circuits? Which circuit is the most often reversed in terms of total decisions? And even that information would only be so helpful. A circuit with really low numbers may be mostly hearing minor cases. So really, there isn't a good single metric to try to establish a particular circuit as anomalous.

• Trump wrongly said that Hillary Clinton “gave” Russia 20% of the uranium in the United States. Clinton was one of nine votes approving the deal. She alone couldn’t have stopped the deal, which involved 20% of U.S. production capacity, not stocks, and the uranium can’t go to Russia without export licenses.

This feels a little pedantic. This is one of those cases where Trump's imprecision with language doesn't quite capture what happened, but this would be like arguing that a representative or senator didn't "give" us a piece of legislation because they were only one of many that voted on it, and their vote alone couldn't have stopped it.

I agree. But I think it's the right kind of response to Trump's claim, which is targeting one lawmaker to bear the "sins" of an entire bill. And by misspeaking as the the nature of the bill, it makes it seems like a greater risk than it actually is. I am of the opinion that there is a place for this kind of pedantry in fact-checking. The details can change the tenor of an issue. I'm a little concerned Trump is still going after a defeated opponent. Smacks a little of kicking someone when they're down to me.

• Trump said “jobs have already started to surge” since his election, citing investments by Ford, Fiat Chrysler and Intel. But the investments, much of which were in the works before the election, were largely market driven.

This I would say is partly true. Many companies have various plans in the works, but don't implement them until they feel the market is in the right place for it. It could very well be argued that Trump's proposed policies have influenced companies to push forward with plans that were going to happen at some point in the future.

Another interesting thought: While Ford says Trump had nothing to do with it in the interview with Cavuto, there may be a bit of playing market expectations from Ford as well. If they don't care to curry favor with Trump (very possible), then they would instead wish to portray strength in their marketplace. So communicating that they would have pushed ahead regardless of who was in office would show that they are in great shape financially, and in expansion mode.

I guess my thought on this is that it's WAY too early for Trump to be trying to take credit for the US economy. Economic stuff is so fussy and everything operates on a multi-year delay. As for waiting for the right time for the market, that's a good point. A new president can wreak havoc even with a fairly stable market. Maybe Ford actually delayed some of their moves just to make sure the election cycle didn't do anything that would cause them too much trouble. This fact-check is complicated in the details, as you've pointed out, but in terms of message I think it is still relevant. Trump is trying to take credit for an awful lot of stuff that may at best be related to him in only an ancillary fashion.

• Contrary to the president’s claim that “nobody mentions that Hillary received the questions to the debates,” there was plenty of press coverage in October when it was revealed that former CNN contributor Donna Brazile shared several questions with the Clinton campaign during the primary election.

Yes, the initial reports were out there, but the story didn't "have legs". My guess is that you could ask folks about it, and most would have absolutely no clue about it.

Is this even a relevant topic? Clinton wasn't elected. Trump loves to remind us that he won. Clinton's not currently holding a political office. Why did Trump even bring this up? Is this simply him trying to admonish the press for being "unfair"? If that was his goal I don't think it works the way he wants it to. He's now the president, and the press has a responsibility (IMO) to hold our elected officials' feet to the fire. Clinton is no longer an elected official, so I'm not sure how much public interest there is in any further roasting of her unless an FBI investigation is reopened over something.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Sarge. It's clear we differ in opinions and world-view, but I see some middle ground in here. That's a good place to start from. I brought up the USA Today fact-checking, because I think it tried to avoid going into the weeds too much. How do you think they did compared to some of the other sources we've talked about? In your opinion, do you think they wandered off or stuck relatively close to the facts side of things?

[MrPopo]

I think in addition to the general imprecision and paraphrasing that happens with everyone (not just politicians, but things like reporters summarizing a study) Trump seems to have this pathological need to be perceived as amazing. So he leans more than other politicians towards having the most and being the best and all these good things being because of him.

[Sarge]

I think overall they did alright. I'd probably enjoy a little more back-and-forth with someone like me playing devil's advocate, but this is the price Trump will pay for not being precise enough with his words.

MrPopo is right, too. I think he's a bit more bombastic than other politicians in claiming major victories, but they all do it. I argued before the election that, despite his style, Trump is very, very much a politician. He's just not the type Washington is used to. And remember the rule of Presidential politics: Never admit that you're wrong.