Anybody going to be watching the State of the Union Address?

[broman]

Because anyone in their "right" mind knows that Trump embellishes and don't believe him "absolutely" in the first place.

Sounds like an excuse to never have to hold Trump accountable for his lies. Why would anybody what that character flaw in their President?

[Vilepagan]

Agreed.

[MDDad]

On the other hand, all presidents lie to one degree or another. If they didn't, they'd never get elected. Trump is just too stupid to be circumspect about it.

[Omar Bongo]

the really sad part of this is all the people who realize this but continue to defend him for political reasons...

...or have lowered their standards along with his to the gutter

#Sad

[not4u13]

Normally I can agree with what you write Not4u, but here I think you're mistaken. If there's a problem with the truth then the person stating the falsehood is at fault not the one who points out the lie. In this case the main reason I'm "opposed" to trump is his constant lying about everything. I'm also unsure how silence about lies lends any credibility to either side.

I'm not giving him a "pass" nor should anyone else. The question we all need to ask ourselves isn't whether or not he is lying, but whether or not those lies are material to the central point. We know that this "biggest tax cut in history" isn't. Does it matter that it's not really the biggest? It's a tax cut. If you start getting into arguments about whether or not it's really the biggest in history, you're going to lose most people. If you get into the details of how the economy works to try and explain the impact, you're going to lose most people. If you're going to try and explain the math, you're going to lose most people.

The study of the election that led to this Trump presidency will be one for the ages, but the one key difference is that Trump created a brand that was very simple and resonated with people. Who wouldn't want a "great America?"
With so many people out of work and unhappy with the recent past, creating the phrase "Make America Great Again" is brilliant. Ironically it was a lot like what Obama did with "Change". One simple concept repeated over and over again. Clinton had no message.

Not all lies are created equal. Trump's lies are mostly about his ego and nobody cares that he is puffing out his chest. In fact, there are a lot of Americans that love the bravado.

I can't think of a time when there has been such a gap in the approval ratings. Republicans love this guy by a very wide margin. The approval of Democrats is in the single digits. Until we stop looking at every word this guy tweets and start looking at the bigger picture, his supports will never see the point you're trying to make.

[John Q. Public]

The question we all need to ask ourselves isn't whether or not he is lying, but whether or not those lies are material to the central point.

You don't think people blindly believing them - and vociferously defending them - makes them material?

[Bick]

JQP - are you talking about the extreme fringe followers, or the majority of the people...on both sides? My sense is the fringe on both sides are the ones that dominate the "news". Unfortunately, it seems anyone supporting either side gets characterized as the extreme. Really is dumb and counter-productive to do this. But I suppose it provides clicks.

[John Q. Public]

I don't know. Breitbart readers? Hannity viewers? Fox "n" Friends viewers? People who don't believe fact checkers? People who share or like Donald's tweets (although a good many of them are probably bots)? I hope there aren't many but there do seem to be.

[Professor Fate]

The above post is a good example of how POV affects one's concept of reality. The people mentioned above, would look at WaPost readers, NY Times readers, "The View" watchers, CNN viewers, and MSNBC viewers as extreme, and out of touch with most of America.

[Vilepagan]

Perhaps that's a good point, but what are we supposed to think of someone who views readers of The Washington Post or The New York Times as "extreme" or "out of touch" with most of America? That's just false.

[Vilepagan]

I can't think of a time when there has been such a gap in the approval ratings. Republicans love this guy by a very wide margin. The approval of Democrats is in the single digits. Until we stop looking at every word this guy tweets and start looking at the bigger picture, his supports will never see the point you're trying to make.

Well, I think one point worth making is that what this guy says is generally not to be believed. If that means pointing out every single lie he tells so be it.

I'd like to know what happened to that "higher standard" we're all supposed to use when judging the conduct of our elected officials. It does seem to have been forgotten somewhere.

[Bick]

I don't know. Breitbart readers? Hannity viewers? Fox "n" Friends viewers? People who don't believe fact checkers? People who share or like Donald's tweets (although a good many of them are probably bots)? I hope there aren't many but there do seem to be.

Let's cut to the chase - do you believe there is a bell shaped curve when it comes to political beliefs held by American citizens?

[Professor Fate]

what are we supposed to think of someone who views readers of The Washington Post or The New York Times as "extreme" or "out of touch" with most of America?

The same thing that readers of the Washington Post and NYTimes think of Fox News viewers, and Breitbart readers, of course.

[Bick]

The same thing that readers of the Washington Post and NYTimes think of Fox News viewers, and Breitbart readers, of course.

I believe the whole notion of putting people in buckets is mis-guided. I've done it myself, and it was damn stupid of me. Fell right into the trap.

[John Q. Public]

Let's cut to the chase - do you believe there is a bell shaped curve when it comes to political beliefs held by American citizens?

Yes. Break it down by issues or motivated voter/non-motivated voter and the shapes of the curves probably get a little interesting.

[John Q. Public]

The same thing that readers of the Washington Post and NYTimes think of Fox News viewers, and Breitbart readers, of course.

Anyone who's become convinced that their news should come from any point of view is, by definition, being played.

[Professor Fate]

So then you watch a variety of news reports, from both sides of the spectrum, and assume that Fox viewers, and Breitbart readers don't.

[John Q. Public]

So then you watch a variety of news reports, from both sides of the spectrum....

I'll read editorials from both sides, but news, no. I don't watch Fox, I don't watch MSNBC, I don't read Breitbart, I don't read Mother Jones and I'm glad I'm out of KPFK's range (or at least I think I am). I prefer my news to come without bias, outrage, pomposity or sensationalism. Fox viewers and Breitbart readers don't seem to share my preference.

[Omar Bongo]

The same thing that readers of the Washington Post and NYTimes think of Fox News viewers, and Breitbart readers, of course.

How do you know what they think?

[Bick]

Yes. Break it down by issues or motivated voter/non-motivated voter and the shapes of the curves probably get a little interesting.

Makes it challenging to have meaningful discussions if you believe the other side of the table is unobjective and/or unreasonable.