[Discussion] Hope to Remember The Trump Administration Thread as being 'transparent and honest'

Let's follow and discuss what our newest presidential administration gets up to, the good, the bad, the lawsuits, and the many many indictments.

farley3k wrote:

I guess the question is - what proof do journalists have that he knows? Have we seen any? Any transcripts where he is told point blank "Don, that is untrue you can't say it" and then he says it?

A sh*tton of times! He says things that are counter to known facts (let alone prevailing opinion based on known facts) all the time. He is asked about those things, and his lying responses to them, all the time. Sure, there are some cases where he may have been misinformed or misunderstood or just plain wrong, but to try to give him this kind of cover is baffling.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

but to try to give him this kind of cover is baffling.

I don't know that they consider it to be giving him cover. I think, although I can't speak for news outlets, they are trying to maintain their own integrity and follow their rules.

When you have a lying sociopath that is arguably not a good thing but I don't think they are doing it because they want to give him cover.

What I really wish they would do is say "due to the astounding number of untrue statements trump says we are no longer going to broadcast his press conference live. We will only play clips after they have been verified and when they are untrue will will say that before and after each statement"

Or they could just say "due to the amount of falsehoods stated at these press conferences we will no longer air them at all."

What a narcissists needs most is attention. That is the only reason he does these because he couldn't hold rallies so he needed a way to be paid attention to. They could take that away.

Yeah news agencies are losing their integrity because they are chasing TV ratings.

NYT: Trump Extends Social Distancing Guidelines Through End of April: The president, facing grim figures from his health advisers, starkly reversed an earlier upbeat assessment that the country could relax the guidelines by Easter.

“Dr. Birx and I spent a considerable amount of time going over all the data, why we felt this was a best choice for us, and the president accepted it,” Dr. Fauci said.

Aides said that Mr. Trump was muted during the task force meeting before Sunday’s news conference, his mind almost entirely made up to extend the guidelines. One adviser said the president recognized that the data about the potential impact of the virus in the United States was bad, and could not be bent to his will.

At least Trump can listen to reason on this one point on this one problem. (This silver lining is an incredible 1 atom thin! Unfortunately it will instantly tarnish when exposed to the world, and will be silver no more. Hey... at least we had an imaginary silver lining...)

I am betting he will change his mind (if we can use that word for the bad of cats rummaging around in his head) the first time he sees numbers of infections drop. "See it worked! Problem over. Reopen everything"

To be fair some of this stuff is hard to understand if you don't have the ability to listen to people and I think he fundamentally lacks that skill. But even normal folks - when hoping for the best see a small good sign and get excited about it.

farley3k wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

but to try to give him this kind of cover is baffling.

I don't know that they consider it to be giving him cover. I think, although I can't speak for news outlets, they are trying to maintain their own integrity and follow their rules.

Regardless of how “they consider it”, everybody who refuses to explicitly call out the fact that the President is lying is giving him cover. It allows his supporters to point to one side that says, “here is how it is” and the other side that says, “we think that maybe what they’re saying could be construed as inaccurate”. Have some moral fortitude! Call out the truth! At least put up a fight in the contest for hearts and minds!

When a news outlet puts up a headline like “Trump’s statement’s not entirely accurate” they have ceded the message entirely. It’s not ok, in any way. It’s not maintaining integrity; is confusing cowardice for politeness.

I did not intend to condone their stance merely explain it.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
farley3k wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

but to try to give him this kind of cover is baffling.

I don't know that they consider it to be giving him cover. I think, although I can't speak for news outlets, they are trying to maintain their own integrity and follow their rules.

Regardless of how “they consider it”, everybody who refuses to explicitly call out the fact that the President is lying is giving him cover. It allows his supporters to point to one side that says, “here is how it is” and the other side that says, “we think that maybe what they’re saying could be construed as inaccurate”. Have some moral fortitude! Call out the truth! At least put up a fight in the contest for hearts and minds!

When a news outlet puts up a headline like “Trump’s statement’s not entirely accurate” they have ceded the message entirely. It’s not ok, in any way. It’s not maintaining integrity; is confusing cowardice for politeness.

His supporters never know he's lying because the main news source they consume tell them that Trump's walking on water (and has told them MSM has been lying to them for decades).

According to a recent survey by Pew Research 63% of people who mainly got their election news from Fox News thought Trump was doing an excellent job with COVID-19. Another 28% thought he was doing a good job. 5% thought he was doing a fair job and 4% thought he was doing a poor one.

Of people who got their election news from the Big 3 networks 15ish percent saying he was doing an excellent job, 30ish percent a good job, a quarter a fair job, and about a third a poor job.

Of people who read the NYT's only 1% thought Trump was doing an excellent and good job, 15% fair, and 83% poor (that roughly matched people who watched MSNBC).

For the US population as a whole 24% think Trump's doing an excellent job, 25% a good job, 19% fair, and 32% poor.

As the number of deaths climb, as people in red states start to get very sick, and as more people become unemployed the worse opinion Americans will have of Trump and how he's been responding to this crisis. Unfortunately there's going to be about a quarter to a third of Americans who will continue their worship of Trump and a lot of that is because they've chosen to self-quarantine themselves in a conservative media bubble since 2008.

OG_slinger wrote:

For the US population as a whole 24% think Trump's doing an excellent job, 25% a good job, 19% fair, and 32% poor.

It is just me, or is it a bit weird to have a survey with the options only being excellent, good, fair, poor. Only one of them seems outright bad, or even neutral. Seems like that could skew the results, if anyone who are thinking "Trump could theoretically be worse, I guess", then answers "fair" because they dont want to pick the worst option.

farley3k wrote:

I was ranting to my wife about this and she said that she read that they don't call them lies because they are using very specific definitions. A lie in journalistic speak means the person knows they are saying something untrue and they purposefully say it anyway. They are not sure if trump knows what he says is untrue or if he is just unaware.

Now in common conversation we use the term "lie" even if the person didn't know any better. However journalists are holding themselves to a higher standard.

I propose a middle ground that I think should be the standard. We have to realize that when someone makes a fact statement, they are really making two claims. First that we have a reasonable basis to know something with a certainty appropriate to the circumstances and the nature of the fact, and second what that knowledge is. If I say "Bob drives a Jeep" I am claiming first to know what Bob drives, and second that such knowledge tells me that Bob drives a Jeep. If either or both of those statements are false, then I am lying regardless of the accuracy of my statement, and if both are true, I am not lying regardless of the accuracy of my statement.

If i was aware of Bob's previous ownership of a Jeep, and talked to him about how much he loved it last week, but am unaware that he traded it in for a Jaguar on a whim yesterday, then my statement is truthful but inaccurate because I have a good faith belief that I know that Bob drives a Jeep. On the other hand, if Bob is someone I was just introduced to who happens to drive a Jeep, but I have no idea about what Bob drives, then my statement is a lie even though it is accurate. The same goes for if I knew that Bob drove a Buick, but was unaware that he just traded it in for a Jeep; my statement is a lie but also accurate.

I think that most of Trump's lies are lies of claiming to know things he doesn't know (or have any interest in learning), and people have a hard time understanding that he is lying even though he doesn't know his statements to be false. We often think of lying as knowing A, and saying not A, but Trump has no idea or concern if A, B, or C is true, but B is convenient for him in the moment, so he declares that B is true. When fact checkers show that A and not B is true, people get caught up in the question of did he know that A was the truth rather than B, but that is irrelevant if he didn't have a good faith reason to believe B, then he is lying even if B turned out to be true.

When he claimed that he had one of the largest electoral college wins in history he was lying; almost certainly the lie lay in the claim that he had a good faith knowledge of how his electoral college victory stacked up, but his ignorance of having one of the smallest in history does not make the statement truthful. On am easily verifiable statement like that, one can jump right to "it was a lie" because it is not plausible that he both A) had a good faith belief that he knew how his electoral college victory compared historically, and B) that he got it that wrong. He either had no idea and so was lying, or he knew, and said something he knew was false. Either way, he was lying, and that statement should have been reported as a lie.

Republican Governor Slaps Down Trump Testing Claim: ‘That’s Just Not True’

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said there remains a shortage of tests, personal protective equipment and ventilators in every state.

@ElectricPi: I think you’re talking about honesty vs accuracy. I think honesty is the good faith angle, accuracy is the verifiable connection with fact. If you knew Bob had traded in his Jeep for a Jag, “Bob drives a Jag” would be accurate and honest. If you didn’t know Bob had traded his Jeep in, “Bob drives a Jeep” would be inaccurate and honest. If you knew Bob had traded in his Jeep, “Bob drives a Jeep” would be inaccurate and dishonest. If you had no idea what Bob drove, “Bob drives a Jeep” would be accurate and dishonest.

Dishonesty is what makes a lie; inaccuracy results in misinformation. Trump is both inaccurate and dishonest. (Note that his comments could be either or both.) The media tends to comment on the former but all too rarely on the latter.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUes0-dWAAQsZoj?format=jpg&name=900x900)

We'll never really know how many Americans will die as a result of Trump's callous dismissal of the virus as a hoax by Democrats to undermine his reelection. We can't say how far the virus would have spread and how many lives it would have claimed even if Trump had taken it seriously and addressed it appropriately. It's not a fully knowable question.

But it's not zero. His appalling mishandling of the pandemic had a multiplicative effect on the casualties that we'll suffer. He may be putting on his most serious face now and soberly telling the country to prepare for hard weeks ahead, but he made it a partisan issue first, and for many people they're still reacting to it as such.

None of us should forget that.

Can I steal that for my Facebook? I would attribute if you wanted to be known but it really sums up better than I can something important.

Fyre Festival was better run than this coronavirus response.

farley3k wrote:

Can I steal that for my Facebook? I would attribute if you wanted to be known but it really sums up better than I can something important.

Feel free to pass it around. Don't worry about attribution. It's a thing that people need to know.

If this virus can kill Fox News, that would be something. Good for the country in the long run.

Secret Service signs contract this week to rent golf carts in town of Trump club

WaPo wrote:

The Secret Service this week signed a $45,000 contract to rent a fleet of golf carts in Northern Virginia, saying it needed them quickly to protect a “dignitary” in the town of Sterling, home to one of President Trump’s golf clubs, according to federal contracting data.

The contract was signed Monday and took effect Wednesday, records show. The Secret Service paid a West Virginia-registered company, Capitol Golf Cars and Utility Vehicles, to rent 30 carts until the end of September.

The new contract, which the Secret Service described as an “emergency order,” does not mention Trump or the golf club by name. But it closely mirrors past contracts signed by the Secret Service, for agents accompanying Trump to his golf clubs in New Jersey and Florida.

The White House declined to comment Wednesday. Neither Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, nor the Secret Service responded to questions.

West Virginia's been under a "shelter-in-place" order since March 24th, but it doesn't apply to golf courses (essential businesses, apparently). Apparently 5,000 Americans dying because he's an incompetent asshole isn't enough to make him to stay away from the links for a month.

LA Times: Trump administration ended pandemic early-warning program to detect coronaviruses

Two months before the novel coronavirus is thought to have begun its deadly advance in Wuhan, China, the Trump administration ended a $200-million pandemic early-warning program aimed at training scientists in China and other countries to detect and respond to such a threat.

The project, launched by the U.S. Agency for International Development in 2009, identified 1,200 different viruses that had the potential to erupt into pandemics, including more than 160 novel coronaviruses. The initiative, called PREDICT, also trained and supported staff in 60 foreign laboratories — including the Wuhan lab that identified SARS-CoV-2, the new coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

Field work ceased when the funding ran out in September, and organizations that worked on the PREDICT program laid off dozens of scientists and analysts, said Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, a key player in the program.

Yeah there was already an article about some US scientists that quit back in July because the money was running out in Sept.

Maybe that one has more detail but thought we saw that last week.

Didn't some admiral in the Navy* yesterday say that they weren't going to shoot the messenger?

* In the Naaaaavy!
You can catch Corona disease!
In the Naaaaaavy!
Come on and protect Trump's bee-hind!

I just saw a clip on the news where they asked Trump about the model, and he said something like 'the professionals made the model, I wasn't involved with the model...at least this kind of model'.

I think I saw it. I rewound it. I still don't believe my ears.

Yep, thousands of people dead and he's bragging about having sex with models.

Stele wrote:

Yep, thousands of people dead and he's bragging about having sex with models.

And firing the inspector general.

Stephanie Grisham Out As White House Press Secretary: Reports

In a testament to how open and honest this administration is I didn't even know she had the job.

What a f*ck up of an adminstration.

farley3k wrote:

In a testament to how open and honest this administration is I didn't even know she had the job.

That's probably because she never held a press briefing and only gave interviews to Fox News.