Why lie about something so dumb?


On Thursday morning the president said the 45.6 million people who watched Tuesday’s State of the Union was “the highest number in history.”

The reality?

The stats are even worse when accounting for population.

Bush 2003 21.3% of the total population watched
Clinton 1998 19%
Obama 2010 15.5%
Trump 13%

Yes, these are in relation to the total population, but if you calculated people over 21 it would be even worse as there are more people over 21 today then there were in the 1990s and early 2000’s as the baby boomers are growing.

But why lie about it? Why lie about something so insignificant? If he can so casually lie about something like that, how can he be trusted?


Yep, this is right up there in significance with:

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

I could go on.

Also, these are Nielsen TV ratings. What about the millions of people who watched on electronic devices? Obviously this is going to be much larger than it was in the top five listed from 2002 to 2010.

Does anyone other than Trump haters really care? 72% of Independents and 43% of DEMOCRATS liked the speech. That’s a real roadmap to a Democrat landslide in November. Mudslide, maybe?


You think Republicans will keep the House?


Undoubtedly. And they’ll INCREASE their majority in BOTH Houses.


I think the chances that Dems have any shot at the Senate is very slim, but baring more Russain interference, the Dems will take back the House.

Any chance you’d be willing to make a little (non-money) bet on it?


This may or may not hijack this thread but what the hell, everyone else seems to do it.

From this statement I take it that you genuinely believe that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump.

  1. There is no evidence that the Russians were actually involved in the theft of files from the DNC computers. None of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies including the FBI ever did a forensic examination of the DNC computers. Their information was second hand from a Ukrainian security firm, CrowdStrike, owned and run by Putin haters in a nation of Putin haters.

  2. Based on timestamps and available internet speeds it has been concluded that it was an onsite download not an online hack.

  3. There was a bizarre handling by the D.C. police and the FBI of the Seth Rich murder not to mention a highly unusual mugging gone bad with all cash and valuables untouched. He coincidentally had access to DNC computers and was not a happy camper over the treatment of Bernie Sanders, No proof but an unimaginable amount of smoke.

  4. Julian Assange states the files did not come from or through Russians or other state actors. He has a decades long reputation for truth and accuracy unlike high ranking officials of the FBI and CIA e.g. Comey, Clapper and Brennan, all proven liars.

  5. The DC swamp has been awash with leaks for the past year. If there was any real evidence IT WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN LEAKED.

Then there are the logical questions. I hope we can agree that whatever the Russians are they are not stupid.

  1. The Russians were aware of the same polls and common consensus of political analysts that Hillary was going to win in a landslide. If, if, if, despite the above arguments 1 through 5 above, they did in fact steal and disseminate the DNC emails why not sit on them for future blackmail?

  2. Hillary, despite her reputation as a hawk among democrats, would be unlikely to reverse and repudiate the foreign policy of Obama under which the Russians flourished e.g. ignoring our national commitment to the Ukraine, the phoney red line in Syria, continued decline of our military arsenal, cancelling the European missile defense shield etc.

  3. They may have already had evidence of corruption in the UraniumOne deal. Potentially much more serious blackmail than the emails. In any event, the Clinton’s have a long record of pay to play for access to the Secretary of State and many other matters.

Sorry, but I find the notion of Russian interference and/or collusion with Donald Trump flies in the face of facts and logic.


I agree entirely, OD. There has been NO credible evidence that the Russians had ANYTHING to do with our election other than buying about $100,000-worth of Facebook ads in the year prior to the election. It’s not POSSIBLE to “hack” the election, which has thousands of independent computer systems, only a couple attached to the internet. The ONLY States with systems susceptible to hacking–New York, New Jersey, California, Washington State and D.C. ALL gave their electoral votes to…wait for it…Hillary Clinton. So the only logical conclusion is, if they “hacked” our election, they did so to favor HILLARY…not President Trump.


Point of fact, I never said the Russians “hacked” our election. The word I used was interference.


What interference?


To the OP, that’s the Blowhard being a Blowhard.

They spent some money and hijacked the election on Facebook? Because I only check my Facebook ads and posts to decide how to vote – and that’s so obviously wrong and unfair.


Like Dave said, they maybe spent $100,000 on Facebook. I doubt if that could influence a big city councilman election.


What?! That’s a disaster! How dare they voice their opinions and spend money on them!.

There’s no way I woulda voted for Trump i they hadn’t subverted Facebook.

Just ask a lefty. I clearly would’ve voted for the Criminal otherwise. Besides, the only reason she’s a criminal is because the Russians hacked her and leaked it, so clearly she’s vindicated.



I think Old Dog raised a valid point: I know several people who watched on their cell phones, and Nielsen doesn’t track those. It’s been getting easier and easier to access all forms of media from wherever. If their numbers don’t include the net (which numbers should be automatically recorded as an artifact of the medium and available with relative ease), then they have to be taken with a wagon load of salt.

EDIT: AFAIK, Nielsen doesn’t track internet and cell phone watchers. Maybe they have started. If they haven’t, they better before they are obsolesced…


There is no actual accounting of how many people watched on devices other than TV, which makes Trumps claim 100% false. Even if, in reality, it were true, he still lied.

He nor you nor I have ANY idea how many people watched his address.

Times are chang’in, huh?


Keep counting, CS, somebody out there might care.


Two points: FIRST, this is the one and only place I’ve seen this ‘lie’ mentioned (not that I’m visiting that many different sites), so I have yet to see any video of the president’s EXACT WORDS. Considering the treatment he is getting from the press, I’m going to assume they are lying about him AGAIN or that he will be proved correct AGAIN. And I. DO. NOT. LIKE. DONALD. TRUMP.

SECOND, “Even if what he said was true he still lied”? BAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT: Websites automatically track how many people (and which ones, most likely) are viewing what content. There IS a highly accurate accounting of internet viewership.


If you claim you have a million dollars and you have no reason to believe that you have a million dollars, even if the next day $1 million dollars is found in the walls of your home (that you didn’t know about), you still lied the day before.

Whether sites track traffic or not, Donald Trump does not have access to that information, no one does.

So even if he’s right, which I doubt, he lied.

Here you go…

Notice he gives a number?

Notice in the OP the other numbers?

It’s a lie. Imagine that, Donald Trump lies, and the point of this thread is, why lie about something that can so easily be fact-checked? Is it because he knows people like you will believe that people like me are trying to deceive you (even though you claim you don’t like him)?

The only poison going around is the poison he’s spreading. Yes, our institutions aren’t perfect, the press, the justice system. Lot’s of room for improvement, but the nihilists out there think that tearing it all down is a viable option.

Personally, I think it will cause a lot more harm than it will solve, but I know before asking that most of the people here disagree.

Oh, and there’s another lie in that Tweet. Fox news didn’t “beat every other network”. They set a record for Fox. This was statement corrected by Fox News itself.

Why lie about this stuff? Why?

Because the far right won’t ever fact check it.

So when he lies about the Russia investiogation, people will believe him no matter what he says.


So you don’t think internet tracking data is obtainable? I mean, it isn’t as though there’s an entire agency of the United States government dedicated to monitoring electronic media, is it? The fact that you and i cant access that data in any meaningful way does not mean that Donald Trump (or his functionaries) can’t. Even if the Neilsen numbers were definitive (they arent), you have offered no evidence for deliberate falsehood. You are a rabid anti-Trump partisan. I get it. He’s Hitler, on steroids, with aids!!!11!!

According to deadline.com (with which I am not familiar, so ymmv) on the sotu “Fox News was the single most watched outlet with 11.5 million viewers”. (No link, posting from my phone and I haven’t figured out how to paste them in from mobile browser. Look it up. Or not) So I’m not sure how that bit was a lie, either.


And you believe the president has access to this data and the media does not?

You think that if he had it he wouldn’t share it with the media as proof?

Everyone else likes to point out how leaky the government is, so let me ask you if these figures exist, why aren’t they leaked?

Lastly, the internet existed in 2010 when Obama gave his address, and while I’m certain more people utilize the internet today than did in 2010, I don’t believe for a second that there was some mass exodus from TV to online, and certainly not enough (17 + million) needed to eclipse Bush’s '03 speech, especially when you consider that millennials are most likely to use the internet via mobile devices or PC’s to watch the SotU and they are much more liberal crowd and less likely to watch a SotU address, especially one with DJT.

To believe that there was an exponential increase in viewership online and that viewership is a) known by the President, b) is known by he’s not releasing it and c) is enough to make his claims true, is pure self deception.


Yes, I admit, I should have checked this before I said anything. Watch this, I was wrong. I misunderstood something I read which, unfortunately, I cannot find so in this case, you are correct, thank you for pointing that out.