Why lie about something so dumb?


You realize how insecure that makes you sound, right?


If a one-off, you’d be 100% right, but it’s not and it demonstrates how casually he lies.


Way to miss the point, Brown


True, qix! He reminds me of some of you kids I went to school with who would talk and argue just to hear their heads roar.


It’s not working, though!


The TV ratings were the numbers that Trump cited and those who watched via other outlets can easily account for the opinion that it was “the most watched ever”.

Since Trump never claimed that his “most watched” statement was based on Nielsen ratings alone you have not exposed a “lie”; you have merely made a claim based on supposition and assumptions.

Or in other words, “Fake News” based on a political agenda which you cannot defend on it’s own merit.


So in other words, it’s not countable. The same options to watch were available in 2016. We can’t know, so we can just make whatever claims we like about one of the least watched addresses in recent history? That means the claim is simply meaningless bombast, rendering the point the president was making moot.

Anyway, much ado about nothing.


Only if you genuinely believe that those who watch and follow such political events do so primarily on TV and the internet is not a rapidly growing media delivery venue that is rapidly and steadily crippling on air TV broadcasts.

I for one think the opposite is true, I expect TV and print to be the least common way that people follow politics very soon if it is not already.

But regardless, the evidence does not support the claim that Trump “lied” about this, I can and have cited many lies that Trump has told but this is just sour grapes.


Neither does it support his claim. It’s just conjecture. It’s not a fact. He just said it. It doesn’t make it true. And I don’t think things have changed that much since January 2016 in terms of where we get our content. It’s probably grown a little, but we were already consuming vast amounts of content online then.It doesn’t change the fact that the president doesn’t know and is just saying it without any basis in actual facts. I don’t think he cares. It reminds of pro-wrestlers bragging and talking smack on TV.


He’s been involved with that, iirc, and played the role to the hilt. So, yeah, he’s all full of bombast, and maybe even something else. He’s a politician by way of being a salesman, but calling that a lie is just as bombastic as he is. How’s that Mueller investigation coming along, now, and what is it costing us to find and prosecute 13 internet trolls for stirring the $#!* during the election? Since the Russians organized both pro and anti trump rallies and websites, how many of our liberal commenters are actually Russian agents? How long has CSBrown been here? Didn’t he show up during the campaign…?


Trump does not have to “support” every claim or opinion he has anymore than you or I, if he is using those claims to set policy then I guess it would matter but refusing to let the equally unsubstantiated claims of the Left go unchallenged (that the whole country is upset with Trump) is not a viable strategy.

Obama got over 90 percent positive coverage in his 1st year as president, Trump has gotten 87 percent negative coverage in his first year; yet Trump is polling 2 points higher in public approval than Obama was at this same point in his presidency.

That is because Trump himself is carrying his own water, he is not letting the false narratives and lies appear credible by being silent about the truth.

So yes, I do think that the last State of the Union address was very different from 2016, I think Obama’s fans watched it on TV and cheered and most of the politically engaged people of today were ignoring it or angry at the lame GOP “response”.

Trumps coalition are not people who flip on the TV to watch Liberals lie about their President, Trumps coalition boycotts their enemies and proudly recruits new blood.

Given that there is no concrete way to measure who watched what, I would say the most likely scenario is that Trump did indeed get more eyes and ears than any previous President.


Maybe. Dunno. Wouldn’t surprise me either way. He’s a loudmouth braggard who says whatever he wants regardless of facts – and he’s not a wrestler, comedian or entertainer. Don’t really care much about it. It’s just typical.

The left should be challenged constantly. But Trump’s still a blowhard, and his bluster shouldn’t be let go unchallenged either.


What has President Trump’s “bluster” (whatever that is) done to make anyone’s life worse other than to make liberals’ heads explode?


Exactly, one man against an entire media structure, one entire political party and at least half of the other party with all of the entertainment industry piling on top?

That will require quite a bit of “bluster” :wink:


Actually, it is based on TV ratings. The number he quotes is the number of people that watched on TV.

If you want to assume that in the NOTHING he said about other outlets is something he meant, then fine, but when I point out what others you disagree with didn’t say as proof of a point I want to make, you can’t call BS on it, deal?


That’s a bit contorted and awkward. Can you rephrase?


RET said:

Since Trump never claimed that his “most watched” statement was based on Nielsen ratings alone you have not exposed a “lie”; you have merely made a claim based on supposition and assumptions.

The point being that RET and others assume, since the president’s statements would be wrong at best or a flat out lie at worst, that what he must have meant was (insert what the President DIDN’T say here).

So If I want to make a point about Hillary, or Obama or whoever, can I also presume what they meant even though they never said it?

In the case of Trump let’s remind everyone Trump’s tweet:


He specifically states the number of people that watched, 46.5 million (a number gathered by Nielson) and then specifically states that is the highest number in history when as a matter of absolute fact, it is not.

Now this group (with the exception of RWNJ and perhaps a few offhand comments) have tried to defend this lie by discrediting Neilson and even more bazaarly (and the point to which I was referring) assuming that Trump must have been including internet stats, which he’s never mentioned or cited since the claim.

This also ignores the fact that the internet has been around since the early 2000’s as a place where content like this can be watched for past SotU addresses.

So if a person can presume, without any facts or evidence, what someone must of meant, but never said, I think that’s a pretty low bar, and no one here would allow me to do that with respect to people like Obama or Clinton.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy.


That was a tweet, it was sent right after the approval rating of the speech was released and that approval percentage was higher than previous speeches.

You don’t get unlimited characters on Twitter and everyone knew and reported at the time that Trumps Tweet was in response to the approval rating just reported.

So, you wait a little while… Change the context… Now it’s a LIE!


BobJam, This is exactly what I’m talking about. RET simply makes something up so that it fits. Now, because of a character limit on Twitter (something that Trump easily get’s around by writing several Tweets on the same topic), Trmps real meaning was:

So now, even though his Tweet makes no reference to “approval rating” RET desperately assumes that must be what he was talking about.

But even THAT is wrong…

This is my favorite, right out of the Trump playbook:

Emphasis mine.

Can anyone here see the blatant dishonesty? And look, before you point a finger in another direction, I’m not going to defend dishonesty on the left, I frequent hard left sites and make comments they don’t like either. For instance, how the left overplays its hand with respect to firearms and how the right has no respect and will never, ever come to the table until they can be honest (as an example).


I call BS, on this CSB. I’ve gone to numerous hard left sites and made MILDLY contrarian comments and was IMMEDIATELY banned. Hard left sites simply DO NOT TOLERATE opposing positions.