Why lie about something so dumb?


The very first sentence in the tweet referenced the great “reviews” yet CS claims there was no reference to the approval numbers so I must have “made it up”.

Then he chooses numbers from a speech that was NOT a State of the Union speech by Trump last year to reveal how it got 1 point higher in approval (apples and oranges anyone)

Then he chooses a different metric (approval of proposals instead of overall approval ratings) from 2 other speeches to again try to make Trump (and me) appear to be making things up.

If you spent at least a little time in the real world apart from your Leftist echo chambers you not keep falling into the holes they dig.


Yeah, I noticed that too.


If you consider RO a “hard right site”, this would be the only one I haven’t been banned from. I’m sure we could find you a hard left site that won’t throw you out, I did.


The fact that you’re still here is proof positive that RO is NOT a “hard right site.”


First, "reviews, a formal assessment or examination of something, is not the same as “approval numbers”, which are a subjective measure of his speech, so yes, you are trying to connect two things that aren’t connected.

The sentence is, “45.6 million people watched, the highest number in history.”

That is specifically referring to Neilson ratings as Neilson reported the 45.6 million number. It is not the highest number in history (not even close) as the last half of the sentence is referring to the first. Perhaps if there had been a period of “46.5 million people watched.” “The highest number in history.”, but that’s not what he wrote.

Why are you guys having such a hard time owning something sooooooo simple? And you berate the left for dishonesty.

There isn’t any way to weasel out of this. He wrote it. He put the comma. The first half talking about the numbers relates to the last half of the same sentence describing the first half as the highest ever.

The fact is Trump or anyone for that matter, doesn’t know viewership on the internet (despite Dave’s claim the government has a special division devoted to counting views of SotU speeches on the internet) and if you don’t know regardless of what the real answer is, he lied. That is the definition of a lie, saying something you do not know to be true.


You mean, there is a “harder right”. Save us all.


The only reason you guys don’t throw me off is that you need someone to argue with. :joy:


Actually, 75% was his overall approval rating, not just the “approval of his proposals” which is a strange way to write that, I agree:

So RET, your claims are all still untrue. Ready to face reality (that Trump’s speech was neither the “most watched” or had the highest approvals), or are we going to keep contorting it in order to prevent having to deal with it (reality)?

Bob, do you or RET have any statistics showing that Trump’s speech had higher overall approval ratings than his predecessors? Is Breitbart wrong?

Here is a story that says Trumps SotU speech was the least popular in 20 years

No wait, it’s ALL fake news. Only what the Dear Leader proclaims can be true, right?


“Newsweek???” Couldn’t you find a slightly LESS far-left source like the CPUSA?


I notice you didn’t dispute the Breitbart article. So then you silently admit that I’m right and RET was wrong?

As far as Newsweek, it’s not an opinion piece, these are substantive facts, regardless of the source. If Nancy Pelosi says that 1+1=2 are you going to deny it because she’s a liberal?

Wait, don’t answer that question, I’m afraid you might say yes and my faith in the human race will be knocked down another peg.


I wouldn’t believe Nancy Pelosi if she said she was a Democrat Senator without checking another, reliable, source.


So basically what your saying is there is such a thing as “Democratic math” and “Republican math”… /facepalm


Where Nancy Pelosi is concerned, ABSOLUTELY!


You have not produced any math that supports your claim that Trump was lying, you have presented polling data that is not polling the same things.

And the reason I don’t mind you being here is because you are the stereotypical Democrat, you vote for whatever detestable creature they nominate and then try to claim morality based opposition to their opponents so you don’t have to defend Leftist ideas.

As long as you are here I can verify the veracity of my paradigm regularly, if anything changes on your side and a valid argument arises I want to know it; but I won’t be holding my breath.


Democrats favor:
Disarmament of American citizens
Abortion on demand ( and for some, even AFTER birth)
High taxes
Bigger government
More regulations to control behavior
Open borders
Censorship of any competing ideas to theirs
"Green" schemes–even if they don’t work
Subsuming the Constitution to "international norms."
Rewriting the Constitution so it more closely resembles the Communist Manifesto


Hardly; we have Alaska Slim…


Well, yeah, obviously.

Edit: Or just yell at, really… :smiley:

Also, afaik, you don’t break the rules.


Bored with him…


Folks here have plenty of folks to argue with – albeit less than before the shutdown. There’s J. when he stops by and AS – and me sometimes. Then the whole membership here was pretty divided about Trump. This site opened and has operated under the notion that we don’t want to live in a bubble and echo chamber.


Hiding behind the guise of innocently courting discussion doesn’t fit well.

I and quite a few others have speculated that your purpose here is to provoke only . . . and NOT for a lively debate. Nevertheless, I’d be the first to admit this is only a guess . . . reading your mind is not one of our skills. OTOH, reading your posts IS.

You flatter yourself if you think this would be an echo chamber without you. If the majority disagrees with you (and that certainly seems to be the case for you and them), that’s somehow interpreted as an “echo chamber”.

The mods and RO Admin have made it clear that they DO NOT WANT an echo chamber and welcome “opposing views”. To confirm that, just look at some of the threads here, for example, where AS, J.Anderson, NutJob, and some others (not including you) have posted. Had this been an echo chamber, those threads certainly would NOT have gone on anywhere near that long.

A few individuals here have complained that the mods allow too many liberal and atheist arguments here. Yet the mods insist that will remain so . . . and I and most members agree with that.

Some members have left because of their view that the mods tolerate too much of those liberal and atheist arguments. While I disagree with those few complaining members, I don’t wish to see them leave. To me, their contributions far outweigh any disagreement I might have.

Presumably you will bring us out of our stupor with YOUR “discussion”. We haven’t been enlightened yet with anything you’ve posted.

I and quite a few others here are fond of debate and lively and informative discussion. And there is quite a bit of disagreement between members. We have libertarians, RINO’s, conservatives, SoCons, liberals, atheists, etc. here. I’d hardly call this an echo chamber, or a forum that doesn’t encourage “discussion”.

Getting two conservatives to agree on a certain point is like trying to herd cats.

Yes, there IS general agreement on the “big picture”, but it is the “details” that we discuss most often. And in that arena, there are as many different opinions as there are members.

Yes, I wouldn’t disagree that SOMETIMES you are a POST STIMULATOR (again, don’t flatter yourself that your POSTS are always stimulating. Most mimic the dead cat bounce.)

As much as any of us try to ignore you (especially when you go off on this Trump-bashing binge), you will always “hook” somebody (and you count on that, and RO doesn’t disappoint there), and the thread is off and running with its own momentum.