They need a good dose of cynicism

It's the BS refuter you have to overwhelm. We knew Trump was full of shit. But he can tell so many lies in 5 minutes it takes hours to refute it all.

Every speech of his is a Gish Gallop. See here for an explanation:

That Trump casually lies at the podium almost as often as he breathes is a well-documented claim leveled at him by traditional and new media alike. But actually unpacking all those lies in one cable news segment, in the confines of a debate, or in a single online post is a Herculean task. Take a look at this Huffington Post piece, which does a fabulous job of listing a few of the whoppers in Trump’s convention speech and summarizing the corrections—just as an example:
Trump said after Clinton’s four years as secretary of state, “Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons.” But Iran was already on a path to acquiring nuclear weapons. At issue is whether the nuclear deal will prevent Iran, as intended, from becoming a nuclear power.
What follows in the article is several meaty grafs on Iran’s actual history in pursuing nukes, spanning several White House administrations. This led to the Iranian nuclear agreement last year, and why it’s arguably in the world’s interests. But to hear Trump tell it, it all happened under Obama/Clinton through sheer negligence, and we even paid Iran billions of dollars in bribe money to sign the deal! The nod-nod wink-wink conspiratorial implication is that Clinton and Obama are in cahoots with Iran. HuffPo did a fine job reviewing all that in a concise manner, but it would be difficult to squeeze it all into a debate or a soundbite, even for someone who is well prepared. Throw in a dozen more similar convoluted whoppers, and the constraints of cable news or a debate format would make correcting even a fraction of them impossible.

Post #415,337 by drook 11/9/16 12:22:37 PM 11/9/16 12:22:37 PM Reply	They need a good dose of cynicism The one thing I think Scott Adams absolutely nailed is Trump recognized a political campaign is a sales pitch, and selling has almost nothing to do with logic. There are two ways to win an election: 1) Frame your true positions in a way that appeals to emotion and hope for the best. 2) Say whatever it takes to win the election then do the right thing once in office. For an unethical person it's an easier decision. Go straight to option 2 and define "the right thing" however you want. -- Drew
Post #415,343 by a6l6e6x 11/9/16 3:29:57 PM 11/9/16 3:29:57 PM Reply	Re: Say whatever it takes to win And say it at a rate that overwhelms what any BS detector can handle. Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #415,346 by drook 11/9/16 6:23:49 PM 11/9/16 6:23:49 PM Reply	You don't have to overwhelm the BS detector It's the BS refuter you have to overwhelm. We knew Trump was full of shit. But he can tell so many lies in 5 minutes it takes hours to refute it all. Every speech of his is a Gish Gallop. See here for an explanation: That Trump casually lies at the podium almost as often as he breathes is a well-documented claim leveled at him by traditional and new media alike. But actually unpacking all those lies in one cable news segment, in the confines of a debate, or in a single online post is a Herculean task. Take a look at this Huffington Post piece, which does a fabulous job of listing a few of the whoppers in Trump’s convention speech and summarizing the corrections—just as an example: Trump said after Clinton’s four years as secretary of state, “Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons.” But Iran was already on a path to acquiring nuclear weapons. At issue is whether the nuclear deal will prevent Iran, as intended, from becoming a nuclear power. What follows in the article is several meaty grafs on Iran’s actual history in pursuing nukes, spanning several White House administrations. This led to the Iranian nuclear agreement last year, and why it’s arguably in the world’s interests. But to hear Trump tell it, it all happened under Obama/Clinton through sheer negligence, and we even paid Iran billions of dollars in bribe money to sign the deal! The nod-nod wink-wink conspiratorial implication is that Clinton and Obama are in cahoots with Iran. HuffPo did a fine job reviewing all that in a concise manner, but it would be difficult to squeeze it all into a debate or a soundbite, even for someone who is well prepared. Throw in a dozen more similar convoluted whoppers, and the constraints of cable news or a debate format would make correcting even a fraction of them impossible. -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!