Neil Macdonald opinion

[Canuck_2]

Another Macdonald opinion piece worth a read

This about using the word 'lie' to describe claims by poiticians.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/donald-trump-lies-1.3955331

Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, authorized the newspaper's first use of "lie" to describe a Trump falsehood.

He told NPR that Trump's years of insistence, despite clear proof to the contrary, that Barack Obama was born abroad, probably Africa, was more than a falsehood. It was, he said, stated repeatedly and deliberately and with malice.

"I think to say that that was a 'falsehood' wouldn't have captured, to be frank, the outrageousness of his claim. I think to have called it just a falsehood would have put it in the category of, to be frank, 'usual political fare,' where politicians say, 'My tax plan will save a billion dollars,' but it's actually a half a billion ... This was something else."

Similarly, falsely asserting that millions somehow managed to vote illegally, in an attempt to elect Hillary Clinton is meant to delegitimize some people who are already an underclass, and make it more acceptable to move against them. It's more than a falsehood.

And it takes an organization as fearless and respected as the Times to lead the way, especially when dealing with a president who, with a word and a gesture, can unleash millions of angry flying monkeys who believe every word he says, and direct waves of hate at anyone who contradicts him.

.....

Trump has now responded by declaring a "running war with the media."

No serious news outlet would ever say such a thing, because no serious news outlet wants a war with a president. This president wants one with reporters, though — it provides someone to blame for his failures.

And it helps that journalists can often be craven and obsequious and desperate for access. Trump has a predator's eye for such weakness.

How should journalism respond? The ridiculously hyperbolic Dan Rather suggested this week that when Trump lies, journalists should meet it with "cold steel, oak and iron."

Here's a better suggestion: meet lies with journalism. Ten years from now, the New York Times will be the New York Times. Donald Trump will be the ex-president who debased the dignity of the highest office in America.

[hardnox]

" unleash millions of angry flying monkeys who believe every word he says"

Both a nice turn of phrase and true.

[BA Deere]

Well its like this Canuck, Trump is against globalism, I don't care how he comes to his conclusions so long as his solution of 2+2=4 is correct, which it is. So he said Obama was born in Africa ....I certainly don't care or his tax plan saves $1/2 billion instead of $1 billion it doesn't matter. Look at the wide berth you people gave the lies of obamacare...because " he meant well". Obama's meaning well doesn't equal "4".

[r3020]

It's just that he is more trust worthy than Hillary.

[rsbs]

its apparent that this issue of determining how many illegal votes are cast has struck a tender nerve when you look at the efforts to bury the issue or re-direct the attention. The NY Times, by equating the issue of illegal voting with the birthplace of Barack Hussein, has added to the smoke and mirrors. Mr. Hussein Obama could have easily defused the situation of his birth, which had "facts" supporting Kenya as a birthplace from places such as his published books biographies, by simply showing an offical birth certificate early on. There obviously is more to the Kenya birthplace story than has been brought out, too. My thoughts are that Obama actually did claim Kenya as a home for student aid during his college years....that would explain why the college transcripts were never produced, too....in spite of being birthed in Hawaii.

The New York Times is a rag of a paper, and has an obvious political bias.

Like I stated before, the issue of determining US citizenship, and voting rights, is the number one issue domestically. The border wall is part of this, along with stopping sanctuary cities. Legal citizens of all colors and ethnic backgrounds should support this.

[Canuck_2]

Perhaps you all did not read the article or missed the main point.

That point was that in the past politicians 'stretched' the truth but today you have a politician that out right told falsehoods so media now describes them with the word that fits "LIES".

When someone repeats over and over what has been proven to be not true then they are deliberately telling a LIE.

When someone tells a LIE and you excuse them then you are part of the problem.

Fortuneately a majority of the voters in the US know a liar when they hear one, too bad you gat saddled with the choice of the minority.

Hopefully more will recognize the lies they have been told as time goes on.

[Canuck_2]

Just started looking through this study on how people accept mis information and as one description noted maybe a way to 'vaccinate' people from falling for mis-information and fake news.

Was going to post the link to the article/study but something will not let me copy it here.

Will try later or maybe have to type it in. 

[r3020]

If you like your policy you can keep your policy. Period. We know all about lies.

[rsbs]

neither candidate came close to a majority of the votes. Trump, however did win the electoral vote by a fairly comfortable margin, over 300 to about 160. Ouch.