And his opposition doesn't have a long list of lies and wrong-doings? It is clear that you are being selective in your condemnation. And honestly, I don't think Trump lies all that much. When the opposition lies so blatantly, and then they claim someone lies, why should I believe them? They lie as a matter of fact, and I have been a victim of their lies like many on this board.
I don't see any of that makes Donald Trump the sort of person whose word you should believe in a case like this. He lies consistently and blatantly - he lies about
what's in front of your very eyes. If Donald Trump told me the sky was blue, I would go to the window to check.
The point is that I will not believe the election was rigged simply because Trump says it was. Trump does not have that sort of credibility. Trump claimed that 2016 was rigged as well, and it wasn't.
You had the fine people hoax, the eating of fishtank cleaner, ingesting bleach, and many more, these are just the biggest ones I recall right now. Why would I trust the media that repeated such obvious lies in lockstep with each other over and over again?
Hm? No, a bunch of those were real? Here's right-libertarian source
Reason on the bleach claim. He did not technically say that people should consume bleach, but he did speculate about injecting it, which is, um, what the story was.
The 'fine people' quote? There's a transcript of
that conversation here (by a pro-Trump source, incidentally), and you can see what he said there. The reporter mentioned neo-Nazis, and Trump replied, "you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides". That sounds like Trump was saying that there were at least
some "very fine people" in the neo-Nazi group or on the neo-Nazi side, which is the thing that people were angry about. Now a few lines down Trump clarifies that "the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists... should be condemned totally" but that he was referring to "many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists". That in itself is a really weird claim, because as far as I can tell there weren't (that is, the Charlottesville rally
didn't contain moderate conservatives or anything; it was explicitly racist, and actually waved Nazi flags), but at any rate, Trump's position seems to be that the rally contained lots of non-racist, reasonable people who were just unhappy about the removal of Confederate statues, plus a small minority of neo-Nazis and racists. So I guess I can give you half of this one? Trump might not have
precisely said that neo-Nazis were fine people, but only by virtue of making a false claim about the protest. But sure, the reporting here was misleading? [shrug]
I've never heard of anything about fish tanks.
At any rate, none of that makes Trump a credible source? If you're pointing out that the media hates Trump and tends to report things in as anti-Trump a manner as possible, then yes, I agree that's true. The media does that. But that's not a relevant point. Sure, the media's trustworthiness is low, let's grant that. But that doesn't make Trump trustworthy.
Yes, I'll definitely trust him over Forbes claiming he's averaging "two dozen lies a day". That goes without saying. If he really were lying, especially that much, it should be quite easy to show these lies.
But... Trump's lies are exposed all the time? The
Forbes article
cited Washington Post data. You can search through every one of them there. The
Toronto Star also has a database
here, though it only goes up to June 2019.
Now, sure, maybe you can say that the WaPo and the
Star are all liars themselves, but eventually you reach the point where it's, "Who are you going to believe? Donald Trump, or your lying eyes?" That is, maybe Trump lies, or maybe everyone else in the world is lying in some massive conspiracy - and I think I know which of those possibilities is more plausible.
