AP: Obama's nose is growing

[John V]

But you didn't respond to any complaints about the accuracy of the article,

I didn't see any. You posted a graph and a link that seem to agree with the OP. Don't know what you're referring to.

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, I just got done acknowledging your OP, and that Obama being dishonest is wrong, AND that people should be prepared to discuss both sides in order to have productive dialogue, and you got me ‘deflecting’ from that?  Now you’re just being dishonest for the sake of arguing.

No, I'm saying you're deflecting, or whatabouting, or whatever you want to call it, for trying to change the subject to Trump.

---

Gee, Alpha, you didn't say anything about Jimmy Carter in your post. Why does he get off so easy?

Er, because he's not out campaigning like Obama is.

---

I think it's fine to talk about Obama's inaccuracies as long as he's seen fit to insert himself into the race.  I just question the validity of some of the AP article claims.  Still, if Obama's nose is growing, and he's actively involved in politics, I see nothing wrong with sharing it and discussing it.  Though additionally, there is a question of perspective given both that politicians are known to stumble when it comes to the truth, and Obama apparently isn't immune, as well as acknowledging that this is small potatoes compared to the number of lies and whoppers for which our Liar In Chief has been responsible.  If Trump could be restrained to Obama levels, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion, or at least, it would be somewhat different than it is.  The failure of both Trump and conservatives as a whole has inflated the issue in a way that it might not have otherwise been, and made the gaffs of Obama more salient.

Where's everyone jumping in with  tu quoque/whatabout charges?

Same with correlations. Lefties use them all the time, and  no one bats an eye. Conservative uses one, and 8 people howl about causation.

---

@Capn

Aroura’s reaction was exactly the one Alpha was looking for.  He admitted to trolling in his own thread, lol.

It was the reaction I was expecting. I would much prefer rational discussion. The left just doesn't have much of that these days.

What discussion were you looking for if you only posted this so that people would acknowledge the article and move on?  What do you want to discuss?

[Angrboda]

You saw that graph as in agreement with the article? Okay. What did you think my point in posting those links and graphs was? Sorry, alpha, but I don't believe you were actually interested in that discussion.

So out of four supposed Obama lies, two are disputable, one is clearly not a lie, and one is actually correctly labeled a falsehood, but could be disputed on substance again, as gains on insured have stalled and even the CBO says that 3 million will lose their health insurance if they haven't yet. Are you disputing that Republicans really are going to come after Obamacare and healthcare dollars again?

Yeah, I can see why you're drowning in them "liberal tears."

[Joods]

I’m not trying to change the subject to Trump.  I’m not sure what you would like to talk about with regard to Obama.  He lied. That sucks. I’m disappointed. I’ve stated as much. Where would you like the conversation to go from there?

Nowhere. If everyone agrees with the article, then that should have been that.

People are acting as if I try to defend Trump on demonstrable lies, but I don't. I let such threads go.

bold mine.

Maybe so, but it doesn't look like you are admonishing 45 for his atrocities either.

[John V]

You saw that graph as in agreement with the article?  Okay.

Eyeballing it, yes, it was close enough. If you thought it showed optherwise, you should have actually used words and said so. In that case, I would have simply pulled up a site with numbers that we can average, like:
https://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/econo...nal/3.html


Averaging 2010 - 2016, you get 2.13%. The OP article said 2.2%. In the above 2016 is still an estimate, which is presumably the difference.

The OP also said that, despite Obama's claim, the number without health insurance is pretty much unchanged from Obama to Trump. You then posted a link to an article that says, "The rate of Americans without insurance held steady at a historic low of 8.8 percent in the first year of President Donald Trump's administration, according to a new report from the U.S. Census bureau," which agrees with the OP.

What did you think my point in posting those links and graphs was?

Lending support to the OP. 

Sorry, alpha, but I don't believe you were actually interested in that discussion.

When you just agree with me what is there to discuss?  

---

Nowhere. If everyone agrees with the article, then that should have been that.

People are acting as if I try to defend Trump on demonstrable lies, but I don't. I let such threads go.

bold mine.

Maybe so,

That's right, I don't defend Trump's lies.

but it doesn't look like you are admonishing 45 for his atrocities either.

I haven't seen any atrocities.

BTW, you guys throw words like "atrocity" around so easily anymore that they begin to lose their effect.

[Joods]

---

bold mine.

Maybe so,

That's right, I don't defend Trump's lies.

but it doesn't look like you are admonishing 45 for his atrocities either.

I haven't seen any atrocities.

BTW, you guys throw words like "atrocity" around so easily anymore that they begin to lose their effect.

Haven't seen any atrocities, eh? 

Quit smoking bad pot. It's burning away the only remaining brain cell you have left.

[John V]

Oh my what a stinging retort.

[Angrboda]

What did you think my point in posting those links and graphs was?

Lending support to the OP. 

You do a remarkable job of playing dumb. Could you also roll over and play dead, as well? Oh wait. I forgot. You already tried that.

[John V]

You do a remarkable job of playing dumb.

Er, OK, what was your intent in posting things that agreed with my article?

[Angrboda]

You do a remarkable job of playing dumb.

Er, OK, what was your intent in posting things that agreed with my article?

The article you quoted said the growth and jobs claim was disputable. The graph and the article I quoted address that dispute. It's not rocket science.

Even now you'd rather address the side issues rather than the fact that only one of the four "lies" was clearly false.