Media Bias

[Juvenal]

I have noticed a distinct shift in CNN's reporting when it comes to Trump in particular. They seem to go out of their way to say "Trump falsely claimed that..." or "this is not true". It's a difficult situation because Trump does tend to make a lot of false statements and it is the media's job to determine truth. However, as far as I can see, CNN doesn't seem to do this with anybody else as far as I can tell or frequently fact check within articles outside of that topic.

CNN has always been awful. They're like windmills. They cause cancer.

There's good reason for the shift.

The prime difference between Trump and others who've been fact-checked isn't in the number of lies, though that difference is enormous, it's in the number of repetitions. That difference isn't quantitative, it's qualitative. Most folks stop repeating a lie after it's been corrected, eventually. Fact-checkers have had to add a new category, "Bottomless Pinocchios," to handle Trump because he doesn't.

To merit a Bottomless, it's necessary to repeat a debunked statement 20 or more times. It's quite a list.

U.S economy (291 times)
Border wall (257)
Trump tax cut (197)
U.S. trade deficits (177)
Trade tariffs (150)
NATO spending (121)
Collusion by Democrats (96)
Drug trafficking (96)
Mueller team's bias (95)
Pre-existing health conditions (86)
VA accountability (81)
Immigration laws (79)
Iran policy (72)
Ukraine Whistleblower (71)
Open borders (70)
Payment to Iran (69)
Middle East wars (64)
Diversity visa lottery (63)
Sanctuary cities (59)
GOP popularity (56)
McCain health-care vote (51)
Insurance policy (46)
Saudi Arabia deal (41)
U.S. Steel (40)
Biden China (36)
No due process (35)
MS-13 deportations (35)
Biden Ukraine (33)
Warren's DNA test (26)
Ukraine aid (24)
Illegal immigration (24)
Ivanka's jobs program (23)
Family separations (23)
Kurds versus Turks (22)
F-35 jets (22)
Mexican laws (21)
ammunition (20)

But CNN is awful. Likely enough, somebody mentioned to them he's now taken to simply denying he's said something that was recorded on tape the day before, and adjusted their coverage to handle the new scenario.

[Roy]

I am fascinated by your external perspective. DO I understand you correctly? The Democratic positions are often seen to be to the right of the right-wing party in the UK and New Zealand? Seriously?

Seriously. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's political views match those of most UK conservatives. Obama and David Cameron were about the same place on the left-right spectrum:

left_right.JPG

Here's another :

left_right2.png.

[carpedm9587]

What other choice was there, back then, that wouldn't have involved some degree of compromise with an ideal morality? Options for a pro-life; controlled immigration; more conservative Supreme Court; 'working class' voter - the 'fly-overs' and 'deplorables' in middle America:

(1) Trump - possible change in directions they want, push-back on leftist agendas, policies they can support.

(2) Hilary - more of the past program, but harder and faster, led by a President (Hilary) who despises them. For the people above , a complete non-starter.


(3) Someone else - but none of them had any realistic (or remote) chance of becoming President, and a vote for them would actually increase the chances of (2)

(4) Not vote at all - increases the chances of (2)

(5) (Armed) Revolution and overthrow the whole system.

For those voters that did NOT want (2), Trump was the only option, however unpalatable in other ways. That's politics.


Calling it 'selling their souls' is not helpful (as Juvenal would admonish, if you were a conservative-leaning poster). Present a realistic option that those voters, with those goals, could have taken that didn't involve choosing someone like Trump. Other choices (Cruz ??) didn't make it through the primaries, so weren't an option.

"Back then" is not the issue, Max. I have said repeatedly that I understand the forces that led to the aberrant election that put this vile man in office. What has happened since then is where most of my attention is focused. For the last 3.5 years, the vast majority of the Republican party has gone out of its way to dismiss, excuse, or applaud every vile thing Mr. Trump has done. They cheer his lies. They chant truly ugly slogans. They applaud his name calling and bullying. They defend his vindictiveness. He shatters one social norm after another, and they stand by and cheer.

Liking his policies should not come at the cost of bowing and scraping to his immoral and anti-social behavior and language. It should not come at the cost of calling him to account when he crosses the line. And if he continues, the Republican party should be looking for a leader who can give them their desired policies AND hold his office honorably, setting the example for others that our president should be setting as the so-called "leader of the free world" (though I think that title for the U.S. president can now be laid to rest).

As I have said before - if Mr. Trump is the best the Republican party can do - then the Republican party is in truly bad shape. Think about it for a moment. This is a man who:

• Has made comments that are truly racist
• Had sex with a porn star and then paid her off and lied to everyone about both
• Bragged about grabbing women by their genitals
• Continually uses his office to enrich himself
• Has unnecessarily separated children as young as a few months old from their parents as a matter of U.S. policy
• Lies repeatedly and defends doing so; even takes pride in it
• Vindictively attacks anyone that has the audacity to criticize him
• Calls names like a 3rd grader (actually, most of the third graders I teach don't do this as much)
• Bullies to achieve his desired ends
• Has had six of his close associates, most involved with his campaign, indicted and jailed
• Claims credit for the works of others and never accepts blame
• Thinks it is a matter of "strength" to never apologize
• Has publicly and privately solicited help from foreign governments to defeat his political opponents
• Attacks any media outlet that reports negatively on him and cozzies up to those that become his mouthpiece

Many politicians are guilty of a few of these things, but I know of no politician in my memory that is guilty of all of them as consistently and repeatedly as Mr. Trump. And the list is not even complete! THIS is the man the Republican party has chosen as their flag bearer. They didn't even begin to mount opposition to him for 2020. They have given him a higher level of adulation than Mr. Reagan himself - the former darling of the Republican party. He is THE most revered Republican politician in the history of the Republican party, and that includes current assessment of past Republican officials.

The Republican Party is no longer a political party; it is has become a personality cult devoid of a moral compass. I suspect they will one day pay for that choice. I hope it is in my lifetime. Frankly, I sincerely hope it begins in just over six months.

[Juvenal]

What other choice was there, back then, that wouldn't have involved some degree of compromise with an ideal morality? Options for a pro-life; controlled immigration; more conservative Supreme Court; 'working class' voter - the 'fly-overs' and 'deplorables' in middle America:

(1) Trump - possible change in directions they want, push-back on leftist agendas, policies they can support.

(2) Hilary - more of the past program, but harder and faster, led by a President (Hilary) who despises them. For the people above , a complete non-starter.

A vote for Hillary (note the spelling) would have won them back the House.

A vote for Trump seems likely to lose everything.

Two out of three ain't bad.

Calling it 'selling their souls' is not helpful (as Juvenal would admonish, if you were a conservative-leaning poster).

I'd probably come up with another phrase, seeing how "not helpful" triggers folks around here. It's not precisely thin-skinned, because even a thin skin provides adequate protection from the mildest of criticisms.

It needs another word.

I think I'll start calling it Trump-skinned.

[carpedm9587]

Seriously. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's political views match those of most UK conservatives. Obama and David Cameron were about the same place on the left-right spectrum:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44170[/ATTACH]

Here's another :

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44171[/ATTACH].

I have some serious reservations about those charts - not because of how individuals were classified, but rather how they are relative to one another. One places Clinton to the right of Trump. If the scales are the same, they combine to place Obama to the right of Trump. Something seems off...

[MaxVel]

"Back then" is not the issue, Max. I have said repeatedly that I understand the forces that led to the aberrant election that put this vile man in office. What has happened since then is where most of my attention is focused. For the last 3.5 years, the vast majority of the Republican party has gone out of its way to dismiss, excuse, or applaud every vile thing Mr. Trump has done. They cheer his lies. They chant truly ugly slogans. They applaud his name calling and bullying. They defend his vindictiveness. He shatters one social norm after another, and they stand by and cheer.

Liking his policies should not come at the cost of bowing and scraping to his immoral and anti-social behavior and language. It should not come at the cost of calling him to account when he crosses the line. And if he continues, the Republican party should be looking for a leader who can give them their desired policies AND hold his office honorably, setting the example for others that our president should be setting as the so-called "leader of the free world" (though I think that title for the U.S. president can now be laid to rest).

As I have said before - if Mr. Trump is the best the Republican party can do - then the Republican party is in truly bad shape. Think about it for a moment.

IF the Republican party found a candidate who could give those voters their desired policies AND be an honourable President (by your lights), would you vote for him?

This is a man who:

• Has made comments that are truly racist
• Had sex with a porn star and then paid her off and lied to everyone about both
• Bragged about grabbing women by their genitals
• Continually uses his office to enrich himself
• Has unnecessarily separated children as young as a few months old from their parents as a matter of U.S. policy
• Lies repeatedly and defends doing so; even takes pride in it
• Vindictively attacks anyone that has the audacity to criticize him
• Calls names like a 3rd grader (actually, most of the third graders I teach don't do this as much)
• Bullies to achieve his desired ends
• Has had six of his close associates, most involved with his campaign, indicted and jailed
• Claims credit for the works of others and never accepts blame
• Thinks it is a matter of "strength" to never apologize
• Has publicly and privately solicited help from foreign governments to defeat his political opponents
• Attacks any media outlet that reports negatively on him and cozzies up to those that become his mouthpiece

Many politicians are guilty of a few of these things, but I know of no politician in my memory that is guilty of all of them as consistently and repeatedly as Mr. Trump. And the list is not even complete! THIS is the man the Republican party has chosen as their flag bearer. They didn't even begin to mount opposition to him for 2020. They have given him a higher level of adulation than Mr. Reagan himself - the former darling of the Republican party. He is THE most revered Republican politician in the history of the Republican party, and that includes current assessment of past Republican officials.

The Republican Party is no longer a political party; it is has become a personality cult devoid of a moral compass. I suspect they will one day pay for that choice. I hope it is in my lifetime. Frankly, I sincerely hope it begins in just over six months.

(1) I don't agree on your interpretation of all of those points. Trump is nowhere near as awful IMHO as you think he is.



(2) Politics is about winning - about getting things done. Trump (to some degree) does that. That's what counts. Regrettably. I wish it were otherwise - that being a 'good person' was what was most effective, but it's clearly not.

Therefore, if one is going to vote or interact with the political environment, one has to accept that winning is what counts. Losing doesn't get anything accomplished. Losing gracefully and nicely too. IF someone is going to vote at all, IMHO, they should vote for someone who can 'win' - who can get elected, and who can once elected, get things done. Voting for a nice person who can't get elected is pointless. Ditto for a nice guy who, once elected, gets crushed by far less scrupulous opponents, enemies in the media and so on, and thus gets pretty much nothing done.


The Republicans have had a series of leaders that were more or less 'acceptable' to the Democrats in their behaviour and approach. Result: widespread and large scale advance of a left-wing political and social program. Lots of left-leaning judges at all levels, who 'interpret' laws in ways that favour the progressive agenda. Schools and universities that churn out left-indocrinated students and future leaders. Abortion being pushed at all levels. People being forced to act against their consciences or lose their businesses or jobs. Homosexual marriage being legislated and then compelled to be endorsed (what happened to 'live and let live'?), large-scale uncontrolled immigration of anyone who wants in... and so on.


Voters that want some changes to those things and more have realised that nice-guy Republicans don't get anything done. They lose to Democrats who are willing to 'get nasty' to get their agenda through. That's been the big lesson of the last few years, IMHO. Left-wing groups will do almost anything to 'win', to get their agenda made law, to enforce it, to silence (deplatform and worse) people who merely disagree (Chick-Fil-A), resist, support 'right-wing causes' (Brendan Eich, formerly of Firefox) or who merely question left-wing assumptions and values (James Damore, for example).

The extremes of the left are pushing people to react more strongly against them - hence Trump. IMHO he's more of a symptom than a cause, and at least in part, his success is a response to the excesses of the extreme left.

That's what Pelosi, Clinton, Ocassio Cortez, Antifa, SJWs, the LBGT lobby, Obama, numerous Democrat politicians et al have drummed into their heads - there are powerful people out there who hate them, want them and their way of life wiped out, and will stop at pretty much nothing to see that happen. It's not a debate, it's a war. Only a fool would refuse to support someone who will at least fight for their side just because he's a boastful braggart who loves hyperbole and sometimes even lies.

This is how I think a lot of Trump supporters feel - threatened, in danger, hated and attacked. Not saying they are completely correct about that - but it doesn't matter - that's what they believe and feel, so that is what they're going to base their choices and decisions off. The left-leaning MSM and nut-jobs like HRC, Pelosi and Schiff mostly reinforce that perception



(3) Why should someone who has a completely different set of values, interests and worldview beliefs (the hypothetical middle America Trump voter) care at all that you want to 'tone police' their current leader? You (carpedm and the 'left' in general) don't like them, you actively oppose things they hold important, you would be willing to force them to act against their beliefs, you would be happier if they didn't have any say in the shape of American life. And you think they should 'play the political game' by your rules? Really?



(4) You're a moral subjectivist. Your personal moral opinion is therefore of no value to me, or any American, except insofar as you can enforce it on me. And only then - if you can enforce it - because it might be of interest to know what my oppressor thinks I should be doing / not doing.



(5) You don't have anything like this level of problem with the worst of the political left. I don't see you 'calling out' the bad behaviour of the left to anything like this degree**. You excuse a lot of bad stuff in the people who push for things that you want. Why can't others do the same, for the people (here it's Trump) that push for the things they want?


** We're all prone to this, I'm not making a particular attack at you, carpe. But politics isn't going to improve until everyone on all sides polices their own. Mostly the left doesn't, the right would be straight up foolish to tie their won hands in a war like this.

[MaxVel]

Seriously. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's political views match those of most UK conservatives. Obama and David Cameron were about the same place on the left-right spectrum:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44170[/ATTACH]

Here's another :

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44171[/ATTACH].

Eww... Bernie Sanders is closest to where I come on that chart. I'm just right of the center.

[MaxVel]

A vote for Hillary (note the spelling) would have won them back the House.

A vote for Trump seems likely to lose everything.

Two out of three ain't bad.

There's many a slip...

I'd probably come up with another phrase, seeing how "not helpful" triggers folks around here. It's not precisely thin-skinned, because even a thin skin provides adequate protection from the mildest of criticisms.

It needs another word.

I think I'll start calling it Trump-skinned.

Maybe you could 'not helpful' a few more from your side of the aisle, and be 'more helpful' yourself. That might thicken some skins.

[simplicio]

I have some serious reservations about those charts - not because of how individuals were classified, but rather how they are relative to one another. One places Clinton to the right of Trump. If the scales are the same, they combine to place Obama to the right of Trump. Something seems off...

Just how do you classify Trump? use his campaign rally speeches, or his views prior to the election? I think that graphic was drawn up a few years ago, before there was a track record of policies to measure. What are his views on abortion? What are his views on government assistance to private enterprise?

I didn't see Ronald Reagan on there, I wonder how he would stack up on the graph

[carpedm9587]

IF the Republican party found a candidate who could give those voters their desired policies AND be an honourable President (by your lights), would you vote for him?

No. I am a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. I disagree with more of Trump's policies than I agree with. But I would simply be back where I was under Bush I and Bush II - a reasonable man in office who's policies I happened to disagree with. I have never said "not my president" until Mr. Trump, no matter how much I disagreed with their policy positions. Not getting what you want out of government some part of the time is part of the price we pay for living in a democracy.

(1) I don't agree on your interpretation of all of those points. Trump is nowhere near as awful IMHO as you think he is.

Then we have to agree to disagree. I have not seen such a corrupt and vile man in political office in my lifetime - and that includes Ted Cruz!

(that latter part was intended to be a joke)

(2) Politics is about winning - about getting things done. Trump (to some degree) does that. That's what counts. Regrettably. I wish it were otherwise - that being a 'good person' was what was most effective, but it's clearly not.

Therefore, if one is going to vote or interact with the political environment, one has to accept that winning is what counts. Losing doesn't get anything accomplished. Losing gracefully and nicely too. IF someone is going to vote at all, IMHO, they should vote for someone who can 'win' - who can get elected, and who can once elected, get things done. Voting for a nice person who can't get elected is pointless. Ditto for a nice guy who, once elected, gets crushed by far less scrupulous opponents, enemies in the media and so on, and thus gets pretty much nothing done.

The Republicans have had a series of leaders that were more or less 'acceptable' to the Democrats in their behaviour and approach. Result: widespread and large scale advance of a left-wing political and social program. Lots of left-leaning judges at all levels, who 'interpret' laws in ways that favour the progressive agenda. Schools and universities that churn out left-indocrinated students and future leaders. Abortion being pushed at all levels. People being forced to act against their consciences or lose their businesses or jobs. Homosexual marriage being legislated and then compelled to be endorsed (what happened to 'live and let live'?), large-scale uncontrolled immigration of anyone who wants in... and so on.

Voters that want some changes to those things and more have realised that nice-guy Republicans don't get anything done. They lose to Democrats who are willing to 'get nasty' to get their agenda through. That's been the big lesson of the last few years, IMHO. Left-wing groups will do almost anything to 'win', to get their agenda made law, to enforce it, to silence (deplatform and worse) people who merely disagree (Chick-Fil-A), resist, support 'right-wing causes' (Brendan Eich, formerly of Firefox) or who merely question left-wing assumptions and values (James Damore, for example).

The extremes of the left are pushing people to react more strongly against them - hence Trump. IMHO he's more of a symptom than a cause, and at least in part, his success is a response to the excesses of the extreme left.

That's what Pelosi, Clinton, Ocassio Cortez, Antifa, SJWs, the LBGT lobby, Obama, numerous Democrat politicians et al have drummed into their heads - there are powerful people out there who hate them, want them and their way of life wiped out, and will stop at pretty much nothing to see that happen. It's not a debate, it's a war. Only a fool would refuse to support someone who will at least fight for their side just because he's a boastful braggart who loves hyperbole and sometimes even lies.

This is how I think a lot of Trump supporters feel - threatened, in danger, hated and attacked. Not saying they are completely correct about that - but it doesn't matter - that's what they believe and feel, so that is what they're going to base their choices and decisions off. The left-leaning MSM and nut-jobs like HRC, Pelosi and Schiff mostly reinforce that perception

Sorry, Max, but some things are more important than "winning." I have said before and I will say again: if Mr. Biden were to begin to show the character traits and behavior of Mr. Trump, he would instantly lose my vote. It would not matter the degree to which his policies align with mine. I'd write in someone else.

Look, I am not expecting politicians to be perfect. I understand they come with flaws, and some can be abysmal. Theodore Roosevelt is one of my heroes - but he was a flagrant racist. Thomas Jefferson is another hero, and he owned slaves. I understand that we have to accept that our heroes will have blemishes. Pix chronically and mistakenly characterizes this as "forgiving them" for their flaws. There is a difference between recognizing a flaw and forgiving one. On balance, these two men (and others) did great things and were great men - but they also had ugly parts of their lives that I do NOT admire. But Trump goes way past "blemishes." The very fact that he believes lying is an acceptable activity if it gets you what you want means he is eroding the importance of truth in society - and that is an extremely dangerous thing to do. The man is a danger to our democracy and our society. He exemplifies so much of what we consider immoral - I would never consider voting to put him in power, even if it meant I could have every policy wish I ever had. Another election will come along and I will find another candidate.

(3) Why should someone who has a completely different set of values, interests and worldview beliefs (the hypothetical middle America Trump voter) care at all that you want to 'tone police' their current leader? You (carpedm and the 'left' in general) don't like them, you actively oppose things they hold important, you would be willing to force them to act against their beliefs, you would be happier if they didn't have any say in the shape of American life. And you think they should 'play the political game' by your rules? Really?

I don't actually expect them to care, Max. I have long since abandoned any hope that the party that was formerly "the party of family values" will ever again live up to that claim. I dispute, however, that I "actively oppose things they hold important." I actively oppose some of the things they hold important - and support others. The same is true in reverse. And I absolutely do not believe they should have no say in American life. We live in a democracy - we all get a say - and that means we all sometimes get what we want, and sometimes don't get what we want.

This is what is missing in the world of modern politics: the understanding that a democracy is built on compromise. Ultimately, no one will get exactly what they want, because what they (we) want has to be balanced by the wants/needs of those who share the society with us. If those are the "rules" the people you are referring to believe they should not have to live by, then our democracy is already lost.

(4) You're a moral subjectivist. Your personal moral opinion is therefore of no value to me, or any American, except insofar as you can enforce it on me. And only then - if you can enforce it - because it might be of interest to know what my oppressor thinks I should be doing / not doing.

We all practice morality subjectively, Max. It's inescapable. People can label themselves "moral objectivists" and "moral realists" all day every day and it will not change the intrinsic nature of morality: a subjective assessment based on subjectively-driven valuing. As with everyone else, I have no chance of influencing your moral choices unless I can a) cause you to change you moral framework (which is unlikely for those who have aligned to what they believe is a god-center external framework), or b) get you to see a disconnect between your words and your actions. I am hoping for the latter. It is inconsistent to hold the moral position "lying is immoral" and then ignore, defend, and/or praise every lie that comes out of this man's mouth. The same can be said of most of Mr. Trump's moral behavior.

(5) You don't have anything like this level of problem with the worst of the political left. I don't see you 'calling out' the bad behaviour of the left to anything like this degree**. You excuse a lot of bad stuff in the people who push for things that you want. Why can't others do the same, for the people (here it's Trump) that push for the things they want?

So this I will call you on. Point out one place where I have excused inappropriate/immoral behavior from someone on the left that I have chastised someone on the right for. If you can do so - you can justifiably accuse me of hypocrisy. If not, then I suggest you are lumping me into the general category "liberal" or "left" and doing what Sparko, MM, Sean, Pix, and so many others regularly do here: painting with an overly broad brush.

** We're all prone to this, I'm not making a particular attack at you, carpe. But politics isn't going to improve until everyone on all sides polices their own. Mostly the left doesn't, the right would be straight up foolish to tie their won hands in a war like this.

I am not "the left." I am not speaking for "the left." I am not responsible for "the left."


ETA: Once again, I do have to commend you for a post that (mostly) stays with the issues and does not slip into personal attacks. An exchange with you is always a breath of fresh air in here.

[carpedm9587]

Just how do you classify Trump? use his campaign rally speeches, or his views prior to the election? I think that graphic was drawn up a few years ago, before there was a track record of policies to measure. What are his views on abortion? What are his views on government assistance to private enterprise?

I didn't see Ronald Reagan on there, I wonder how he would stack up on the graph

Good points about Trump. At different points in his life he could have been put almost anywhere in the top quarter of the chart.

[Roy]

Voters that want some changes to those things and more have realised that nice-guy Republicans don't get anything done. They lose to Democrats who are willing to 'get nasty' to get their agenda through. That's been the big lesson of the last few years, IMHO. Left-wing groups will do almost anything to 'win', to get their agenda made law, to enforce it, to silence (deplatform and worse) people who merely disagree (Chick-Fil-A), resist, support 'right-wing causes' (Brendan Eich, formerly of Firefox) or who merely question left-wing assumptions and values (James Damore, for example).
...
That's what Pelosi, Clinton, Ocassio Cortez, Antifa, SJWs, the LBGT lobby, Obama, numerous Democrat politicians et al have drummed into their heads - there are powerful people out there who hate them, want them and their way of life wiped out, and will stop at pretty much nothing to see that happen. It's not a debate, it's a war.

Those paragraphs reflect reality if you swap Democrats/Republicans and swap right/left.

[Sparko]

I am fascinated by your external perspective. DO I understand you correctly? The Democratic positions are often seen to be to the right of the right-wing party in the UK and New Zealand? Seriously?

To Starlight everyone is a right winger. Including Stalin.

[MaxVel]

Those paragraphs reflect reality if you swap Democrats/Republicans and swap right/left.

Sure, in their perception. Which is what matters, because that's what will influence their behaviour. I would quibble that I think the right is more willing to 'live and let live' than the left, although perhaps that's changed in the last few years.

I don't see much possibility of a reasonable middle ground in American politics. Some kind of a breakup or higher level of conflict is probably inevitable.

[Mountain Man]

The prime difference between Trump and others who've been fact-checked isn't in the number of lies, though that difference is enormous, it's in the number of repetitions. That difference isn't quantitative, it's qualitative. Most folks stop repeating a lie after it's been corrected, eventually. Fact-checkers have had to add a new category, "Bottomless Pinocchios," to handle Trump because he doesn't.

To merit a Bottomless, it's necessary to repeat a debunked statement 20 or more times. It's quite a list.

I've seen those lists, and the standard seems to be "Did Trump say it? Then it's a lie," regardless of whether it was an approximation, estimation, hyperbole, exaggeration, an obvious joke, a figure of speech, a genuine mistake, and so on. Like when Trump invited the championship college team to the White House and said, "We have burgers stacked a mile high." The media dutifully "fact checked" the claim and determined that, no, in fact the burgers were not literally stacked a mile high, therefore the President was lying. It's gotten pretty ridiculous.

Trump: "A man tells his dog, 'Heel!' The dog says, 'It takes one to know one.' Ha ha ha!"
Media: "Trump lies again! Dogs can not speak intelligible English!"