A lie is a false statement that is said intentionally to a person to hide the truth that has harmful consequences, while a fib is a statement said about something unimportant or minor and does not have harmful consequences. However, in both cases, the truth is avoided.
Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, has said on numerous occasions and in congressional hearings that the United States borders are secure, but they are not. The US Border Patrol has encountered approximately 1.33 million migrants in fiscal year 2023 to date. This is a lie.
Kamala Harris, Vice President in the Biden administration, has said the southern border was secure during a Meet the Press interview. This is a lie.
Both Mayorkas and Harris, along with Joe Biden, has blamed the 6 million illegals coming into American on the previous administration. Not so, since the truth is well documented.
Joe Biden has earned the most Pinocchios by sharing fibs and lies every time he appears in front of a microphone.
Biden delivered a speech on January 28, 2023 to hail economic progress during his administration and to attack congressional Republicans for their proposals on the economy and the social safety net.
CNN said some of Biden’s claims in the speech were false, misleading or lacking critical context, though others were correct. Read his lies and the CNN factchecks here
The following statements made by Joe Biden have been factchecked by Politifact.
Pick and chose the topic you are interested in, then click the link to find the truth.
February 15, 2023 in a speech in Lanham, Maryland:
“More cops are killed responding to domestic violence calls than anything else.”
If you feel this way about Biden, how do you feel about Trump who from independent sources was documented lying over 16,000 times during his Presidency. Every day is another dozen lies.
Conservative Republicans like Bill Barr, Liz Cheney, George Conway, and George Will all agree that Trump is a serial liar and has committed multiple crimes that should be prosecuted.
It is hypocritical and symptomatic to criticize one party or politician when the ones you support are far worse at the very thing you are condemning.
You seem to be using strawman arguments, projection and other techniques to distort the debate you wish to create, ”Paul.”
You seem to be using meaningless labels, such as the word ‘conservative’ and ‘independent’, which may not be accurate, and most likely is not in the case of the persons you named. In fact, you do not even seem to define the word ‘conservative’ – in your eyes – which despite not likely being accurate, would at least give us perspective on what you truly believe.
You seem to attempt, and not surprisingly using the techniques of your beloved ‘independent sources’, via being vague, to generalize about ‘documented’, ‘16,000’, ‘another dozen’, ‘all agree’, ‘serial’, ‘multiple’, ‘symptomatic’, ‘far worse’, etc.
You seem to be using popularly-understood identifiers or concepts (though not understood via education, discernment and the access to all facts) to attach a meaning to an idea.
These are just aphorisms; a figment of the imagination of the corrupt, captured, corporate media, which has played its role in repeatedly making certain statements so that these concepts get firmly lodged into minds. This explains why you seem to be framing your sentences in the way you did and using the words you are using.
This is straight out of the play-book of what one might call the originator of propaganda-style PR and marketing; Edward Louis Bernays.
We won’t belabor this debate. There are many resources (not those we named above, of course) that will do a much better job of providing evidence.
Or, maybe we will belabor a few more remarks.
After all, this is what is being counted on: A tedious, convoluted, incomprehensible and ambiguous set of discussions to burden the public and by attrition win over the people who care not to educate themselves.
1/ What and which ‘independent sources?’
2/ When were they sources?
3/How are they ‘independent?’
4/How are they ‘sources?’
4/Was this from primary research? Or, alternatively perhaps they were given a PR release by an individual.
The foregoing questions arise from just the first sentence – much more could be questioned from the remaining statements.
On the face of it, it would seem, based on the remark about ‘conservatives’ that ”Paul” did not study political science. But we think there is knowledge. This might explain the techniques used to deflect the conversation about topics raised, and to deflect that the actions of these named ‘conservatives’ resemble totally different political influences.
These influences might be something along the lines of a combination of: fascism, marxism, leninism, communism, autocratic, technocratic, totalitarian, authoritarian. And don’t think for a second one cannot have in the same breath the words, fascism and communism.
So that we do not leave you without any resources to further the awareness, check out this newsletter, of which there is a free version the author has so generously provided:
My dislike for career politicians is beyond measure.
It’s greater for those who are ineffective in creating REAL good for the U.S. & it’s citizens.
My disdain is twice my dislike for career politicians who use prevarication as a basis/justification for deflection, feebleness, unproductive, feckless, inefficacious, unproductive, incompetence…
Though, not a career politician, yet, George Santos – N.Y. 3rd C.D. has been aptly revealed as a high-level fabulist. To compound matters are the Representatives who support keeping this guy in his present capacity!
What message does this send to the youth of America?!
What does it speak about the ‘sanctity’ of the House – not to mention the Senate?!
You choose to lie, okay…. simply do not make it my issue or affect my life!
AND, to the 1st commentator, upon reading Nancy’s opinion – twice, I have been unable to identify any politician/party she supports!