- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Reaction score
- 6,608
The linked article refuting the numbers. They mention FBI numbers. I assumed in my response that you had read the link you posted.
I did but I'm not sure you did. Either that or we're talking at cross purposes.
You appeared to be criticising the suggestion that the figures posted by Trump were fake.
I was countering by criticising the initial suggestion (or implication, from Trump himself) that the numbers were correct.
My point, which seems to have been lost, is that the burden of proof lies with the person making the initial claim.
And his 'proof' appears to be fake.
That being so, the FBI figures are used in the article to refute those figures posted by the President, not to support them, so I don't see how they could suggest his numbers are correct.
They may or may not refute Trump's figures to your satisfaction but you offer no criticism of the accuracy of the original claim.
And what about the accuracy of his numbers?
Why should anyone believe them?
The main suggestion for the president's figure's being correct comes from the fact he, the POTUS, posted them, since their only other credibility comes their listed source, which appears to be fake.
But he's the POTUS. For lots of people that's evidence enough.
That in itself is one reason why the man who popularised the term 'fake news' and never seems to stop whining about it is one of the worst perpetrators of it.
If you think I said anything similar to the above quoted text, please try rereading with your outrage glasses off.
I've read it again and if that wasn't what you were getting at then I don't really know what point you were trying to make.
Perhaps you could simplify it for the hard of thinking like me?