So you're saying he did go to 57 states?
You may be up on charges next.
As I said, I'm not sure why you're trying to argue in this way. I thought you were being sarcastic, and was wondering why you would use sarcasm in this context, since it does not seem to help your case, and there seem to be good ways of defending your position. However, now I'm beginning to suspect you actually are interpreting my words as your posts, taken at face value, would imply. If you are using sarcasm, you're being obscure enough to make it look like it's not, which is not helping your case, either.
So, I'm not sure what to make of your replies to me, but I will assume for the sake of the argument that you're not being sarcastic. If you are, please say so, because it's not working.
Anyway, no, I'm not saying that he did go to 57 states. But let me try to explain in greater detail: As I said, it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not go. In other words, if would be unreasonable (obviously) to suspect that he might have gone to 57 states, at least if one is aware of the fact that there aren't so many states. So, obviously, his statement is false.
On the other hand, it is not at all obvious that he lied. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied. And in fact, he very probably did not lie. It would make no sense for him to say he did go to 57 states while being aware of the fact that there are no 57 states, as it would obviously be detrimental for his position, and also obviously people would even laugh at him (and, indeed, one can hear the people listening to his speech openly laughing when he said that).
It is far more probable that he was not aware when he said that of the fact that there aren't so many states, and thought they were more than 57 (listen to the speech if you like). Now, probably somewhere in his brain Obama knew there weren't so many states, and with more time, when he was not tired, etc., he would have realized that. But he was (very probably) not aware of that when he said that. In any event, if political lies were a felony, it would be up to the prosecutor to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Obama did lie - rather than making a mistake. I'm pretty sure no prosecutor could establish that.
Remember, Malintent has not proposed criminalizing political false speech. It's true that after you used the expression "false speech" in response to his OP, he used it as well, but it seems clear to me that under the implicit understanding that you were also talking about lies (if you want more precision, about
knowingly spreading false information for political gain), not just about false statements.
That said, if you actually believe you can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama
knowingly spread false information (or attempted to do so) in the context of your example, I would like to see your evidence and arguments for that. I don't think you have any chances of establishing that, though, but I'm willing to listen and discuss the matter if you want. Personally, though, I would recommend adjusting your arguments to hit the right target (i.e., what your oppnents actually put forth).