2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Dude listen to what he says, how he acts, everything he says and does substantiates exactly what townsend said.
What he said is that Trump was dishonest and a con man. Where is the substantiation for that comment.?
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
What he said is that Trump was dishonest and a con man. Where is the substantiation for that comment.?
The 3500 times he's been litigated for his fraudulent business practices. The fact checking that ranks him most dishonest when compared to other politicians. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

The countless times he's been caught in bold face lies (saying he had never met the disabled man he mocked, admitting to posing as his own representative and then later claiming he didn't, claiming he say Muslims celebrate in Manhattan on 9-11.) His unwillingness to release his tax returns, his literal fraud that he committed against the students at Trump U. Where along with using shady sales tactics to convince people to go into 5 figures of debt for useless classes, he promised a personal appearance and had people take pictures with a cardboard cutout.

His complete displayed ignorance on foreign policy, and economics. Including being stumped by the nuclear triad definition, thinking he could renegotiate the national debt, and thinking we could pull out of NATO.

I don't need every scrap of possible information to know Hillary is corrupt, and neither do you. We both acknowledge that fact with a 10th of the available evidence on Trump. But you're so damn set on him being a better candidate than Hillary, that you've placed your faith in some unknown information we might not have. It's ridiculous and hypocritical.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
The 3500 times he's been litigated for his fraudulent business practices. The fact checking that ranks him most dishonest when compared to other politicians. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

The countless times he's been caught in bold face lies (saying he had never met the disabled man he mocked, admitting to posing as his own representative and then later claiming he didn't, claiming he say Muslims celebrate in Manhattan on 9-11.) His unwillingness to release his tax returns, his literal fraud that he committed against the students at Trump U. Where along with using shady sales tactics to convince people to go into 5 figures of debt for useless classes, he promised a personal appearance and had people take pictures with a cardboard cutout.

His complete displayed ignorance on foreign policy, and economics. Including being stumped by the nuclear triad definition, thinking he could renegotiate the national debt, and thinking we could pull out of NATO.

I don't need every scrap of possible information to know Hillary is corrupt, and neither do you. We both acknowledge that fact with a 10th of the available evidence on Trump. But you're so damn set on him being a better candidate than Hillary, that you've placed your faith in some unknown information we might not have. It's ridiculous and hypocritical.
Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?
A new study sheds some light on what facts the press most likes to check.
By Peter Roff | Contributing Editor May 28, 2013, at 6:05 p.m.

Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?


"Facts," someone once said, "are stubborn things." If there is one thing that is gnawing the marrow out of political coverage in America today, it's the so-called "fact checkers" whom editors of some of the nation's most prestigious publications have appointed to evaluate the veracity of statements made by candidates for public office.

According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of "fact" is: 1) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences; 2) Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed; or 3) A thing that has been done, especially a crime. The last is especially interesting since the way fact-checking has been employed in the last two election cycles is as near to a crime as a journalist can commit.

Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

"Republicans see a credibility gap in the Obama Administration," said Dr. Robert S. Lichter, head of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "PolitiFact rates Republicans as the less credible party."

As the first person to empirically demonstrate the liberal, pro-Democrat bias in the Washington press corps, Lichter's analysis is worth further study and comment. His study – and in the interests of full disclosure, he was once a professor of mine at the George Washington University - "examined 100 statements involving factual claims by Democrats (46 claims) and Republicans (54 claims), which were fact-checked by PolitiFact.com during the four month period from the start of President Obama's second term on January 20 through May 22, 2013." The conclusion: Republicans lie more.

Or do they? As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has consistently reported, the fact checking business often – too often for anyone's good – turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of "fact." One recent example that drives the point home is the Washington Post's recent fact check that gave President Barack Obama "four Pinocchios" for asserting that he had, in fact, called what happened in Benghazi an act of "terrorism."

According to the Post's Glenn Kessler, Obama did in fact refer to it the next day in a Rose Garden address as an "act of terror," but did not call it "terrorism." Is this a distinction without a difference? Hardly, at least as far as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney might be concerned. It will be a long time before anyone forgets how the second presidential debate turned into a tag team match with Obama and CNN's Candy Crowley both explaining to the mystified Republican that Romney was, in fact, wrong when he accused the president of not having called the Benghazi attack a terrorist incident.

[See a collection of editorial Cartoons on Benghazi.]

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false, though some people still pretend there is truth in them. As the Lichter study demonstrates, it's not so much fact checkers that are needed as it is fact checkers to check the facts being checked.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
I don't like any candidate backed by Putin. Sure.

But to use that to excuse corruption (yes, the head of a party conspiring to get a particular candidate elected and using her position to improperly influence media is corruption) in your own party is retarded and partisan politics at its worst.

What this retard-whom-i've-never-heard-of doesn't want to understand is that both are very very bad and playing the "we're not as bad as them" card is extremely myopic. It tells me that he's not concerned with right versus wrong, he's worried about his "side" winning at any cost.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?
A new study sheds some light on what facts the press most likes to check.
By Peter Roff | Contributing Editor May 28, 2013, at 6:05 p.m.

Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?


"Facts," someone once said, "are stubborn things." If there is one thing that is gnawing the marrow out of political coverage in America today, it's the so-called "fact checkers" whom editors of some of the nation's most prestigious publications have appointed to evaluate the veracity of statements made by candidates for public office.

According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of "fact" is: 1) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences; 2) Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed; or 3) A thing that has been done, especially a crime. The last is especially interesting since the way fact-checking has been employed in the last two election cycles is as near to a crime as a journalist can commit.

Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

"Republicans see a credibility gap in the Obama Administration," said Dr. Robert S. Lichter, head of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "PolitiFact rates Republicans as the less credible party."

As the first person to empirically demonstrate the liberal, pro-Democrat bias in the Washington press corps, Lichter's analysis is worth further study and comment. His study – and in the interests of full disclosure, he was once a professor of mine at the George Washington University - "examined 100 statements involving factual claims by Democrats (46 claims) and Republicans (54 claims), which were fact-checked by PolitiFact.com during the four month period from the start of President Obama's second term on January 20 through May 22, 2013." The conclusion: Republicans lie more.

Or do they? As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has consistently reported, the fact checking business often – too often for anyone's good – turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of "fact." One recent example that drives the point home is the Washington Post's recent fact check that gave President Barack Obama "four Pinocchios" for asserting that he had, in fact, called what happened in Benghazi an act of "terrorism."

According to the Post's Glenn Kessler, Obama did in fact refer to it the next day in a Rose Garden address as an "act of terror," but did not call it "terrorism." Is this a distinction without a difference? Hardly, at least as far as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney might be concerned. It will be a long time before anyone forgets how the second presidential debate turned into a tag team match with Obama and CNN's Candy Crowley both explaining to the mystified Republican that Romney was, in fact, wrong when he accused the president of not having called the Benghazi attack a terrorist incident.

[See a collection of editorial Cartoons on Benghazi.]

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false, though some people still pretend there is truth in them. As the Lichter study demonstrates, it's not so much fact checkers that are needed as it is fact checkers to check the facts being checked.

Excellent article. This is the sort of thing a lot of conservatives try to point out about the media (and I myself have pointed out here which was wildly misconstrued), but liberals are either too partisan or too stupid to understand.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,416
It tells me that he's not concerned with right versus wrong, he's worried about his "side" winning at any cost.
That's all politics these days is though, no?

The fact that anybody actually believes in either of these two proves that.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
That's all politics these days is though, no?

The fact that anybody actually believes in either of these two proves that.

Agreed, but I'm sick of democrats using clear partisan stances under the guise of moral superiority.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
The 3500 times he's been litigated for his fraudulent business practices. The fact checking that ranks him most dishonest when compared to other politicians. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

The countless times he's been caught in bold face lies (saying he had never met the disabled man he mocked, admitting to posing as his own representative and then later claiming he didn't, claiming he say Muslims celebrate in Manhattan on 9-11.) His unwillingness to release his tax returns, his literal fraud that he committed against the students at Trump U. Where along with using shady sales tactics to convince people to go into 5 figures of debt for useless classes, he promised a personal appearance and had people take pictures with a cardboard cutout.

His complete displayed ignorance on foreign policy, and economics. Including being stumped by the nuclear triad definition, thinking he could renegotiate the national debt, and thinking we could pull out of NATO.

I don't need every scrap of possible information to know Hillary is corrupt, and neither do you. We both acknowledge that fact with a 10th of the available evidence on Trump. But you're so damn set on him being a better candidate than Hillary, that you've placed your faith in some unknown information we might not have. It's ridiculous and hypocritical.
I have never said he was a better candidate. I have asked you to explain how you have concluded what you have
. I am the first to say I have no idea what kind of President he would make, but you aren't content to accept that rather you want me to accept your assessment and I am not prepared to take anyone's assessment because I don't think anyone really knows enough at this point to paint a portrait. The fact that he has been sued isn't proof that he is a con man. Tell me the outcome of this suits then we will both know the answer. Business' s get sued all the time. So don't tell me I am trying to elevate him because that just hasn't happened. My comments have been an attempt for you to declare how you can know so much about him when in fact all you know is what you have determined from someone else's depictions.


In addition when has honesty been a criteria for politicians to do a good job.
 
Last edited:

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?
A new study sheds some light on w
hat facts the press most likes to check.
By Peter Roff | Contributing Editor May 28, 2013, at 6:05 p.m.

Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?


"Facts," someone once said, "are stubborn things." If there is one thing that is gnawing the marrow out of political coverage in America today, it's the so-called "fact checkers" whom editors of some of the nation's most prestigious publications have appointed to evaluate the veracity of statements made by candidates for public office.

According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of "fact" is: 1) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences; 2) Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed; or 3) A thing that has been done, especially a crime. The last is especially interesting since the way fact-checking has been employed in the last two election cycles is as near to a crime as a journalist can commit.

Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

"Republicans see a credibility gap in the Obama Administration," said Dr. Robert S. Lichter, head of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "PolitiFact rates Republicans as the less credible party."

As the first person to empirically demonstrate the liberal, pro-Democrat bias in the Washington press corps, Lichter's analysis is worth further study and comment. His study – and in the interests of full disclosure, he was once a professor of mine at the George Washington University - "examined 100 statements involving factual claims by Democrats (46 claims) and Republicans (54 claims), which were fact-checked by PolitiFact.com during the four month period from the start of President Obama's second term on January 20 through May 22, 2013." The conclusion: Republicans lie more.

Or do they? As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has consistently reported, the fact checking business often – too often for anyone's good – turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of "fact." One recent example that drives the point home is the Washington Post's recent fact check that gave President Barack Obama "four Pinocchios" for asserting that he had, in fact, called what happened in Benghazi an act of "terrorism."

According to the Post's Glenn Kessler, Obama did in fact refer to it the next day in a Rose Garden address as an "act of terror," but did not call it "terrorism." Is this a distinction without a difference? Hardly, at least as far as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney might be concerned. It will be a long time before anyone forgets how the second presidential debate turned into a tag team match with Obama and CNN's Candy Crowley both explaining to the mystified Republican that Romney was, in fact, wrong when he accused the president of not having called the Benghazi attack a terrorist incident.

[See a collection of editorial Cartoons on Benghazi.]

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false, though some people still pretend there is truth in them. As the Lichter study demonstrates, it's not so much fact checkers that are needed as it is fact checkers to check the facts being checked.
This is nothing. It's a "study" based on one hundred questions. Not exactly a reasonable sample size, and frankly it's not disproven that republicans lie more. You can't assume that just because one side turns out to be bigger liars means the data is faulty. It just means that you didn't get the results you wanted.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Both parties leaders act like they are morally superior to the other, it's all partisan and it's all bullshit.
So true. There is only one agenda. Say and do anything and everything to get into and retain the office. All the waking hours are spent toward that goal.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
This is nothing. It's a "study" based on one hundred questions. Not exactly a reasonable sample size, and frankly it's not disproven that republicans lie more. You can't assume that just because one side turns out to be bigger liars means the data is faulty. It just means that you didn't get the results you wanted.
:lol

It's not less proof then some made up statistics by a biased website. I guess you can believe whatever made up results you want when it justifies your liberal bias.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
:lol

It's not less proof then some made up statistics by a biased website. I guess you can believe whatever made up results you want when it justifies your liberal bias.
What "facts" was this study based on? It sounds like a guy spent 15 minutes reading a website and got a result he didn't like. The fact that you felt a need to trot out some half assed editorial to a half assed study, with no usable information to refute the findings from the site, just shows you'd be willing to back something that was sketched on the back of a napkin if it supported your opinions.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Donald Trump Calls on Russia to Find Hillary Clinton’s Missing Emails

Donald Trump Calls on Russia to Find Hillary Clinton’s Missing Emails

DORAL, Fla. — Donald J. Trump said Wednesday that he hoped Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, essentially encouraging an adversarial foreign power to cyberspy on a secretary of state’s correspondence.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, staring directly into the cameras during a news conference. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Mr. Trump’s call was an extraordinary moment at a time when Russia is being accused of meddling in the United States’ presidential election. His comments came amid questions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers, which American intelligence agencies have told the White House they have “high confidence” was the work of the Russian government.

Later in the news conference, when asked if he was really urging a foreign nation to hack into the private email server of Mrs. Clinton, or at least meddle in the nation’s elections, he dismissed the question. “That’s up to the president,” Mr. Trump said, before finally saying “be quiet” to the female questioner. “Let the president talk to them.”

The Clinton campaign immediately accused Mr. Trump of both encouraging Russian espionage against the United States and meddling in domestic politics.

“This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent,” said Jake Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton’s chief foreign policy adviser. “This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue.”

And a spokesman for Speaker Paul D. Ryan, a Republican, responded to Mr. Trump’s remarks by criticizing Russia’s behavior.

“Russia is a global menace led by a devious thug,” said Brendan Buck, the spokesman. “Putin should stay out of this election.”

Mr. Trump has largely dismissed assertions that Russia was behind the Democratic committee breach as conspiracy theories — a view he reiterated again when he said the hack was “probably not Russia.”

But at one of his Florida golf courses, as the third day of the Democratic National Convention was set to begin in Philadelphia, the Republican presidential nominee refused to unequivocally call on Vladimir V. Putin, Russia’s president, to not meddle in the election.

“I’m not going to tell Putin what to do,” Mr. Trump said. “Why should I tell Putin what to do?”

He added that if Russia, or any foreign government, was, in fact, behind the hack, it simply showed just how little respect other nations have for the current administration.

“President Trump would be so much better for U.S.-Russian relations” than a President Clinton, Mr. Trump said. “I don’t think he respects Clinton.”

In a series of Twitter messages, Jason Miller, a campaign spokesman, tried to clarify Mr. Trump’s comments.

“To be clear, Mr. Trump did not call on, or invite, Russia or anyone else to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails today,” Mr. Miller wrote, adding that Mr. Trump was simply saying that if Russia or any other nations do have Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails, they should share them immediately with the F.B.I.

As an avalanche of criticism poured over Mr. Trump, some Republicans defended his comments as a worthy attack on Mrs. Clinton. Former Representative Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Mr. Trump was right to keep hammering Mrs. Clinton on the subject of her private emails.

Mr. Hoekstra said he was untroubled by Mr. Trump’s goading on of a foreign power.

”Trump is bringing up a fairly valid point: Hillary Clinton, with her personal email at the State Department, has put the Russians in a very enviable position,” Mr. Hoekstra said. “Most likely the Russians already have all that info on Hillary.”

Mr. Trump’s running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, said any hacking by Russia should not be tolerated, but he also faulted the Democrats.

“The F.B.I. will get to the bottom of who is behind the hacking,” he said. “If it is Russia and they are interfering in our elections, I can assure you both parties and the United States government will ensure there are serious consequences.”

He added, “That said, the Democrats singularly focusing on who might be behind it and not addressing the basic fact that they’ve been exposed as a party who not only rigs the government, but rigs elections while literally accepting cash for federal appointments, is outrageous.”

Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, suggested that Mr. Trump was going into unchartered territory with his remarks.

“This is a national security issue now and the idea that you’d have any American calling for a foreign power to commit espionage in the U.S. for the purpose of somehow changing an election, I think, that we’re now in a national security space,” he said.

During his news conference, Mr. Trump was asked about critical comments President Obama made about him in an interview with NBC’s “Today Show” on Wednesday morning.

“I think President Obama has been the most ignorant president in our history,” Mr. Trump said. “His views of the world, as he says, don’t jive, and the world is a mess.”

Mr. Trump was referring to remarks the president made Friday during a news conference at the White House, in which he rejected Mr. Trump’s dark portrait of the nation as a crumbling dystopia. The president actually said, “This vision of violence and chaos everywhere, doesn’t really jibe with the experience of most people.”

But social media quickly lit up with criticism for Mr. Trump’s use of “jive” — common slang associated with black American jazz musicians in the 1940s and ’50s — instead of “jibe,” the word Mr. Obama used. Many viewed Mr. Trump’s language as a coded racial “dog whistle” to some of his supporters.

“He will go down as one of the worst presidents in the history of our country,” Mr. Trump added. “It is a mess.”
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
What "facts" was this study based on? It sounds like a guy spent 15 minutes reading a website and got a result he didn't like. The fact that you felt a need to trot out some half assed editorial to a half assed study, with no usable information to refute the findings from the site, just shows you'd be willing to back something that was sketched on the back of a napkin if it supported your opinions.
Um so the opinions trotted out as fact by politifact are proof, but the opinions of a well written article with well thought out examples and studies is just hogwash?

There are some people that just eat up every bit of propaganda thrown their direction. You're smarter then falling for all of the liberal ones or at least I thought you were. But if you want to believe propaganda that Republicans are the ones always lying and Democrats are always telling the truth then I'd probably say you are naive or clueless.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Um so the opinions trotted out as fact by politifact are proof, but the opinions of a well written article with well thought out examples and studies is just hogwash?

There are some people that just eat up every bit of propaganda thrown their direction. You're smarter then falling for all of the liberal ones or at least I thought you were. But if you want to believe propaganda that Republicans are the ones always lying and Democrats are always telling the truth then I'd probably say you are naive or clueless.
I'd say that the landscape is a bit more complicated than that, but I think that just because that's what the investigation bears out doesn't mean that the findings are false. You assume that because there are two parties that fairness means they're evenly represented not fairly represented.

Don't forget that 2013 was just after a massive infusion of tea partiers, that didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Now maybe democrat lies are less ridiculous and therefore are less likely to get checked. But don't get mad at the people checking the nonsense when it's the party's fault for having representatives that are not only liars but spectacular ones.
 
Last edited:

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Have we stopped to appreciate how crazy Donald Trump has gotten recently?

Have we stopped to appreciate how crazy Donald Trump has gotten recently?

Last Thursday, Donald Trump gave a pretty normal convention speech. It was darker, grimmer, and more pessimistic than most, but it was free of Trump’s odder tics — he stayed on teleprompter, he bit back his riffs, he didn’t try to settle old scores or freelance on major policies. Perhaps this was the pivot. Perhaps Trump would settle down now that the nomination was his.

Nope.

The very next day, Trump walked out and gave one of the craziest, most self-destructive press conferences in political history. He was off script. He was unhinged. He was settling scores.

"I don’t want [Ted Cruz’s] endorsement," he said, for absolutely no reason. "If he gives it, I will not accept it. Just so you understand. I will not accept it. It won’t matter. Honestly, he should have done it, because nobody cares and he would have been in better shape for four years from now if he’s gonna — I don’t see him winning anyway, frankly."

He continued: "All I did was point out that on the cover of the National Enquirer there was a picture of [Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz’s father] and crazy Lee Harvey Oswald having breakfast. Now, Ted never denied that it was his father. Instead he said, ‘Donald Trump!’ — I had nothing to do with it!"

Cruz, of course, did deny that it was his father. But the funnier, weirder part of that riff is Trump saying ,"I had nothing to do with it!" He both repeats and rejects that claim a few minutes later.

"This had nothing to do with me," Trump said. "Except I might have pointed it out, but it had nothing to do with me, I have no control over anything. I might have pointed it out. But nobody ever denied — did anyone ever deny that it was his father? It’s a little hard to do, because it looks like him."

Yes, it has nothing to do with Trump, except he's the presidential candidate who keeps bringing up a conspiracy theory with literally no evidence behind it. You could write a dissertation on how bizarre this defense is, and what it means that Trump appears to believe it, or thinks someone else might believe it.

But don't lose sight of the wild forest amid all of Trump's screaming trees: There was no reason for Trump to say any of this. Trump had just accepted the Republican Party's nomination for president. Cruz had been vanquished, booed off the stage. Trump’s opponent, now, was Hillary Clinton. But he couldn’t help himself. He couldn’t stay on message, he couldn't suppress the crazy, for 24 hours.

At the conservative Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes was just agog. This is "not about tactics or messaging," he wrote. "It's about something simpler and something much more important: Donald Trump is not of sound mind."

Trump’s press conference today was similarly bananas. He walked out onstage and blasted the job Tim Kaine had done in … New Jersey? Of course, Tim Kaine was the governor of Virginia. Trump seems to have literally confused the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee with Tom Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey.

Unwilling to stop there, Trump went on to comment on the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s emails, which most experts think was conducted by Russia. "Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are able to find the 33,000 emails that are missing — I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," he said.

So, yes, Donald Trump went out and asked a foreign government to conduct cyber espionage in order to help his campaign. This came only hours after his running mate, Mike Pence, had warned of "serious consequences" if Russia truly was behind the DNC hack. Apparently those serious consequences would be … future assignments from Donald Trump?

This isn’t normal behavior from a major American politician. It’s not even particularly normal behavior from Donald Trump. After he picked Mike Pence, empowered campaign chair Paul Manafort, and gave a structured convention speech, there looked to be a chance that Trump was unveiling a new, more sober persona for the general election. But he can’t do it. He can’t suppress his own mania for even a week.

It’s weird to keep saying this, but this is not okay. This is not a man with the temperament, the steadiness, the discipline to be president. The issue here isn’t left versus right, or liberal versus conservative, or Democrat versus Republican. It’s crazy versus not crazy. Donald Trump, of late, has been acting pretty crazy. That’s not acceptable in the job he’s running to fill.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
I'd say that the landscape is a bit more complicated than that, but I think that just because that's what the investigation bears out doesn't mean that the findings are false. You assume that because there are two parties that fairness means they're evenly represented not fairly represented.
No what I'm saying is that their numbers are just invented jibberish. Because when you pick and choose what facts you want to check and then check them against some ever changing fact set, it's basically just a persons opinion. If you have liberal fact checkers, you'll have results like you see with politifact. If you had conservative fact checkers you'd likely get the opposite results. To post those statistics as though they mean something is what I'm really pointing out as a joke. As though you can calculate truthfulness like a batting average. It's not possible in the format they do this.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Last Thursday, Donald Trump gave a pretty normal convention speech. It was darker, grimmer, and more pessimistic than most, but it was free of Trump’s odder tics — he stayed on teleprompter, he bit back his riffs, he didn’t try to settle old scores or freelance on major policies. Perhaps this was the pivot. Perhaps Trump would settle down now that the nomination was his.

Nope.

The very next day, Trump walked out and gave one of the craziest, most self-destructive press conferences in political history. He was off script. He was unhinged. He was settling scores.

"I don’t want [Ted Cruz’s] endorsement," he said, for absolutely no reason. "If he gives it, I will not accept it. Just so you understand. I will not accept it. It won’t matter. Honestly, he should have done it, because nobody cares and he would have been in better shape for four years from now if he’s gonna — I don’t see him winning anyway, frankly."

He continued: "All I did was point out that on the cover of the National Enquirer there was a picture of [Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz’s father] and crazy Lee Harvey Oswald having breakfast. Now, Ted never denied that it was his father. Instead he said, ‘Donald Trump!’ — I had nothing to do with it!"

Cruz, of course, did deny that it was his father. But the funnier, weirder part of that riff is Trump saying ,"I had nothing to do with it!" He both repeats and rejects that claim a few minutes later.

"This had nothing to do with me," Trump said. "Except I might have pointed it out, but it had nothing to do with me, I have no control over anything. I might have pointed it out. But nobody ever denied — did anyone ever deny that it was his father? It’s a little hard to do, because it looks like him."

Yes, it has nothing to do with Trump, except he's the presidential candidate who keeps bringing up a conspiracy theory with literally no evidence behind it. You could write a dissertation on how bizarre this defense is, and what it means that Trump appears to believe it, or thinks someone else might believe it.

But don't lose sight of the wild forest amid all of Trump's screaming trees: There was no reason for Trump to say any of this. Trump had just accepted the Republican Party's nomination for president. Cruz had been vanquished, booed off the stage. Trump’s opponent, now, was Hillary Clinton. But he couldn’t help himself. He couldn’t stay on message, he couldn't suppress the crazy, for 24 hours.

At the conservative Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes was just agog. This is "not about tactics or messaging," he wrote. "It's about something simpler and something much more important: Donald Trump is not of sound mind."

Trump’s press conference today was similarly bananas. He walked out onstage and blasted the job Tim Kaine had done in … New Jersey? Of course, Tim Kaine was the governor of Virginia. Trump seems to have literally confused the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee with Tom Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey.

Unwilling to stop there, Trump went on to comment on the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s emails, which most experts think was conducted by Russia. "Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are able to find the 33,000 emails that are missing — I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," he said.

So, yes, Donald Trump went out and asked a foreign government to conduct cyber espionage in order to help his campaign. This came only hours after his running mate, Mike Pence, had warned of "serious consequences" if Russia truly was behind the DNC hack. Apparently those serious consequences would be … future assignments from Donald Trump?

This isn’t normal behavior from a major American politician. It’s not even particularly normal behavior from Donald Trump. After he picked Mike Pence, empowered campaign chair Paul Manafort, and gave a structured convention speech, there looked to be a chance that Trump was unveiling a new, more sober persona for the general election. But he can’t do it. He can’t suppress his own mania for even a week.

It’s weird to keep saying this, but this is not okay. This is not a man with the temperament, the steadiness, the discipline to be president. The issue here isn’t left versus right, or liberal versus conservative, or Democrat versus Republican. It’s crazy versus not crazy. Donald Trump, of late, has been acting pretty crazy. That’s not acceptable in the job he’s running to fill.
This article isn't accurate. Trump didn't attribute that the DNC emails were hacked by the Russians, that was perpetrated by a member of the DNC. The following day Trump sarcastically said that if the Russians had Hillary's emails they should deliver them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom