US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4109

On June 23 2016 06:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


I just skimmed through the factcheck article you linked and over half the claims were marked as true in that article.

It even marked the 'small loan' one as 'false' because 'for most americans, one million dollars is not a small loan'. He's a billionaire.

Donald Trump:

True: 2%
Mostly True: 7%
Half True: 15%
Mostly False: 17%
False: 40%
Pants on Fire: 19%

Hillary Clinton:

True: 23%
Mostly True: 28%
Half True: 21%
Mostly False: 15%
False: 11%
Pants on Fire: 1%

On June 23 2016 06:45 Plansix wrote:
Seriously, I am not going to dig up an article disproving every crack pot thing Trump says just because he decides to repeat it after its disproven. I’m just going to call it bullshit. I see this tactic on the internet way to much. The burden is on Trump to prove his bullshit. Not for everyone else to disprove him every single time he speaks.

This is the shit that got McCarthy so far. He would just say things that were not true and demand the people he accused prove him wrong.

On June 23 2016 06:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


The burden is on you when you make a claim that he's a liar after his latest speech to substantiate it.

The default of 'oh i didn't watch it he's just spamming more lies' is not discourse it's just flaming.

On June 23 2016 06:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


The burden is on you when you make a claim that he's a liar after his latest speech to substantiate it.

The default of 'oh i didn't watch it he's just spamming more lies' is not discourse it's just flaming.

On June 23 2016 06:47 Plansix wrote:



This article:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fact-checking-trump-s-speech-n597051



That 60% bullshit rate is pretty high.

On June 23 2016 05:17 On_Slaught wrote:
Looks like I didn't miss much from Trump's speech. A bunch of hyperbole, blatant lies, conspiracy theories, and ironic statements. Par for the course. Won't change his 70% unfavorable's or 55% that said they will never vote for him.

On June 23 2016 06:32 On_Slaught wrote:


Yawn. Everything I've said is already widely recognized as true. Don't blame me if your search-fu is weak or you've been living under a rock and haven't heard these things said countless times. He isn't changing at all.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-14/bloomberg-politics-national-poll-june-2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/15/negative-views-of-donald-trump-just-hit-a-new-high-7-in-10-americans/

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fact-checking-trump-s-speech-n597051

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/politics/donald-trump-speech-highlights.html?_r=0

http://fox2now.com/2016/06/22/fact-checking-trumps-latest-claims-against-clinton/

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/donald-trump-gets-lost-beneath-avalanche-falsehoods

On June 23 2016 06:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


The burden is on you when you make a claim that he's a liar after his latest speech to substantiate it.

The default of 'oh i didn't watch it he's just spamming more lies' is not discourse it's just flaming.

On June 23 2016 06:53 Plansix wrote:

His lack of credibility is self evident. He has been proven to say more things that are false than true over and over. We are not doing this every time Trump decides to word vomit up the same pile of bullshit just because it hurts your feelings.

We have played this game. Trump gives a speech. People comment on it saying it was pretty bad or filled with a bunch of his crazy, previously disprove claims. You get upset and say we are really mean for not citing proof he was wrong, demanding we do it again. We do it again. You dispute all the evidence and articles. We get annoyed because this is what you did last time.

Notice the genesis of the shitty political discourse every time? People get really tired of having do the same thing over and over just to have a discussion. Rather than demanding we prove that Trump lies, why don't you put forth something that you think was on point? Add to the discussion, rather than dropping in video link.

On June 23 2016 06:59 Danglars wrote:

We have the rule for show, don't tell, and listen for a reason. Now, his speech might've covered the same territory he's been talking before. It's fine to say he broke no new ground and won't be converting new supporters. Which brings me to ...

Listen, you made an inane comment and got one back. You give throwaway lines and act like someone's challenging Trump's polling numbers. The only substantial thing you said was the speech tread only familiar ground. Your backup is the same sort of pablum that convinces me you'd say the same thing on any speech ... since his entire platform is "hyperbole, blatant lies, conspiracy theories, and ironic statements." So repeating what you believe after a current event that people who think like you already agree with serves nothing. Hell, I read it and don't even gain a single insight to why you came away from it, what the speech was about, or if somebody who posted an identical post had even watched it.

We know you don't agree with Trump's policy ideas and he's behaving ... ... like a politician, apparently. If you see the light, let me know. All I'm taking away from this is Trump gives same speech, liberals give same idiotic response.

On June 23 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:
Lets all rush to tell the previous poster how bad their post was and that it didn’t increase the quality of the Discourse.

On June 23 2016 07:02 ticklishmusic wrote:


No, after providing evidence Trump is full of shit about 50 times I think it's okay to have doubts about the veracity of any new statements.

"Just look at her pathetic email server statements ..."

Trump is likely referring to Clinton’s defense of her use of a private email server. She’s repeatedly said the practice was "allowed."

We rated Clinton’s claim False. No one ever stopped Clinton from using a private serve exclusively, but that doesn’t mean it was allowed. On the contrary, the State Department said if she had asked, she wouldn’t have been allowed to use it.

"...Or her phony landing in Bosnia where she said she was under attack and the attack turned out to be young girls handing her flowers."

We rated this claim True. In all key respects, Trump is correct. Clinton did claim in 2008 that she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire and that there was no greeting ceremony. She later retracted the entire statement. The only flaw in Trump’s speech is he said Clinton was handed flowers. It was a poem, which seems like a trivial difference.

Clinton "made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests. ... Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, CEOs and foreign governments in the years since 2001."

This is accurate. CNN and the Associated Press have both reported the $21.6 million figure, and CNN has also documented the $153 million figure. Bill Clinton alone fetched $104 million, we have reported, in speaking fees between 2001 and 2012, more than half from speeches to foreign countries.

"Hillary Clinton supported Bill Clinton’s totally disastrous NAFTA, just like she supported China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization. We’ve lost nearly one-third of our manufacturing jobs since these two Hillary-backed agreements were signed."

This claim is a mixed bag when it comes to accuracy. Bill Clinton, with the support of Congress, for example, lobbied for China’s inclusion in the WTO. Hillary Clinton initially supported the North American Free Trade Agreement as first lady, but she changed her stance when she was running for president in 2008. Overall, Clinton has largely supported free trade deals.

Do trade deals lead to job loss? The jury is still out. The left-leaning Economic Policy Institute has estimated NAFTA cost the U.S. economy 800,000 jobs. But we found many other nonpartisan reports showing the trade deal produced neither significant job losses nor job gains.

Clinton "effectively let China completely rebuild itself."

This is a variation on a previous Trump talking point: "We’ve rebuilt China." We rated that Half True.

Experts told us China’s meteoric economic growth can be largely attributed to in-house reforms and inclusion in global trade. The United States can take some, but certainly not all, credit for the latter.

"She's deleted at least 30,000 emails."

This is accurate and, in an non-Trumpian twist, actually a slight understatement. Before she turned over some 30,940 emails to the State Depart, Clinton deleted more than 31,000 without any government review taht she says were personal correspondence.

"It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place."

Clinton voted for the Iraq war.

"Hillary Clinton supports a radical 550 percent increase in Syrian refugees coming into the United States, and that's an increase over President Obama's already very high number."

Clinton has said she wants to raise refugee admissions from Obama’s limit of 10,000 to 65,000 — a 550 percent increase. A similar statement rates Mostly True.

"The father of the Orlando shooter was a Taliban supporter from Afghanistan."

This is accurate. On his YouTube channel, Omar Mateen’s father, Seddique, commends "our warrior brothers in (the) Taliban movement," according to the Washington Post.

"Hillary took up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia, and much more from others, where being gay is also punishable by death. Hillary took millions from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and many other countries that horribly abuse women and LGBT citizens."

Clinton herself didn’t take donations from these foreign governments, but it’s True that the Clinton Foundation has. (It doesn’t violate campaign rules for a nonprofit philanthropy to accept donations from foreign governments.)

She’s pledged to grant mass amnesty and in her first 100 days, end virtually all immigration enforcement, and thus create totally open borders in the United States."

Clinton has pledged to act on immigration reform within the first 100 days. She supports a path to equal citizenship but she also supports "detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety."

On June 23 2016 07:20 ticklishmusic wrote:
I haven't expressed my thoughts on his speech at all, so you're barking up the wrong tree - though I suppose it could be considered an adjacent one. I am merely pointing out that Trump has historically had a very poor relationship with facts, a fact you yourself seem to be avoiding.

This thread was doing quite well for a couple weeks after the locking. Shame that doesn't seem to have lasted.

On June 23 2016 07:20 ticklishmusic wrote:
I haven't expressed my thoughts on his speech at all, so you're barking up the wrong tree - though I suppose it could be considered an adjacent one. I am merely pointing out that Trump has historically had a very poor relationship with facts, a fact you yourself seem to be avoiding.

This thread was doing quite well for a couple weeks after the locking. Shame that doesn't seem to have lasted.

On June 23 2016 06:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


Politifact is ranking things Trump says as false when the description on Politifact is 'possible but not data' for the explanation of +1 false count. So they're guilty of the same lying they're accusing him of and aren't any better even by their own standards.

On June 23 2016 07:28 Plansix wrote:
I am still a little miffed no one commented on my article about Hastert being a garbage human, ruining government and also having a name that sounded like Hastur, The Unspeakable One, Him Who Is Not to be Named. I thought I knew my audience.