In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Despite promising "the truth, and nothing else" in his convention speech, Donald Trump presented the nation with a series of previously debunked claims and some new ones Thursday night — about the U.S. tax burden, the perils facing police, Hillary Clinton's record and more.
A look at some of the Republican presidential candidate's claims and how they compare with the facts:
___
TRUMP: "Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration's rollback of criminal enforcement. Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America's 50 largest cities. That's the largest increase in 25 years."
THE FACTS: A rollback? President Barack Obama has actually achieved some big increases in spending for state and local law enforcement, including billions in grants provided through the 2009 stimulus. While FBI crime statistics for 2015 are not yet available, Trump's claim about rising homicides appears to come from a Washington Post analysis published in January. While Trump accurately quotes part of the analysis, he omits that the statistical jump was so large because homicides are still very low by historical standards. In the 50 cities cited by the Post, for example, half as many people were killed last year as in 1991.
___
TRUMP: "The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources."
THE FACTS: The pace of releasing immigrants is driven not by the Obama administration, but by a court ruling. A federal judge ruled last year that the government couldn't hold parents and children in jail for more than 20 days. An appeals court partially rolled that back earlier this month, saying that parents could be detained but children must be released.
By the standard used by the government to estimate illegal border crossings - the number of arrests — Trump is right that the number in this budget year has already exceeded last year's total. But it's down from 2014.
___
TRUMP: "When a secretary of state illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence - I know that corruption has reached a level like never before."
THE FACTS: Clinton's use of a private server to store her emails was not illegal under federal law. Her actions were not established as a crime. The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found. FBI Director James Comey declined to refer the case for criminal prosecution to the Justice Department, instead accusing Clinton of extreme carelessness.
As for Trump's claim that Clinton faces no consequence, that may be true in a legal sense. But the matter has been a distraction to her campaign and fed into public perceptions that she can't be trusted. The election will test whether she has paid a price politically.
___
TRUMP: "The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50 percent compared to this point last year."
THE FACTS: Not according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, which tracks police fatalities daily. The group found that the number of police officers who died as of July 20 is up just slightly this year, at 67, compared with 62 through the same period last year. That includes deaths in the line of duty from all causes, including traffic fatalities.
It is true that there has been a spike in police deaths from intentional shootings, 32 this year compared with 18 last year, largely attributable to the recent mass shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge. But that was not his claim.
And overall, police are statistically safer on America's streets now than at any time in recent decades.
For example, the 109 law enforcement fatalities in 2013 were the lowest since 1956.
___
TRUMP: "Two million more Latinos are in poverty today than when President Obama took his oath of office less than eight years ago. Another 14 million people have left the workforce entirely. ... President Obama has almost doubled our national debt to more than $19 trillion, and growing."
THE FACTS: Trump is playing with numbers to make the economy look worse than it actually is. The sluggish recovery over the past seven years has been frustrating. But with unemployment at 4.9 percent, the situation isn't as bleak as he suggests.
Trump's figure of 14 million who've stopped working since Obama took office comes from the Labor Department's measure of people not in the workforce. It's misleading for three reasons: The U.S. population has increased in that time; the country has aged and people have retired; and younger people are staying in school longer for college and advanced degrees, so they're not in the labor force, either.
A better figure is labor force participation — the share of people with jobs or who are searching for work. That figure has declined from 65.7 percent when Obama took office to 62.7 percent now. Part of that decrease reflects retirements, but the decline is also a long-term trend.
On national debt, economists say a more meaningful measure than dollars is the share of the overall economy taken up by the debt. By that measure, the debt rose 36 percent under Obama (rather than doubling). That's roughly the same as what occurred under Republican President George W. Bush.
The Hispanic population has risen since Obama while the poverty rate has fallen. The Pew Research Center found that 23.5 percent of the country's 55.3 million Latinos live in poverty, compared with 24.7 percent in 2010.
Some of these are not even stretching the truth, they are just wrong. Or lies, depending on how much you think Trump bothers to look into his claims.
Do you even read this shit before you post it?
Do you?
Yep, and it's completely horseshit. It's the kind of thing that gives fact-checkers a bad name. Here's just one example:
TRUMP: "The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources."
THE FACTS: The pace of releasing immigrants is driven not by the Obama administration, but by a court ruling. A federal judge ruled last year that the government couldn't hold parents and children in jail for more than 20 days. An appeals court partially rolled that back earlier this month, saying that parents could be detained but children must be released.
By the standard used by the government to estimate illegal border crossings - the number of arrests — Trump is right that the number in this budget year has already exceeded last year's total. But it's down from 2014.
Trump presented neutral statistics. Why the fuck is this idiot author talking about the Obama administration and judges. What's particularly hilarious is that the author ADMITS THAT TRUMP WAS RIGHT. Jesus fucking Christ! This is journalistic bias (and malpractice) on parade. Yet you are more than happy to mindlessly post it. Bravo.
To be fair, citing "neutral statistics" isn't necessarily neutral. If you're claiming the statistics have a certain significance, but in fact they do not have that significance, you're being deceptive. Also the court case is not really under Obama's control, but Trump is implying it is. That's deceptive.
Since when did fact-checking become the same thing as editorializing? You have to really, really stretch that portion of Trump's speech to find an implication of direct blame on the Obama administration for those immigration statistics as opposed to blaming the entire immigration system as a whole. My whole point is that fact-checking should be left to checking facts. If the statistics cited (the facts) are wrong, then something be said. But that's not what this author did. He's editorializing Trump's speech under the guise of fact-checking, by reading words and meanings (the blame on Obama) into the speech that aren't there. THAT is dishonest.
That said, the mere fact that y'all (and that dipshit author) are so unduly defensive about those statistics speaks volumes about what the real cause is.
Yes clearly I was "unduly defensive". When in fact I was just responding to your claim.
Actually turns out the above claims in Trump's speech referred to Hillary, not Obama. He actually explicitly says his laundry list of things wrong with the country is "Hillary's legacy" LOL:
First his speech lists things that are problems, in 3 areas - domestic non-economic, domestic economic, and foreign policy. At the conclusion of the foreign policy problems (the last set of problems), Trump says,
"This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.
But Hillary Clinton’s legacy does not have to be America’s legacy. The problems we face now – poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad – will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them."
Right there he's saying that "death, destruction and weakness" are a summation of his problem list w/r/t to the 3 areas.
The logical inference that is part of Trump's claim is clown status, and he should be called on it by fact checkers.
On July 22 2016 14:08 KwarK wrote: Like ultimately it comes down to "X is bad, I will fix it". An impartial fact check would confirm both the badness of X and the ability of the person making the claim to fix it.
If this is what the guy did, I would be fine with it....
And yet somehow you're angered that the guy approached it that way and have credit where it was due and criticized where it was lacking, claiming that in doing so he had made a poor job of an attack piece by confirming the statistic. That's his job for fucks sake. I know this is a novel concept to the right but the facts don't actually change just because you want them to.
But I am angry because that is very clearly not what he did. Let's review it again:
TRUMP: "The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources."
THE FACTS: The pace of releasing immigrants is driven not by the Obama administration, but by a court ruling. A federal judge ruled last year that the government couldn't hold parents and children in jail for more than 20 days. An appeals court partially rolled that back earlier this month, saying that parents could be detained but children must be released.
By the standard used by the government to estimate illegal border crossings - the number of arrests — Trump is right that the number in this budget year has already exceeded last year's total. But it's down from 2014.
Trump makes two factual claims: 1) illegal border crossings are up, and 2) tens of thousands of illegals are being released into the community (paraphrasing). That is it.
Under the guide of "fact-checking," our dipshit author calls out this particular section of Trump's speech claiming that it is false. However, what he actually does is the following: 1) Admit Trump is right that illegal border crossings up, but also needlessly state that they are not as high as they were in 2014, and 2) neither directly confirm nor deny that Trump's claim that tens of thousands of illegals are being released into the community, but instead explain why tens of thousands of illegals are being released into the community in an effort to rebut a charge against Obama that wasn't made.
Again, the funny part is that the dipshit author essentially confirms that what Trump said is entirely true, despite implying that it is false.
This really is cut and dry. I'm surprised that y'all are fighting me on this.
Despite promising "the truth, and nothing else" in his convention speech, Donald Trump presented the nation with a series of previously debunked claims and some new ones Thursday night — about the U.S. tax burden, the perils facing police, Hillary Clinton's record and more.
A look at some of the Republican presidential candidate's claims and how they compare with the facts:
___
TRUMP: "Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration's rollback of criminal enforcement. Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America's 50 largest cities. That's the largest increase in 25 years."
THE FACTS: A rollback? President Barack Obama has actually achieved some big increases in spending for state and local law enforcement, including billions in grants provided through the 2009 stimulus. While FBI crime statistics for 2015 are not yet available, Trump's claim about rising homicides appears to come from a Washington Post analysis published in January. While Trump accurately quotes part of the analysis, he omits that the statistical jump was so large because homicides are still very low by historical standards. In the 50 cities cited by the Post, for example, half as many people were killed last year as in 1991.
___
TRUMP: "The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources."
THE FACTS: The pace of releasing immigrants is driven not by the Obama administration, but by a court ruling. A federal judge ruled last year that the government couldn't hold parents and children in jail for more than 20 days. An appeals court partially rolled that back earlier this month, saying that parents could be detained but children must be released.
By the standard used by the government to estimate illegal border crossings - the number of arrests — Trump is right that the number in this budget year has already exceeded last year's total. But it's down from 2014.
___
TRUMP: "When a secretary of state illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence - I know that corruption has reached a level like never before."
THE FACTS: Clinton's use of a private server to store her emails was not illegal under federal law. Her actions were not established as a crime. The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found. FBI Director James Comey declined to refer the case for criminal prosecution to the Justice Department, instead accusing Clinton of extreme carelessness.
As for Trump's claim that Clinton faces no consequence, that may be true in a legal sense. But the matter has been a distraction to her campaign and fed into public perceptions that she can't be trusted. The election will test whether she has paid a price politically.
___
TRUMP: "The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50 percent compared to this point last year."
THE FACTS: Not according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, which tracks police fatalities daily. The group found that the number of police officers who died as of July 20 is up just slightly this year, at 67, compared with 62 through the same period last year. That includes deaths in the line of duty from all causes, including traffic fatalities.
It is true that there has been a spike in police deaths from intentional shootings, 32 this year compared with 18 last year, largely attributable to the recent mass shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge. But that was not his claim.
And overall, police are statistically safer on America's streets now than at any time in recent decades.
For example, the 109 law enforcement fatalities in 2013 were the lowest since 1956.
___
TRUMP: "Two million more Latinos are in poverty today than when President Obama took his oath of office less than eight years ago. Another 14 million people have left the workforce entirely. ... President Obama has almost doubled our national debt to more than $19 trillion, and growing."
THE FACTS: Trump is playing with numbers to make the economy look worse than it actually is. The sluggish recovery over the past seven years has been frustrating. But with unemployment at 4.9 percent, the situation isn't as bleak as he suggests.
Trump's figure of 14 million who've stopped working since Obama took office comes from the Labor Department's measure of people not in the workforce. It's misleading for three reasons: The U.S. population has increased in that time; the country has aged and people have retired; and younger people are staying in school longer for college and advanced degrees, so they're not in the labor force, either.
A better figure is labor force participation — the share of people with jobs or who are searching for work. That figure has declined from 65.7 percent when Obama took office to 62.7 percent now. Part of that decrease reflects retirements, but the decline is also a long-term trend.
On national debt, economists say a more meaningful measure than dollars is the share of the overall economy taken up by the debt. By that measure, the debt rose 36 percent under Obama (rather than doubling). That's roughly the same as what occurred under Republican President George W. Bush.
The Hispanic population has risen since Obama while the poverty rate has fallen. The Pew Research Center found that 23.5 percent of the country's 55.3 million Latinos live in poverty, compared with 24.7 percent in 2010.
Some of these are not even stretching the truth, they are just wrong. Or lies, depending on how much you think Trump bothers to look into his claims.
Do you even read this shit before you post it?
Do you?
Yep, and it's completely horseshit. It's the kind of thing that gives fact-checkers a bad name. Here's just one example:
TRUMP: "The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources."
THE FACTS: The pace of releasing immigrants is driven not by the Obama administration, but by a court ruling. A federal judge ruled last year that the government couldn't hold parents and children in jail for more than 20 days. An appeals court partially rolled that back earlier this month, saying that parents could be detained but children must be released.
By the standard used by the government to estimate illegal border crossings - the number of arrests — Trump is right that the number in this budget year has already exceeded last year's total. But it's down from 2014.
Trump presented neutral statistics. Why the fuck is this idiot author talking about the Obama administration and judges. What's particularly hilarious is that the author ADMITS THAT TRUMP WAS RIGHT. Jesus fucking Christ! This is journalistic bias (and malpractice) on parade. Yet you are more than happy to mindlessly post it. Bravo.
To be fair, citing "neutral statistics" isn't necessarily neutral. If you're claiming the statistics have a certain significance, but in fact they do not have that significance, you're being deceptive. Also the court case is not really under Obama's control, but Trump is implying it is. That's deceptive.
Since when did fact-checking become the same thing as editorializing? You have to really, really stretch that portion of Trump's speech to find an implication of direct blame on the Obama administration for those immigration statistics as opposed to blaming the entire immigration system as a whole. My whole point is that fact-checking should be left to checking facts. If the statistics cited (the facts) are wrong, then something be said. But that's not what this author did. He's editorializing Trump's speech under the guise of fact-checking, by reading words and meanings (the blame on Obama) into the speech that aren't there. THAT is dishonest.
That said, the mere fact that y'all (and that dipshit author) are so unduly defensive about those statistics speaks volumes about what the real cause is.
Yes clearly I was "unduly defensive". When in fact I was just responding to your claim.
Actually turns out the above claims in Trump's speech referred to Hillary, not Obama. He actually explicitly says his laundry list of things wrong with the country is "Hillary's legacy" LOL:
First his speech lists things that are problems, in 3 areas - domestic non-economic, domestic economic, and foreign policy. At the conclusion of the foreign policy problems (the last set of problems), Trump says,
"This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.
But Hillary Clinton’s legacy does not have to be America’s legacy. The problems we face now – poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad – will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them."
Right there he's saying that "death, destruction and weakness" are a summation of his problem list w/r/t to the 3 areas.
The logical inference that is part of Trump's claim is clown status, and he should be called on it by fact checkers.
So your interpretation is that Trump blamed Hillary for those illegal immigration statistics. You're clearly a master of taking things out of context.
Despite promising "the truth, and nothing else" in his convention speech, Donald Trump presented the nation with a series of previously debunked claims and some new ones Thursday night — about the U.S. tax burden, the perils facing police, Hillary Clinton's record and more.
A look at some of the Republican presidential candidate's claims and how they compare with the facts:
___
TRUMP: "Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration's rollback of criminal enforcement. Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America's 50 largest cities. That's the largest increase in 25 years."
THE FACTS: A rollback? President Barack Obama has actually achieved some big increases in spending for state and local law enforcement, including billions in grants provided through the 2009 stimulus. While FBI crime statistics for 2015 are not yet available, Trump's claim about rising homicides appears to come from a Washington Post analysis published in January. While Trump accurately quotes part of the analysis, he omits that the statistical jump was so large because homicides are still very low by historical standards. In the 50 cities cited by the Post, for example, half as many people were killed last year as in 1991.
___
TRUMP: "The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources."
THE FACTS: The pace of releasing immigrants is driven not by the Obama administration, but by a court ruling. A federal judge ruled last year that the government couldn't hold parents and children in jail for more than 20 days. An appeals court partially rolled that back earlier this month, saying that parents could be detained but children must be released.
By the standard used by the government to estimate illegal border crossings - the number of arrests — Trump is right that the number in this budget year has already exceeded last year's total. But it's down from 2014.
___
TRUMP: "When a secretary of state illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence - I know that corruption has reached a level like never before."
THE FACTS: Clinton's use of a private server to store her emails was not illegal under federal law. Her actions were not established as a crime. The FBI investigated the matter and its role was to advise the Justice Department whether to bring charges against her based on what it found. FBI Director James Comey declined to refer the case for criminal prosecution to the Justice Department, instead accusing Clinton of extreme carelessness.
As for Trump's claim that Clinton faces no consequence, that may be true in a legal sense. But the matter has been a distraction to her campaign and fed into public perceptions that she can't be trusted. The election will test whether she has paid a price politically.
___
TRUMP: "The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50 percent compared to this point last year."
THE FACTS: Not according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, which tracks police fatalities daily. The group found that the number of police officers who died as of July 20 is up just slightly this year, at 67, compared with 62 through the same period last year. That includes deaths in the line of duty from all causes, including traffic fatalities.
It is true that there has been a spike in police deaths from intentional shootings, 32 this year compared with 18 last year, largely attributable to the recent mass shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge. But that was not his claim.
And overall, police are statistically safer on America's streets now than at any time in recent decades.
For example, the 109 law enforcement fatalities in 2013 were the lowest since 1956.
___
TRUMP: "Two million more Latinos are in poverty today than when President Obama took his oath of office less than eight years ago. Another 14 million people have left the workforce entirely. ... President Obama has almost doubled our national debt to more than $19 trillion, and growing."
THE FACTS: Trump is playing with numbers to make the economy look worse than it actually is. The sluggish recovery over the past seven years has been frustrating. But with unemployment at 4.9 percent, the situation isn't as bleak as he suggests.
Trump's figure of 14 million who've stopped working since Obama took office comes from the Labor Department's measure of people not in the workforce. It's misleading for three reasons: The U.S. population has increased in that time; the country has aged and people have retired; and younger people are staying in school longer for college and advanced degrees, so they're not in the labor force, either.
A better figure is labor force participation — the share of people with jobs or who are searching for work. That figure has declined from 65.7 percent when Obama took office to 62.7 percent now. Part of that decrease reflects retirements, but the decline is also a long-term trend.
On national debt, economists say a more meaningful measure than dollars is the share of the overall economy taken up by the debt. By that measure, the debt rose 36 percent under Obama (rather than doubling). That's roughly the same as what occurred under Republican President George W. Bush.
The Hispanic population has risen since Obama while the poverty rate has fallen. The Pew Research Center found that 23.5 percent of the country's 55.3 million Latinos live in poverty, compared with 24.7 percent in 2010.
Some of these are not even stretching the truth, they are just wrong. Or lies, depending on how much you think Trump bothers to look into his claims.
Do you even read this shit before you post it?
Do you?
Yep, and it's completely horseshit. It's the kind of thing that gives fact-checkers a bad name. Here's just one example:
TRUMP: "The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources."
THE FACTS: The pace of releasing immigrants is driven not by the Obama administration, but by a court ruling. A federal judge ruled last year that the government couldn't hold parents and children in jail for more than 20 days. An appeals court partially rolled that back earlier this month, saying that parents could be detained but children must be released.
By the standard used by the government to estimate illegal border crossings - the number of arrests — Trump is right that the number in this budget year has already exceeded last year's total. But it's down from 2014.
Trump presented neutral statistics. Why the fuck is this idiot author talking about the Obama administration and judges. What's particularly hilarious is that the author ADMITS THAT TRUMP WAS RIGHT. Jesus fucking Christ! This is journalistic bias (and malpractice) on parade. Yet you are more than happy to mindlessly post it. Bravo.
To be fair, citing "neutral statistics" isn't necessarily neutral. If you're claiming the statistics have a certain significance, but in fact they do not have that significance, you're being deceptive. Also the court case is not really under Obama's control, but Trump is implying it is. That's deceptive.
Since when did fact-checking become the same thing as editorializing? You have to really, really stretch that portion of Trump's speech to find an implication of direct blame on the Obama administration for those immigration statistics as opposed to blaming the entire immigration system as a whole. My whole point is that fact-checking should be left to checking facts. If the statistics cited (the facts) are wrong, then something be said. But that's not what this author did. He's editorializing Trump's speech under the guise of fact-checking, by reading words and meanings (the blame on Obama) into the speech that aren't there. THAT is dishonest.
That said, the mere fact that y'all (and that dipshit author) are so unduly defensive about those statistics speaks volumes about what the real cause is.
Yes clearly I was "unduly defensive". When in fact I was just responding to your claim.
Actually turns out the above claims in Trump's speech referred to Hillary, not Obama. He actually explicitly says his laundry list of things wrong with the country is "Hillary's legacy" LOL:
First his speech lists things that are problems, in 3 areas - domestic non-economic, domestic economic, and foreign policy. At the conclusion of the foreign policy problems (the last set of problems), Trump says,
"This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.
But Hillary Clinton’s legacy does not have to be America’s legacy. The problems we face now – poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad – will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them."
Right there he's saying that "death, destruction and weakness" are a summation of his problem list w/r/t to the 3 areas.
The logical inference that is part of Trump's claim is clown status, and he should be called on it by fact checkers.
So your interpretation is that Trump blamed Hillary for those illegal immigration statistics. You're clearly a master of taking things out of context.
It's not my interpretation, it's his explicit inference:
"This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness."
You're still trying to argue that the author fucked up by giving credit where it was due as if that wasn't both intentional and also his actual job. And if it's not within the power of the President why the hell is Trump talking about how bad it is. You wanna talk about implications, the implication of all the bad stuff Trump chose to list is that it'll be different if he was President. This is a Presidential campaign speech, you can't simply ignore that context.
On July 22 2016 14:23 KwarK wrote: You're still trying to argue that the author fucked up by giving credit where it was due as if that wasn't both intentional and also his actual job. And if it's not within the power of the President why the hell is Trump talking about how bad it is. You wanna talk about implications, the implication of all the bad stuff Trump chose to list is that it'll be different if he was President. This is a Presidential campaign speech, you can't simply ignore that context.
He actually explicitly said that his problem list is Hillary's legacy. Can't make this stuff up. That was a central point he made - one of the main thrusts of his speech. The transition in his speech at the end of the problem list is that the problem list is Hillary's legacy. Then he goes on to give out his own plan for the problems. It's a central piece of the speech LOL.
On July 22 2016 14:27 ticklishmusic wrote: trump must have said "believe me" after every other sentence, seems like he himself is not very convinced he's making a good argument
It's really amazing the extent of people's hatred of the media. It will cause them to interpret Trump favorably just because the media is saying the opposite.
On July 22 2016 14:27 ticklishmusic wrote: trump must have said "believe me" after every other sentence, seems like he himself is not very convinced he's making a good argument
What kind of attack is this even?
(boo)
its a comment on the fact he has shit delivery. the only person allowed to say believe me (or rather, believe it) like that is naruto. he comes of as either unsure of himself or a sleazy used car salesman.
On July 22 2016 14:30 Doodsmack wrote: It's really amazing the extent of people's hatred of the media. It will cause them to interpret Trump favorably just because the media is saying the opposite.
People love to say they hate the media but they stay in business for a reason. People still eat shit up because everyone wants to believe that they are not dumb like everyone else and can easily overcome personal bias and be informed enough about every issue to pick up what truth and what is BS. Its basically people just cognitive biasing their balls off.
The media in all its incarnations really distorts perceptions. Which, to take a recent example, the RNC convention can get away with all this fear and violence talk and people believe them.
On July 22 2016 14:27 ticklishmusic wrote: trump must have said "believe me" after every other sentence, seems like he himself is not very convinced he's making a good argument
What kind of attack is this even?
(boo)
its a comment on the fact he has shit delivery. the only person allowed to say believe me (or rather, believe it) like that is naruto. he comes of as either unsure of himself or a sleazy used car salesman.
Doesn't seem like most people seem to mind. Anyway, I think it strengthens his message to a lot of people, though occasionally, he does overuse it.
On July 22 2016 14:23 KwarK wrote: You're still trying to argue that the author fucked up by giving credit where it was due as if that wasn't both intentional and also his actual job. And if it's not within the power of the President why the hell is Trump talking about how bad it is. You wanna talk about implications, the implication of all the bad stuff Trump chose to list is that it'll be different if he was President. This is a Presidential campaign speech, you can't simply ignore that context.
By this logic, every new policy proposal to remedy a problem is an attack on the prior administration simply because the prior administration did not fix it. Sorry, but that's absurd. It's far simpler and more logically consistent to simply read the subject passages and take them at face value -- particularly when you are "fact-checking."
On July 22 2016 14:23 KwarK wrote: You're still trying to argue that the author fucked up by giving credit where it was due as if that wasn't both intentional and also his actual job. And if it's not within the power of the President why the hell is Trump talking about how bad it is. You wanna talk about implications, the implication of all the bad stuff Trump chose to list is that it'll be different if he was President. This is a Presidential campaign speech, you can't simply ignore that context.
By this logic, every new policy proposal to remedy a problem is an attack on the prior administration simply because the prior administration did not fix it. Sorry, but that's absurd. It's far simpler and more logically consistent to simply read the subject passages and take them at face value -- particularly when you are "fact-checking."
Do you not think it's a little dishonest to attack policies he has no ability to fix, should he win, at a Presidential rally? Or to put it another way, if you did a poll of audience members who heard that speech, how many do you think would believe Trump plans to end the release of those illegals ordered released by the courts? The entire purpose of the rally is to talk about how a bad job is being done and how you'll do a better job. He is interviewing for a position with the country. He is saying "give me the job and I will fix it", that context is inescapable.
For anyone who didn't watch the speech - from 37:15-39:15... Literally brought tears to my eyes. Question the truth of it, but the response was beautiful. Hard to tell right now for sure, but what Trump is bringing to the party might be exactly what it has needed.
On July 22 2016 14:23 KwarK wrote: You're still trying to argue that the author fucked up by giving credit where it was due as if that wasn't both intentional and also his actual job. And if it's not within the power of the President why the hell is Trump talking about how bad it is. You wanna talk about implications, the implication of all the bad stuff Trump chose to list is that it'll be different if he was President. This is a Presidential campaign speech, you can't simply ignore that context.
By this logic, every new policy proposal to remedy a problem is an attack on the prior administration simply because the prior administration did not fix it. Sorry, but that's absurd. It's far simpler and more logically consistent to simply read the subject passages and take them at face value -- particularly when you are "fact-checking."
Do you not think it's a little dishonest to attack policies he has no ability to fix, should he win, at a Presidential rally? Or to put it another way, if you did a poll of audience members who heard that speech, how many do you think would believe Trump plans to end the release of those illegals ordered released by the courts? The entire purpose of the rally is to talk about how a bad job is being done and how you'll do a better job. He is interviewing for a position with the country. He is saying "give me the job and I will fix it", that context is inescapable.
No, that is not correct. For it to be correct, 1) we'd have to presume that the president is responsible for all of the problems that need to be fixed, 2) that a president who is not actively working to correct those problems is necessarily doing a bad job, and 3) that a candidate running on a platform to fix those problems is necessarily blaming the predecessor president. There are any number of scenarios where a particular problem may be a subject that a presidential candidate highlights to be fixed as part of his platform, but the problem is not attributable to the candidate's predecessor -- and the candidate chooses very specifically not to blame the predecessor. This happens all of the time when the candidates are in the same political party as the incumbent president.
Long story short, you're creating a contextual basis out of thin air to justify the author's hack job.
On July 22 2016 14:56 FiWiFaKi wrote: For anyone who didn't watch the speech - from 37:15-39:15... Literally brought tears to my eyes. Question the truth of it, but the response was beautiful. Hard to tell right now for sure, but what Trump is bringing to the party might be exactly what it has needed.
I mean it's vacuous and problematic as all hell, but it's still the best the GOP has offered at this level. Ironic coming from what we're made to believe is the biggest bigot the GOP has had to offer in a while.
On July 22 2016 14:56 FiWiFaKi wrote: For anyone who didn't watch the speech - from 37:15-39:15... Literally brought tears to my eyes. Question the truth of it, but the response was beautiful. Hard to tell right now for sure, but what Trump is bringing to the party might be exactly what it has needed.
I mean it's vacuous and problematic as all hell, but it's still the best the GOP has offered at this level. Ironic coming from what we're made to believe is the biggest bigot the GOP has had to offer in a while.
I'll take the Trump compliment I suppose.
But I will say, calling Trump racist, sexist, or anti-gay has always been misinformed. The one argument you can make is he's potentially somewhat skeptical of Islam. Honestly, I just really really hope people give Trump a chance, and look at him again with fewer preconceived notions.
I know it just sounds like I'm flaunting Trump support, but I really think he would be good for the country, and he's what the country needs. See through the non-PC statements he said, and just give him a try... It's very easy to make Hillary look bad, and it's also very easy to make Trump look bad, just depends which side you're standing on. Try to start in the middle. I know I'm a bit biased at this point as I have gone into this camp, but when I read the statements here... All too often people come here with the notion that he's a lunatic bigot, and really, he's not. He's not perfect, but he's not most of what you guys accuse him to be.
Anyway, apologies for the emotionally charged statements, but I wanted to get them out there because I thought they're important. Well, I'm done for the day.
On July 22 2016 14:56 FiWiFaKi wrote: For anyone who didn't watch the speech - from 37:15-39:15... Literally brought tears to my eyes. Question the truth of it, but the response was beautiful. Hard to tell right now for sure, but what Trump is bringing to the party might be exactly what it has needed.
EPT
