Criticizing Trump to hide the fact that

[ellapenella]

Not only did hillery and obama create isis but they armed them too. Hillery and Obama  destabilize the entire M.E  and are wanting to continue  to bring the M.E here KNOWING that isis said they will infiltrate in the masses coming into the western world. And that's not even everything wrong that hillery and obama have done, they  have  audacity to  criticize anyone but they try  especially now since they are openly confronted about  what they've done and want to continue to do.You would think that people would understand the seriousness of what's happening .  All obama and hillery have to stand on is for people to  be distracted with the rumors and lies they put out. That's how stupid they think people are. They've openly stated that people are stupid.

[GlitterRose]

3 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

is that all you have? as if someone needs to go run and look up the horrors of the Clinton's and the Obama's. but you're that brainwashed generation I guess ,you know what i mean? 

Trump is lying most of the time. You can fact-check, yourself, to see it. The words are coming right from his mouth. It's not difficult. 

Like this one...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjEg4C56KXOAhWD7iYKHfYTAnoQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.factcheck.org%2F2016%2F03%2Ftrump-universitys-d-rating%2F&usg=AFQjCNHHMN4Be6PcDRXop7W_P0Yj2uEfTg

Oh...Trump U had an A rating. 

No. Trump had a D- rating. And a federal judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed. 

[questionmark]

2 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Trump is lying most of the time. You can fact-check, yourself, to see it. The words are coming right from his mouth. It's not difficult. 

Like this one...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjEg4C56KXOAhWD7iYKHfYTAnoQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.factcheck.org%2F2016%2F03%2Ftrump-universitys-d-rating%2F&usg=AFQjCNHHMN4Be6PcDRXop7W_P0Yj2uEfTg

Oh...Trump U had an A rating. 

No. Trump had a D- rating. And a federal judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed. 

D? I thought it was 4F like all diploma mills?

[GlitterRose]

If we're gonna talk about hiding stuff...where are Trump's tax returns? He did promise that he would release them. Another lie, I guess. 

[Doc Socks Junior]

2 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

is that all you have? as if someone needs to go run and look up the horrors of the Clinton's and the Obama's. but you're that brainwashed generation I guess ,you know what i mean? 

Yes, I know what you mean (rather impressively, given the incoherence).

I'm really curious though, could you tell me about the horrors of the Clinton's WHAT and the Obama's WHAT? The nebulous implication of possession fascinates me. 

I object to the brainwashed characterization. I don't support Clinton (as you could tell if you took a break from incoherent insults). My post was in reply to someone saying that Hillary was doing better on Politifact than Trump. It was not pro-Hillary, or pro-Politifact.

I advise you to look before you make the leap of calling someone brainwashed (especially when they're actually in agreement with some of the things you're saying). 

[GlitterRose]

1 minute ago, socrates.junior said:

Yes, I know what you mean (rather impressively, given the incoherence).

I'm really curious though, could you tell me about the horrors of the Clinton's WHAT and the Obama's WHAT? The nebulous implication of possession fascinates me. 

I object to the brainwashed characterization. I don't support Clinton (as you could tell if you took a break from incoherent insults). My post was in reply to someone saying that Hillary was doing better on Politifact than Trump. It was not pro-Hillary, or pro-Politifact.

I advise you to look before you make the leap of calling someone brainwashed (especially when they're actually in agreement with some of the things you're saying). 

PolitiFact...winner of a Pulitzer prize. But Trump quotes the Enquirer and thinks they deserve one. 

While PolitiFact has won several awards, the site has been both praised and criticized by independent observers, conservatives and liberals alike.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjvtJvT6qXOAhVG7SYKHXuiAboQFghQMA0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPolitiFact.com&usg=AFQjCNHZiYUMIsS4lG3Ktsz7_xlfhFWxOA

Seems like everyone thinks they're biased when the fact being checked is one of theirs.

[questionmark]

2 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

Yes, I know what you mean (rather impressively, given the incoherence).

I'm really curious though, could you tell me about the horrors of the Clinton's WHAT and the Obama's WHAT? The nebulous implication of possession fascinates me. 

I object to the brainwashed characterization. I don't support Clinton (as you could tell if you took a break from incoherent insults). My post was in reply to someone saying that Hillary was doing better on Politifact than Trump. It was not pro-Hillary, or pro-Politifact.

I advise you to look before you make the leap of calling someone brainwashed (especially when they're actually in agreement with some of the things you're saying). 

But, but... you insulted her George Washington and Messiah by mentioning facts!

[Doc Socks Junior]

2 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

PolitiFact...winner of a Pulitzer prize. But Trump quotes the Enquirer and thinks they deserve one. 

While PolitiFact has won several awards, the site has been both praised and criticized by independent observers, conservatives and liberals alike.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjvtJvT6qXOAhVG7SYKHXuiAboQFghQMA0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPolitiFact.com&usg=AFQjCNHZiYUMIsS4lG3Ktsz7_xlfhFWxOA

Seems like everyone thinks they're biased when the fact being checked is one of theirs.

Ah yes, a nice navel-gaze of a Pulitzer. Forgive me if I'm not wowed. I'm also similarly unimpressed by the Wikipedia article on Politifact. The fact (heh) is, they peddle in an inconsistent, nuanced brand of "fact-checking" that merely pretends objectivity.

(Also, there's probably a way to avoid having your links encompass multiple lines, which would also enable people to more clearly see what they are.)

[Leonardo]

7 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

Ah yes, a nice navel-gaze of a Pulitzer. Forgive me if I'm not wowed. I'm also similarly unimpressed by the Wikipedia article on Politifact. The fact (heh) is, they peddle in an inconsistent, nuanced brand of "fact-checking" that merely pretends objectivity.

(Also, there's probably a way to avoid having your links encompass multiple lines, which would also enable people to more clearly see what they are.)

While I don't doubt Politifact have their pros and their cons, can you point to any evidence they are wrong when the site lists Donald Trump as being more consistently a liar than Hillary Clinton?

Yes, the site can be wrong, but they can also be right. Your interruption of the debate regarding Clinton vs Trump, and diverting it to being a criticism of Politifact must have substance that makes it relevant to the debate you interrupted, yes?

[Doc Socks Junior]

I didn't interrupt the debate, Politifact was already brought up as a yardstick for measuring them. I believe its a flawed yardstick, and said so.

Characterizing what I did as a disruption/diversion is incorrect, but good try.

[Leonardo]

6 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

I didn't interrupt the debate, Politifact was already brought up as a yardstick for measuring them. I believe its a flawed yardstick, and said so.

Characterizing what I did as a disruption/diversion is incorrect, but good try.

Is Politifact incorrect when they list Trump as being more consistently a liar than Clinton?

That was the "fact" that you attacked Politifact over. If it is wrong, your attack is justified and relevant. If it is correct, however, your attack is not only irrelevant to the debate but a "red-herring" fallacy.

[Setton]

Ella, are you actually just Trump on his day off? Because your posts have about as much in the way of significant content as his speeches. They are nothing but your own opinions portrayed as fact, fillers to draw away from the fact that you have no substance or attacks on people who criticise you - or even agree because you clearly don't understand what's going on. If you can start referring to yourself in the third person, you'll have the full set.

And as an added bonus, in this one, you managed all four...

1 hour ago, Ellapennella said:

is that all you have? as if someone needs to go run and look up the horrors of the Clinton's and the Obama's. but you're that brainwashed generation I guess ,you know what i mean? 

Sorry, better put that in Donaldish so you can follow:

And, you know, because we know what people like you are like, trust me, I know them, in this one you had all four. And that's the problem with your government, you know what I mean, some people just don't understand but I do because I'm not like everyone else. Setton understands these things.

[Doc Socks Junior]

6 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Is Politifact incorrect when they list Trump as being more consistently a liar than Clinton?

That was the "fact" that you attacked Politifact over. If it is wrong, your attack is justified and relevant. If it is correct, however, your attack is not only irrelevant to the debate but a "red-herring" fallacy.

Incorrect, that was not what I "attacked" Politifact about. As it is, if you feel that what I was saying was irrelevant, feel free to ignore it. You already are if that's what you took away from it.

Maybe a parable would be of use here.

Once, 2 kids were arguing about which pile of dung was the larger. They became very heated during this argument. One kid decided they'd measure the piles of dung with a yardstick. However, this yardstick was floppy, and they would never get a consistent measurement. Being a kid, they didnt know any better. A wise stranger happened by, and told them that this yard stick was hardly an objective way to measure the piles of dung.

As he finishes saying this, a villager remonstrates him, telling him that the objectivity of the yardstick is completely irrelevant, primarily because the villager agreed with what it gave as the measurement.

End parable.

[questionmark]

2 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

Incorrect, that was not what I "attacked" Politifact about. As it is, if you feel that what I was saying was irrelevant, feel free to ignore it. You already are if that's what you took away from it.

Maybe a parable would be of use here.

Once, 2 kids were arguing about which pile of dung was the larger. They became very heated during this argument. One kid decided they'd measure the piles of dung with a yardstick. However, this yardstick was floppy, and they would never get a consistent measurement. Being a kid, they didnt know any better. A wise stranger happened by, and told them that this yard stick was hardly an objective way to measure the piles of dung.

As he finishes saying this, a villager remonstrates him, telling him that the objectivity of the yardstick is completely irrelevant, primarily because the villager agreed with what it gave as the measurement.

End parable.

Let me help you: Leo does not want any parables, he wants you to demonstrate that Politfact is wrong. You are just digging yourself a deeper hole.

 

[Leonardo]

5 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

Incorrect, that was not what I "attacked" Politifact about. As it is, if you feel that what I was saying was irrelevant, feel free to ignore it. You already are if that's what you took away from it.

Maybe a parable would be of use here.

Once, 2 kids were arguing about which pile of dung was the larger. They became very heated during this argument. One kid decided they'd measure the piles of dung with a yardstick. However, this yardstick was floppy, and they would never get a consistent measurement. Being a kid, they didnt know any better. A wise stranger happened by, and told them that this yard stick was hardly an objective way to measure the piles of dung.

As he finishes saying this, a villager remonstrates him, telling him that the objectivity of the yardstick is completely irrelevant, primarily because the villager agreed with what it gave as the measurement.

End parable.

Really? But that is the pertinent fact that ChaosRose quoted from them. So, you are saying the fact ChaosRose quoted - that Trump is a more consistent liar than Hillary Clinton - is quite correct, but because Politifact are an organisation you don't hold in high regard, we should ignore any correct fact they promote on their site?

Gotcha, ignore anything that Politifact correctly promotes as a fact. That is how to be objective and fair!

[smarterthanyou]

New poster here. I NEVER post online because the smaller footprint the better. With that said i felt compelled to create an account here because of all the libtards that keep creeping into every thread either with malicious intent or maybe just plain stupidity.  Donald Trump is far from perfect. Even his supporters agree. But he is not evil and not trying to destroy our rights, country, or freedoms. This cannot be said of almost everyone else in gubmint today. The federal cesspool throws you a phone and just enough food stamps and you blindly follow like lemmings to your ultimate death. I can't stand people like Gingrich but he let the cat out of the bag. He said Trump is feared by establishment because he has not been initiated. These are not just words. Both sides have risen to one level or another because they have partaken of different levels of debauchery, willingly or otherwise. Emails have Hitlery herself stating she "needs to go out in the backyard to sacrifice a.chiken to molok". Some have just been coerced into affairs that are unknowinly recorded just to blackmail them into doing what they are told. If it was any one thing, i would agree it would sound crazy, but if some of you actually do the research as you claim to, you will find that the rabbit hole is sooooo much deeper than you could imagine that it cannot be refuted. Trump is ready to expose all of them given the chance. But he needs to have the authority to make it stick or the lemmings will continue listening to the controlled media clowns. There is not enough time or space here to lodge even a noteworthy rendition of the laundry list of evil, but let me just leave you with the LATEST death related to the clinton cartel. The man who wrote the book on the clintons, Thorn, conveniently just wound up dead."apparent" suicide. Right, just like the other 47 or so. One.man reportedly shot himself, then cut himself into pieces and put himself in a dumpster. Thats right he was ruled a suicide. Please take off the food stamp colored glasses and really look at what is going on.

Ok, since i know some of you are brain dead, let the attacks begin. To the rest of you, you are not wrong or crazy. In fact you are the only ones really paying attention. Kudos and keep up the good work. Remember who the enemy really is. Those who seek to control you!!!

Namaste

[Doc Socks Junior]

No, once again, you're misrepresenting my position. You're quite good at doing that.

Since you may be satisfied with a cogent example of bias, how about when PF decided to not downgrade Clinton's claim about the classified status of her emails at the time of sending from "Half True", because they would have had to utilize new info? (It turns out that they decided to backpedal on that one, because even a bunch of biased nitwits could see it made them look like biased nitwits.)

So, in the light of behavior such as that, it would be well to be wary regarding the claims of PF regarding Clinton being more consistently truthful than Trump.

 

[questionmark]

Just now, socrates.junior said:

No, once again, you're misrepresenting my position. You're quite good at doing that.

Since you may be satisfied with a cogent example of bias, how about when PF decided to not downgrade Clinton's claim about the classified status of her emails at the time of sending from "Half True", because they would have had to utilize new info? (It turns out that they decided to backpedal on that one, because even a bunch of biased nitwits could see it made them look like biased nitwits.)

So, in the light of behavior such as that, it would be well to be wary regarding the claims of PF regarding Clinton being more consistently truthful than Trump.

 

But to claim that you mist be able to prove it. Or are you a politician now who does not and we need fact checkers to see how much truth is in your assertions?

 

[Setton]

3 minutes ago, smarterthanyou said:

New poster here. I NEVER post online because the smaller footprint the better. With that said i felt compelled to create an account here because of all the libtards that keep creeping into every thread either with malicious intent or maybe just plain stupidity.  Donald Trump is far from perfect. Even his supporters agree. But he is not evil and not trying to destroy our rights, country, or freedoms. This cannot be said of almost everyone else in gubmint today. The federal cesspool throws you a phone and just enough food stamps and you blindly follow like lemmings to your ultimate death. I can't stand people like Gingrich but he let the cat out of the bag. He said Trump is feared by establishment because he has not been initiated. These are not just words. Both sides have risen to one level or another because they have partaken of different levels of debauchery, willingly or otherwise. Emails have Hitlery herself stating she "needs to go out in the backyard to sacrifice a.chiken to molok". Some have just been coerced into affairs that are unknowinly recorded just to blackmail them into doing what they are told. If it was any one thing, i would agree it would sound crazy, but if some of you actually do the research as you claim to, you will find that the rabbit hole is sooooo much deeper than you could imagine that it cannot be refuted. Trump is ready to expose all of them given the chance. But he needs to have the authority to make it stick or the lemmings will continue listening to the controlled media clowns. There is not enough time or space here to lodge even a noteworthy rendition of the laundry list of evil, but let me just leave you with the LATEST death related to the clinton cartel. The man who wrote the book on the clintons, Thorn, conveniently just wound up dead."apparent" suicide. Right, just like the other 47 or so. One.man reportedly shot himself, then cut himself into pieces and put himself in a dumpster. Thats right he was ruled a suicide. Please take off the food stamp colored glasses and really look at what is going on.

Ok, since i know some of you are brain dead, let the attacks begin. To the rest of you, you are not wrong or crazy. In fact you are the only ones really paying attention. Kudos and keep up the good work. Remember who the enemy really is. Those who seek to control you!!!

Namaste

Oh goody, gather round kids, it's time for story time with Mr Crazy Conspiracy.

[GlitterRose]

59 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

Ah yes, a nice navel-gaze of a Pulitzer. Forgive me if I'm not wowed. I'm also similarly unimpressed by the Wikipedia article on Politifact. The fact (heh) is, they peddle in an inconsistent, nuanced brand of "fact-checking" that merely pretends objectivity.

(Also, there's probably a way to avoid having your links encompass multiple lines, which would also enable people to more clearly see what they are.)

So you prefer the Enquirer, then? 

You can actually read the news, go fact check on it...find videos of Trump saying the actual things claimed, and still it's the biased media. Lol. 

When I look around, myself, to fact check Trump, he always fails. And Republicans keep putting up the most ridiculous things (seemingly believing them to be true) that turn out to be entirely false. 

I'm not saying that there's no bs in both parties...but it has been my personal observation that one pile is steamier than the other. 

[GlitterRose]

20 minutes ago, Setton said:

Ella, are you actually just Trump on his day off? Because your posts have about as much in the way of significant content as his speeches. They are nothing but your own opinions portrayed as fact, fillers to draw away from the fact that you have no substance or attacks on people who criticise you - or even agree because you clearly don't understand what's going on. If you can start referring to yourself in the third person, you'll have the full set.

And as an added bonus, in this one, you managed all four...

Sorry, better put that in Donaldish so you can follow:

And, you know, because we know what people like you are like, trust me, I know them, in this one you had all four. And that's the problem with your government, you know what I mean, some people just don't understand but I do because I'm not like everyone else. Setton understands these things.

I like Donaldish. It has a nicer ring to it than Trumpese. 

[Leonardo]

8 minutes ago, socrates.junior said:

No, once again, you're misrepresenting my position. You're quite good at doing that.

Since you may be satisfied with a cogent example of bias, how about when PF decided to not downgrade Clinton's claim about the classified status of her emails at the time of sending from "Half True", because they would have had to utilize new info? (It turns out that they decided to backpedal on that one, because even a bunch of biased nitwits could see it made them look like biased nitwits.)

So, in the light of behavior such as that, it would be well to be wary regarding the claims of PF regarding Clinton being more consistently truthful than Trump.

 

Is Politifact correct or incorrect when they report Trump as being "more consistently a liar" than Clinton?

If you don't know whether they are correct or incorrect, why did you seek to rebut ChaosRose's post by claiming Politifact "are not to be trusted"? If you are able to show that everything Politifact report as fact is incorrect, then you have a case and it's relevant to this discussion. If you can't show that, and can't show that the "fact" ChaosRose quoted is incorrect, then all you are doing is seeking to smear that "fact" by posting your own, unsubstantiated, opinion.

And I'm not "misrepresenting your position" - because the only "position" you have so far assumed, is that Politifact "is not to be trusted in your opinion". You haven't made any case that what ChaosRose quoted is incorrect.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Leonardo

[GlitterRose]

1 minute ago, Leonardo said:

Is Politifact correct or incorrect when they report Trump as being "more consistently a liar" than Clinton?

If you don't know whether they are correct or incorrect, why did you seek to rebut ChaosRose's post by claiming Politifact "are not to be trusted"? If you are able to show that everything Politifact report as fact is incorrect, then you have a case and it's relevant to this discussion. If you can't show that, and can't show that the "fact" ChaosRose quoted is incorrect, then all you are doing is seeking to smear that "fact" by posting your own, unsubstantiated, opinion.

There is no news source that is going to be 100% perfect, but there are Pulitzer prize winners and then there is the Enquirer. 

A fact is still a fact. And I can account to having done plenty of my own digging around to see whether or not things are true. Trump comes out losing...yuge. 

[Leonardo]

13 minutes ago, smarterthanyou said:

New poster here. I NEVER post online because the smaller footprint the better. With that said i felt compelled to create an account here because of all the libtards that keep creeping into every thread either with malicious intent or maybe just plain stupidity.  Donald Trump is far from perfect. Even his supporters agree. But he is not evil and not trying to destroy our rights, country, or freedoms. This cannot be said of almost everyone else in gubmint today. The federal cesspool throws you a phone and just enough food stamps and you blindly follow like lemmings to your ultimate death. I can't stand people like Gingrich but he let the cat out of the bag. He said Trump is feared by establishment because he has not been initiated. These are not just words. Both sides have risen to one level or another because they have partaken of different levels of debauchery, willingly or otherwise. Emails have Hitlery herself stating she "needs to go out in the backyard to sacrifice a.chiken to molok". Some have just been coerced into affairs that are unknowinly recorded just to blackmail them into doing what they are told. If it was any one thing, i would agree it would sound crazy, but if some of you actually do the research as you claim to, you will find that the rabbit hole is sooooo much deeper than you could imagine that it cannot be refuted. Trump is ready to expose all of them given the chance. But he needs to have the authority to make it stick or the lemmings will continue listening to the controlled media clowns. There is not enough time or space here to lodge even a noteworthy rendition of the laundry list of evil, but let me just leave you with the LATEST death related to the clinton cartel. The man who wrote the book on the clintons, Thorn, conveniently just wound up dead."apparent" suicide. Right, just like the other 47 or so. One.man reportedly shot himself, then cut himself into pieces and put himself in a dumpster. Thats right he was ruled a suicide. Please take off the food stamp colored glasses and really look at what is going on.

Ok, since i know some of you are brain dead, let the attacks begin. To the rest of you, you are not wrong or crazy. In fact you are the only ones really paying attention. Kudos and keep up the good work. Remember who the enemy really is. Those who seek to control you!!!

Namaste

Ya know, it's really funny that those who post paranoid rants about "those seeking to control you", are actually themselves "seeking to control you" by getting you to believe what they write.

[LV-426]

"They fear Donald Trump because they know he will expose them. Obama knows it, the Clinton's know it, and the Bush's know it."

The last thing I ever want to see.. EVER... is Donald Trump "exposing bush"...

I know, I know... I'm a juvenile trapped in a forty-something year old body