Trump Thread

[Beskar]

So every fact Trump said was wrong.

But nothing to see here, run along. #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

[Greyblades]

So every fact Trump said was wrong.

...says the independant.

[Husar]

...says the independant.

And everyone else...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-to-congress/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ress-congress/
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/28/516717...on-of-congress
http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald...ech-fact-check

[Gilrandir]

I wonder was there ever such a prolonged opposition to any President after he had been sworn in and election battles had been left behind?

[Gilrandir]

Et tu, Brutes?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.fb07aca9bee1

[Greyblades]

Not quite, the article neglects to include the context of the statement; specifically the question it answers:

Franken: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

Sessions can say that the context gave him the impression that they were asking specifically about information exchanges which he didnt consider the meetings with the ambassador as, without any record of the meetings noone can claim he was wrong to do so.

And everyone else...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-to-congress/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ress-congress/
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/28/516717...on-of-congress
http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald...ech-fact-check

These do not make the assertion of trump's speech being exclusively lies, as the independant does. Such a claim in a title that the content does not sustain is the hallmark of a fox news style propaganda outlet.

Edit it seems the independant changed the title since yesterday, I wonder why...

[Husar]

Not quite, the article neglects to include the context of the statement; specifically the question it answers:

Sessions can say that the context gave him the impression that they were asking specifically about information exchanges which he didnt consider the meetings with the ambassador as, without any record of the meetings noone can claim he was wrong to do so.

And if that is a lie and he gets away with it, is still a good thing of course.

These do not make the assertion of trump's speech being exclusively lies, as the independant does. Such a claim in a title that the content does not sustain is the hallmark of a fox news style propaganda outlet.

Edit it seems the independant changed the title since yesterday, I wonder why...

No, if you want to be pedantic, it said every fact was a lie, but a speech is not exclusively made up of facts as the subtitle also explains now.
Of course I didn't check whether those were all the fact in his speech, but you shouldn't blame them for misrepresenting things and then misrepresent their claim yourself.

It is quite telling that you always comment on the small misrepresentations of the press and completely ignore the enormous misrepresentations of Trump...

[Greyblades]

And if that is a lie and he gets away with it, is still a good thing of course.

If. It's not exactly uncommon for senators to meet with diplomats in official capacities, sessions meeting the russian ambassador twice without mentioning the election is completely plausable.

No, if you want to be pedantic, it said every fact was a lie, but a speech is not exclusively made up of facts as the subtitle also explains now.
Of course I didn't check whether those were all the fact in his speech, but you shouldn't blame them for misrepresenting things and then misrepresent their claim yourself.

I checked the way back machine and apparantly it hasnt changed it's title, I mistook Beskar's title for the article's. I'll own up to that one.

It is quite telling that you always comment on the small misrepresentations of the press and completely ignore the enormous misrepresentations of Trump...

Thus far the "enormous misrepresentations" of trump that have been posted here have either pendantic crap I couldnt care less about him lying about, like inaugeration numbers, or the media spinning what he says, as with the sweden comments.

The media's "small misrepresentations" on the other hand have been dominated by either stupid (Russia hacked the election, update #8,925), blatant character assassination (pissgate) or flirting with treason (CNN's "wouldnt it be sad if 18 people were assassinated as they gether for swearing in and an obama appointee got to be president? Hint. Hint.")

I will admit to jumping on the left wing propaganda sources that are used here, Beskar and Hopalong being repeat offenders, but I do that more out of annoyance at seeing a lack of objections from the rest of board, whereas right wing propaganda invariably gets you a group tounge lashing.

[Husar]

If. It's not exactly uncommon for senators to meet with diplomats in official capacities, sessions meeting the russian ambassador twice without mentioning the election is completely plausable.

Of course it is, it's just a bit strange that every meeting Trump team members had with Russians somehow never seems to have happened until someone finds out it did.

Thus far the "enormous misrepresentations" of trump that have been posted here have either pendantic crap I couldnt care less about him lying about, like inaugeration numbers, or the media spinning what he says, as with the sweden comments.

The media's "small misrepresentations" on the other hand have been dominated by either stupid (Russia hacked the election, update #8,925), blatant character assassination (pissgate) or flirting with treason (CNN's "wouldnt it be sad if 18 people were assassinated as they gether for swearing in and an obama appointee got to be president? Hint. Hint.")

Bogus is stuff like this: http://www.eater.com/2017/2/28/14753...up-personality

It's a bit like saying you're a terrible person because you try not to get Ebola instead of embracing the new experience.

As for his lies being unimportant, now that is also bogus since he uses these lies to justify his retarded policies. He lies about Mexicans and then builds a wall, he makes a bullshit point about islamic countries and then bans their citizens from entering the US. He makes bogus claims about the economy in an attempt to gather more support and so on and on. Not to forget his bogus claim of draining the swamp and being there for every American, and then he greenlights two pipelines without any further consideration while several agencies like the EPA are basically shut down "until further consideration" or however it was justified.
He's so deep in the swamp, he can't even reach his bootstraps anymore. And it's certainly not small stuff noone cares about.