The General Election

[TGHusker]

 

Trump's Muslim ban: From simple clarity to plain confusion

 

From the start, Donald Trump's call "for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" has been a signature of the Republican's campaign for president.

 

Yet from that first moment, the White House candidate has evaded questions when pressed for details. Now, faced with sliding poll numbers, his spokeswoman says he's no longer seeking the ban at all.

 

Yes, I read that yesterday. The ever sliding slope back towards reality. Stay tuned other step backs will occur - there won't be a wall built, there won't be tariffs, there won't be deportations, etc. Empty rhetoric will fool the gullible but it won't work when you have to actually govern.

[BigRedBuster]

Just for poops and whistles.

 

 

Fact-checking Donald Trump's speech calling Hillary Clinton 'a world-class liar'

 

Trump statements on Clinton

 

True = 8

Half True = 5

False = 10

Pants on Fire = 2

Meh...he did the same as he's claiming she did = 1

 

 

 

Fact-checking Hillary Clinton's economic speech about Donald Trump

 

Clinton's statements on Trump

 

True = 5

False = 0

Half True = 2

Pants on Fire = 0

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

So are all the pundits going to fact-check Hillary and Pocahontas' Trump-bashing speech?... I watched about 15 minutes of it and couldn't stand the inaccuracies, the political theatrics with no intention or meaning, and Elizabeth Warren's shaky voice, but everything that came out of their mouths up to that point was either a lie or a distorted version of the truth.

 

Most of the media refused to fact check Hillary, Warren, or Obama. That's just how it goes when you don't subscribe to their views. Regarding Warren, she actually scares me more than Bernie Sanders. For those that think Trump is a whack job, just listen to Warren talk for an hour, and the sad part is she is dead serious in her views. While I think Warren would excite the Democratic base as a VP pick, I think she would alienate moderates and Independents, not just because of her far left-wing views, but also I honestly don't think this country is ready for a dual female ticket. I honestly think it could backfire a bit as well. There is always a gender gap where Democrats win the female vote by 10 points (give or take a few) and Republicans win the male vote by 10 points (give or take a few). I think adding Warren keeps the female advantage about the same for the Dems, but drives up the male advantage for the Republicans.

 

 

The television media generally does a horrible job of fact-checking and context, period. People don't read the papers anymore. And they use the internet to find memes they already agree with.

 

But in a pinch you can always go to factcheck.org. It's run by the Annenberg Foundation -- one of Ronald Reagan's biggest benefactors -- but they do a good job of maintaining neutrality.

 

You'll find evidence there to make your case, but you'll also have to face evidence that destroys some of your other cases. That's the problem with facts.

 

Also, being neutral doesn't necessarily make both sides equal. Donald Trump and the Republican slate of candidates do not fare very well. And the claims against everything Obama has done in office don't hold up to scrutiny, either.

 

This is why I keep bringing up the Brexit example. Voters went for the raw, manipulative emotion and ignored the salient facts. Now they wished they'd paid better attention.

[Red Five]

[mrandyk]

Wonder why he won't release those tax returns. Each day we get a clearer image of someone who never expected to get this far.

[huKSer]

 

 

Trump's Muslim ban: From simple clarity to plain confusion

 

From the start, Donald Trump's call "for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" has been a signature of the Republican's campaign for president.

 

Yet from that first moment, the White House candidate has evaded questions when pressed for details. Now, faced with sliding poll numbers, his spokeswoman says he's no longer seeking the ban at all.

 

Yes, I read that yesterday. The ever sliding slope back towards reality. Stay tuned other step backs will occur - there won't be a wall built, there won't be tariffs, there won't be deportations, etc. Empty rhetoric will fool the gullible but it won't work when you have to actually govern.

 

 

 

Empty rhetoric won't work even after you are in a governing position

 

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year.

 

The date? Jan 22, 2009

[TGHusker]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/full-transcript-trump-job-plan-speech-224891

 

Trump's job plan speech.

[zoogs]

Not so powerful, those executive orders.

 

He issued one for the CDC to research gun violence, too. That was after Sandy Hook. We've added more than a few city names to our national gun tragedy parlance since then, and still no change.

 

I do think -- or hope, rather -- that if Trump is in fact elected, that he would have no chance of actually enforcing some of these things, no matter how much he tries. President Obama couldn't even close Gitmo, for goodness sake. Probably still won't, despite this late term push.

[BigRedBuster]

Personally on the Gitmo issue.

 

I have always had the opinion that once Obama was in office, he was "educated" and then understood why we had Gitmo and why it couldn't just be closed. So, he nonchalantly stopped talking about it and his supporters stopped asking.

[Moiraine]

Just for poops and whistles.

 

Fact-checking Donald Trump's speech calling Hillary Clinton 'a world-class liar'

 

Trump statements on Clinton

 

True = 8

Half True = 5

False = 10

Pants on Fire = 2

Meh...he did the same as he's claiming she did = 1

 

 

Fact-checking Hillary Clinton's economic speech about Donald Trump

 

Clinton's statements on Trump

 

True = 5

False = 0

Half True = 2

Pants on Fire = 0

I'm sure it's just a libtard rag making these up derpderpderp!

[knapplc]

Personally on the Gitmo issue.

 

I have always had the opinion that once Obama was in office, he was "educated" and then understood why we had Gitmo and why it couldn't just be closed. So, he nonchalantly stopped talking about it and his supporters stopped asking.

 

I would agree. Those guys don't all turn grey during their presidency for no reason. They learn stuff they never imagined, probably, in those first few weeks before inauguration and in office.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

So are all the pundits going to fact-check Hillary and Pocahontas' Trump-bashing speech?... I watched about 15 minutes of it and couldn't stand the inaccuracies, the political theatrics with no intention or meaning, and Elizabeth Warren's shaky voice, but everything that came out of their mouths up to that point was either a lie or a distorted version of the truth.

 

Most of the media refused to fact check Hillary, Warren, or Obama. That's just how it goes when you don't subscribe to their views. Regarding Warren, she actually scares me more than Bernie Sanders. For those that think Trump is a whack job, just listen to Warren talk for an hour, and the sad part is she is dead serious in her views. While I think Warren would excite the Democratic base as a VP pick, I think she would alienate moderates and Independents, not just because of her far left-wing views, but also I honestly don't think this country is ready for a dual female ticket. I honestly think it could backfire a bit as well. There is always a gender gap where Democrats win the female vote by 10 points (give or take a few) and Republicans win the male vote by 10 points (give or take a few). I think adding Warren keeps the female advantage about the same for the Dems, but drives up the male advantage for the Republicans.

 

 

The television media generally does a horrible job of fact-checking and context, period. People don't read the papers anymore. And they use the internet to find memes they already agree with.

 

But in a pinch you can always go to factcheck.org. It's run by the Annenberg Foundation -- one of Ronald Reagan's biggest benefactors -- but they do a good job of maintaining neutrality.

 

You'll find evidence there to make your case, but you'll also have to face evidence that destroys some of your other cases. That's the problem with facts.

 

Also, being neutral doesn't necessarily make both sides equal. Donald Trump and the Republican slate of candidates do not fare very well. And the claims against everything Obama has done in office don't hold up to scrutiny, either.

 

This is why I keep bringing up the Brexit example. Voters went for the raw, manipulative emotion and ignored the salient facts. Now they wished they'd paid better attention.

 

 

While factcheck was founded by a Reagan guy, they have veered to the left and have ties to Bill Ayers. I honestly have little trust for any site or news outlet claiming to be neutral. Built-in biases always exist, and some do a better job of pretending to be unbiased. For instance, a site like fact check may try to show Trump as "True" on a minor meaningless topic, but then "false" on a more important topic, and it would be just the opposite for Hillary.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2923825/posts

[BigRedBuster]

I don't know anything about Fact Check on how it was started or who funds it....bla bla bla.....

 

However, one thing I noticed since becoming an independent and shedding my self of supporting everything the Republicans say. I have noticed that any time someone comes up with a fact check service contradicting their story, their come back is...."Well, their left leaning" or....."Their just a liberal rag".

 

I wish, instead, they would look at the fact that is being checked and give proof as to how the "fact check" is wrong.

 

I would think the issue go as....

a) Someone makes a statement.

 

b) Fact Check site claims it's false (which they usually give reasons why they feel that way)

 

c) Original person (or someone who agrees with them) counters Fact Check with facts proving them wrong.

 

But....that isn't how it seems to go.

[zoogs]

Indeed, you have to go through some pretty unconventional contortions in order to arrive at a point where Up Is Down, Trump Is Truth, and Evidence Is Lies. But once you do get to that point, an entire Bizarro world of new possibilities opens up.

 

Anything goes -- and the claims you've chosen to rally around are impervious to any amount of critique. It's a sweet deal.

 

This is not a tactic limited to the far right, by the way.

[BigRedBuster]

Indeed, you have to go through some pretty unconventional contortions in order to arrive at a point where Up Is Down, Trump Is Truth, and Evidence Is Lies. But once you do get to that point, an entire Bizarro world of new possibilities opens up.

 

Anything goes -- and the claims you've chosen to rally around are impervious to any amount of critique. It's a sweet deal.

 

This is not a tactic limited to the far right, by the way.

Very true.

 

I have to keep reminding myself of that. I notice it more from the far right since that is the side I originally came from.