The weekend America's newspapers called Donald Trump a liar

>Four "unconnected" (((news outlets))) run same story trading GOP candidate at the exact same time e"ntirely by chance"

Really makes me hmmm

>Fact-checking will be the end of Trump.

It's amazing how much Trump lies and the media doesn't cover it. They only recently started covering his bullshit when they realized this orange faggot could be president.

It's easy to add these (((parentheses))) to whatever one says and you win every argument. Spares you the effort to actually have to think for yourself, doesn't it?

You should look up who owns the fact checking sites. Politifacts is owned by a tampa newspaper that donates to hillary and they're very biased

yeah MSM is already in damage control cuz they know Trump will slaughter her tonight. Trump won already. There hasnt been a movement like this in quite a while.

OK, suppose a news site is 100% owned by Zionists Jews and they post something like a mathematical theorem. Would you doubt that theorem just because Jews posted it? Even though it contains a deductive proof?

If you answer yes, you're an idiot and there's no point talking to you.

If you answer no, then let's ask ourselves: do you think those news agencies purposefully fabricated all their research? We can go and check their claims now.

You wanna do it? We can verify it for ourselves. It's statements he made and we can do the research together and see if the Trump statements correspond to documented data.

>that pic
pretty obvious ctr

shill media shilling lies. what's new?

sage these spam threads

I think you're missing the part where these are supposedly unconnected and even competing need sources, in the eye of the general public, obviously colluding to trash the GOP candidate.

these aren't "mathematical theorems" you ctr shill.

these are, almost ALWAYS purely conjecture-based opinions guised as "facts"

>trump: the sky is blue
>fact-check: actually, the sky has no color. it is made up of many different gases, some of which appear to the human eye as the color blue, but it is technically a BLATANT FALSEHOOD to state that the "Sky is blue." LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE

>Trump: homicides are up 17% in the 50 largest cities in the US.
>Fact-check: while taken as a whole, yes, the homicide ratehas risen in the 50 largest cities. HOWEVER, actually, homicides are only "up" in 47 of them, while they have remained stagnant in 3. Therefore, we rate this MOSTLY FALSE

it's just shit like that over and over and over. just pure opinion.

they are not doing that though. They dismiss Trump exaggerations as complete false lies.

also /r/ing that pic showing like 30 trump "falsehoods" that were actually completely true and politifact just blatantly lied.

also:
sli.mg/a/W9ZZ6y
i.sli.mg/QYGLSA.jpg

Can confirm, am from Tampa. I read our paper but it's heavily biased, just as you say. The Wall Street Journal is pretty based though, not all media has completely fallen.

fuck nu-pol

old pol would never support this jew

Hillary never really says anything.

An exaggeration is a lie.

When Trump said 81% of white murders are committed by blacks, sure, he was exaggerating by 66%, but that' because HE WAS FUCKING LYING.

Go on Facebook and debunk some of the bullshit people post there. Not even politics, just "amazing stories" and pictures. Fact check them and comment with the truth.
You'll get ripped to shreds. Seriously, if you haven't tried do, it pisses people off like crazy to hear the truth about something they've already accepted. No matter what your source is if the meme made them feel good they are going with that, go fuck yourself hater.
Nobody gives a shit about the truth unless it validates their preconceived beliefs. This will be no different, on either side. They can lie all they want. As long as the choir shouts Amen it won't affect the thoughts of the average American at all.

>tfw Trump lies about how much charity he gives, but Hillary lies about how deep the web of corruption to cover-up her incompetency in the state department goes.
>tfw when Trump makes fun of people, but Hillary kills people.

ACTUALLY that stat (which he didn't "say" [YOU LIAR], he retweeted), was true for the city of san francisco. so, it was true, just not for certain geographic regions (the nation as a whole).

Serbia is almost as bad as Canada nowadays

Its actually just one guy merchant. Probably a proxy.

And saged nutfluffer.

> this will surely be the end of Trump's campaign

Yawn

Sage goes in the options field

Got it

>which he didn't "say" [YOU LIAR], he retweeted
say
sā/Submit
verb
verb: say; 3rd person present: says; past tense: said; past participle: said; gerund or present participle: saying
1.
utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
"“Thank you,” he said"
synonyms: speak, utter, voice, pronounce, give voice to, vocalize More
>(of a text or a symbolic representation) convey specified information or instructions.

>was true for the city of san francisco. so, it was true, just not for certain geographic regions (the nation as a whole).
Okay, now which geographic regions did he say, and he did say, it was true for?

Last I checked saying something not true is lying.

I hope you were being sarcastic and aren't this retarded, but you should know given how retarded Trump supporters are that Poe's law is gonna fuck you in the ass on that front.

>Slovenia

You guys are the biggest cucks in Eastern Europe.

Worry about your own shithole country before you worry about ours

>
>sage

>we live in a reality where we can verify facts,

like that little fact about Janet Reno selected by Hillary Clinton ordered federal agents to assassinate American citizens including children by burning them to death on an occult holiday known for human sacrifice through fire to Molech?

thats an interesting fact

>really convincing everyone with your semantics game there

he didn't specify a geographic region, probably because he knew it would bait morons like you into crying foul. he never said anything not true. your ilk are so desperate that you just make things up.

the stats were true for san francisco. the "fact-checker" just picked a random region (national as a whole) and said "liar," when in fact the post never stated any particular geographic region.

please keep going with the moving goalposts and trying desperately to defend your failed "argument"

I remember as it was yesterday when Trump announced to be running for POTUS. I thought it was just a way to promote his show apprentice or whatever it's called. I was laughing.

I guess Trump has the last laugh.

>he didn't specify a geographic region
Much like Trump you forget that google exists.

san francisco IS in the usa. san francisco crime stats ARE part of usa crime stats.

just face it. you got baited by purposefully ambiguous stats, and you lost.

I'm from Europe and I'm an intellectual.

>san francisco IS in the usa. san francisco crime stats ARE part of usa crime stats.
Right, and the thing about averages is that not all samples are representative samples.

If I were to say crime in the USA has seen a 100% decrease, that would be a bald faced lie even though crime in some neighborhoods in the USA probably has.

It's not a statistic true for the USA. Period.

^^^^^THIS
I tried, ever time I found an article ie "15 Times Trump Lied!!!" I went through it, most written as opinion pieces rather than bulleted talking points of each infraction. 90% are explained immediately as a out of context and/or exaggerations by the author.

>Ex: Trump wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US.
I've seen this one devolved by the media to the point of "Trumps wants to round up and deport all Muslims/ close all mosques. Most quotes, chopped and taken out of context when his actual stance is a hold on immigration from certain Muslim countries (yes, not even all) until vetting processes can be improved.

The rest typically boil down to Trump stating his opinion but the article's author framing it as Trump is stating a fact. Or Trump states a statistic and the criteria of said statistic is modified by the author.
>Ex: see

Oh and a short PSA, Slovenia and Serbia are on the list of known "CTR" countries. Which if you want to push for Hillary I'm fine with that, just for the love of god stop twisting stats, stating things out of context and putting words in Trump's mouth he didn't say. This is prime reason why Hillary isn't winning, people feel she can't be trusted and all of her proxies/ surrogates/ puppets operate in the same blatant dishonest manner. In other words; don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.

If she's better than prove it, tell the damn truth about what Trump says and what she has done.

We obviously he will have more lies over a few days worth of time. She spends her whole day sleeping.

>Most quotes, chopped and taken out of context when his actual stance is a hold on immigration from certain Muslim countries (yes, not even all) until vetting processes can be improved.
That's his CURRENT stance.

Trump did call for the total and complete shut down of all noncitizen Muslim travel to the United States "until we can figure out what is going on" (ie indefinitely).

Also, his current stance isn't a ban on travel from certain Muslim countries. It's a ban on travel from countries with terrorism. He's included nonMuslim countries when discussing it before, but of course, he hasn't put forward a formal list.

>"until we can figure out what is going on" (ie indefinitely).

there it is again, that ctr shill lying. you can't just say "indefinitely." that's YOUR OPINION. you have learned from fake sites like snopes and politifact very well.

it could very well be one week, or two weeks, or two months, or two days or two years. just because you personally don't know the time frame doesn't mean a definite time-frame doesn't exist. he's certainly not going to broadcast it on cnn like our current leaders do

I have to agree with a lack of time frame doesn't necessarily mean "indefinitely" by default. When it comes to this policy I really don't see the hold lasting longer than 6 months, maybe a year at most. I don't think anyone would be able to maintain a narrative of "we still can't vet properly after 4 years".

And when you say CURRENT stance I have nothing to refute it. I don't know what his initial stance is, but that being his stance now, I'm OK with it.

Personally, I feel he is most likely to be able to revamp immigration (not border security) policy to something more civil. More so than a Clinton administration, which I feel would be more "carrot in front of the horse" than actually achieving anything. I don't believe it should take 10 years and thousands of dollars to become a citizen and I do believe that if Trump wins and builds his wall he will be getting pressure from both sides to do this.

Honestly, I don't see why it isn't his stance already. "We're gonna build a wall to keep out the drugs and shit bags and we are revamping immigration so that more people can be properly included in the American dream." Thus reinforcing his "I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti-illegal" stance.

Replying to your own thread don't bump you subhuman mongoloid

Even average serb is smarter than you, you have to be a bosniak

where did this meme arrow sage meme start from?
Anyway, bump

>a lack of time frame doesn't necessarily mean "indefinitely" by default.

>in·def·i·nite·ly
ˌinˈdef(ə)nətlē/
adverb
adverb: indefinitely
>for an unlimited or unspecified period of time.

That's literally exactly means indefinitely.

>I don't think anyone would be able to maintain a narrative of "we still can't vet properly after 4 years".
How long ago was 9/11?

And while we're on the subject, this bullshit vetting controversy started getting mainstream traction with a guy being taken out of context in the first god damn place.

Guy in charge of vetting refugees was asked if he could personally vet every single refuge; he said no. Because he can't, "personally." He has never taken the position that his agency couldn't and we actually have a fucking 2 year long vetting process for every single god damn refugee. In context he was not god damn talking about his agency.

"I can't" was turned into "we can't" for political controversy even though that's not what he said or meant.

>indefinitely
I will concede you got me there. But you and I both know when you tell someone indefinitely, the common person hears "forever". Which is what I mean when I say things are being misrepresented. The average citizen shouldn't have to access a dictionary every time a politician speaks in order to discern the truth.

Except that's not the entire story. While I can not refute that you state it was initially taken out of context and contorted by the media. James Comey is on record stating:

>As Bennie Thompson, a Democrat, said, “a lot of us are concerned about whether you have enough information available to you to do an accurate vetting.”

>Comey acknowledged that knowledge gap.
>“You can only query what you’ve collected,” he reiterated.
>He also acknowledged differences in the U.S.’s ability to screen Syrian refugees compared to how Iraqi refugees were vetted in the aftermath of the Iraq War.

>“And with respect with Iraqi databases, we had far more because of our country’s work there for a decade,” he said.
>“This is a different situation.”

>Read more: dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/fbi-director-admits-us-cant-vet-all-syrian-refugees-for-terror-ties-video/#ixzz4LNdOIQgm

So regardless of its origin, the fact is we are unable to properly vet Syrian refugees because the information to do so is not available to us at this time.

>So regardless of its origin, the fact is we are unable to properly vet Syrian refugees because the information to do so is not available to us at this time.
Saying we have less to work on is not the same as saying we can't vet them, something he has never said.

Another source.
politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/aug/12/carlos-beruff/fbi-admitted-it-cannot-properly-vet-middle-eastern/

>Saying we have less to work on is not the same as saying we can't vet them, something he has never said
Did he state we are unable to vet them? No, he did not make this statement, I agree.

A reasonable conclusion made from his statements are that we can not "properly" vet them, due to the lack of intel on every individual. I think in order for this to move forward "properly" should be defined, your properly, my properly, and James Comey's properly can be 3 vastly different things. I think our discussion has run its course as there isn't enough data to continue effectively. It would just devolve into opinion shouting.

What is your stance on the whole "Trump is literally Hitler" et al that has been pushed so hard? It comes across as almost comical and disconcerting. My opinion is "everyone is racist" to a degree, some more than others. But why is it just now being leveled at Trump? This is a man that has lived in front of cameras and in the limelight for decades, if he is so racist as to be "Hitler" how have en mass accusations not come up before?

I'm wary of believing such things as I know "racist/ sexist/ xenophobic" are common attack methods of the left, even if the accusations are baseless. I know as I've experienced it myself and I'd know if I was as described.

>tfw wanna see the debate live but it's too late at night italian time :(

>this