Politico Fact Checker

He said "i guess so, i wish it was done right the first time." A few months later he suggested we should wait for the UN. The first week of the war, he called it a wreck. Later on, he predicted destabilization after a U.S departure. Heres a sauce www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-iraq-fact-check-20160926-snap-story,amp.html

>be on a radio talk show where some asian guy jacks everyone off
>do you support going into iraq?

>yeah sure whatever

Also this ignores the fact that Hillary fucking voted for the war. What does it matter if a real estate mogul "supported" it, when a senator voted for it?

I guess it's a matter of record that Hillary voted for it

Going off of this
>businessman VS Senator
Can someone explain to me what the deal about the tax records is?

I understand why Clinton, a PUBLIC OFFICIAL, would feel the need to do so, but isn't trump still a private citizen?

It just seems to me like they're grasping at nothing

The only thing I can think of is that their entire argument is "Well every candidate for the past 40 years did it voluntarily, why won't you?" as if it's no longer a voluntary thing but part of the requirements for being a presidential candidate. I really think they're just making a mountain out of a molehill, personally.

"I guess so" is considerably more than "Nah, probably not".
Trump said he always opposed it and he's on tape saying he was at least passively in support of it.
So he lied.
You can point out whether his heart was in it or what have you but that's entirely speculation on your part since you aren't Trump or know Trump's thoughts.
So your stipulation on tone means nothing when Trump claims to have supported one thing forever and is caught, even passively, supporting the opposite.

Degeneracy is having to find new justification for your life-style, even when confronted with proof of the opposite
Examples:
>I'm sure being an uneducated basic-bitch on the cock carousel will land me a satisfying, long-term personal/professional life
>Trump was just lying 14 years ago when he said a thing that turned out to be wrong later and then lied about his original stance. His tone proves it!

The ability to see the flaw in your God Emperor and still follow him rather than having to justify your love to yourself would be more noble but the weak flock to the strong I suppose

the difference:
>I wasn't for the war in Iraq
>Maybe, idk
and
>I was never for the TPP
>The TPP is the golden standard in trade

>The wrongometer
>wrongometer

rly makes u tink

>Howard Stern show off-the-cuff comment
vs.
>actually voting for the war
My fact has been checked, and my record has been corrected.

>"I guess so" is considerably more than "Nah, probably not".
Let's be real here, they're both non-committal answers that sound like someone asked him if he was fine with pineapple on the pizza and not "do you want to go to war." Trying to spin an offhand remark into a position is disingenuous regardless of which way it goes.

Nice emu. How much do you know about that site, or do you just slurp down any jizz you find?

That's exactly why I fucking despise politifact. They always do bullshit like this.

>"I guess so" is considerably more than "Nah, probably not".

this is the gravity of the controversy

a guy is against a war publicly but when it comes out that he said "maybe, if we do it right" then he's a full blown liar

anyone who follows this shit needs to put a gun in their mouth

so much for liberal "intellectuals"

Well lucky I never claimed he said "Nah, probably not" then right? I said he essentially said "Maybe, I don't know" not "Nah, probably not" stop putting words in my mouth Hillary shill.

Also

Businessman VS Senator.

But that's bullshit. Nixon didn't. NPR "fact checked" this and said he did, but note that they say "1973" - odd year. Not an election year. He divulged AFTER the election.

>increasingly_nervous_man.jpeg

You can't fight a man powered by pure meme energy

>we call someone false for saying how they feel

what the actual fuck is the point in all of this?

That's not the point. He was asked if he opposed it before the war actually kicked off. He very clearly did not oppose it. His "non-committal answer" is either neutral or in favor of it, which in neither case would be opposing yet.

Yet he continuously claims that he opposed it.

It's just like one commentator said: fact-checking Trump is like playing a game of checkers against someone who isn't very good at checkers.

He was asked it if he opposed it, not if he was for it. There is an emphatic difference.

>Trump said he always opposed it and he's on tape saying he was at least passively in support of it.
>So he lied.

Except for the part tonight when he literally described a play by play on exactly how his opinion formed of Iraq. The fact that Politico is utilizing the same facts that TRUMP LITERALLY AIRED LIVE ON TV, as direct claims against him, is fucking retarded.

doesn't sounds like he was excited for it... skip to 1:30
youtube.com/watch?v=77P6fxa2KOs

Apparently being against something for 13 years is invalidated if before the war even started you said "yeah, i guess so..." on a comedy radio show.

>I was against it after I was in favor of it

Trump and Hillary were both for the war based on falsified evidence cooked up by Bush and co, so it's retarded that they even bother to use it as a talking point.

Face it Cred Forums Jews, Niggers, SWJ's, and all other forms of Liberalism and Cuckery are here for now and forever more!

>Politico Fact Checker
why not just ask Soros if Trump lies.. about as neutral.

>The article cites sources. Are they wrong?
there are several more sources that predate the Howard Stern interview in which he was against invasion, but that isn't convenient so the left uses the Stern show as a source.

the judge that said it was unconstitutional got his shit pushed in.. the case hasn't been appealed yet.

>"Yeah I guess so" count as opposing

Stay bootybothered, Cred Forums

For fucks sake, he said yeah I guess, when Howard Stern asked him in 2004ish and he was just a citizen with no insight on anything. His opinion doesn't matter because he had no political influence.... You know like the fucking secretary of state who VOTED for it

predate? are you retarded? the howard stern interview was literally on sept 11 2012 when the Iraq was announced. what a dumbass
and there are actually later sources that confirm his endorsement.

>He halfheartedly said he may be for thing on a comedy show where they light farts and jack off to strippers, while trying to fit in with edgy host who was for the thing at the time.
>This is what liberals take to be a formal support for thing

youtu.be/Vsbr8QMPLWY?t=358

The issue is that Trump has said that he was always against the war in Iraq. The record says different: he was, at best, ambivalent, and more likely leaning in favor.

race war now.

REFUTED tonight by Neil Cavuto.

BTFO Politico & OP/Shill

But you're the one putting words in his mouth, equating what he said (a passive confirmation) to an even more neutral answer "Maybe"
This is a better response, thanks user.
Right, so he laid out his actual position on the war over time. Politico is being dumb if they are judging his current statement vs his "I ALWAYS opposed the Iraq war"...which have two different truth values
"I opposed" pertains to a single given point in time where that was true

"I always opposed" pertains to every point in time meeting the condition.

That was one of the only parts where I think he did a solid job handling a past, hyperbolic statement. The rest in the debate were too non-committal to really pull me towards him.
Hillary was basically regurgitating her Sanders-altered notes.
Nothing changed.
The whole point was he's claiming to have had wisdom enough to avoid it. And more than that, it's not like people are asking if he was FOR the war, where his non-committal answer would have qualified for a rebuttal.
He's making the proclamation, in the void of any other accusations, that he OPPOSED the war.
The strength of his answer tonight was that he acknowledged his evolving position. A changing position-Trump is actually the best one for making the pivot, since he can claim new research and evidence has affected his view of the issue.

releasing your tax records isn't required. it's just something every candidate has done for about 40 years in order to show they aren't hiding things in their finances.

...

Clinton voted for it. Clinton wanted Obama to be more hawkish. Clinton is a war hawk and warmonger. She got almost all NeoCons to switch parties! How crazy is that? Literally the entire intellectual core that pushed for the Iraq war and more has endorsed Clinton.

Who gives a shit if a private citizen thought it might be OK at one point? Did you forget the Bush Administration misled the American people? Did you forget that the NeoCons lied? Are you forgetting that those same liars are supporting Clinton?

how is that important? he was never in a public office and he can fucking support Hitler as a private person.

Are you kidding me? Bu-but muh fact checkers

trump is a liar. no news here.

fortunately for him, conservatives are dumb, will vote regardless because of muh feelings.

say something in polish

no one really gives a damn if he was for the war in iraq at some point. the issue is that he's so constitutionally incapable of ever admitting that he could be wrong about something that he lies and says "NO WAY I WAS ALWAYS AGAINST IT"

damn son, devastating hit, and totally true (except it was created by the (((globalists)))

thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself
thanks for correcting the record
kill yourself

weź sobie tabletki bo widzę, że masz epizod paranoidalny.

Every candidate has done it for quite some time but it's not required. So yeah, pretty much they're assuming he's hiding something

Especially since the IRS says he CAN release them under audit, although he has never claimed he couldn't. Trump's stance has always been that his lawyer's advise him not to while under audit, not that he can't.

I mean, he openly admits he tries to pay as little as possible in taxes, which is another reason he's a good pick for the Oval Office. Trump knows what the loopholes are, and wants to close them.

tl;dr mountain out of a molehill, it's not required and his lawyers advise against it

Dziękuję za sprostowanie rekord, 65c został depositied do swojego konta.

nice work

would do the same but can't find australian in google translate

Hah, the nigger is up and in school already. It's 8:30 am in here.

Good thing he's not playing checkers then

>THE HISTORY OF TRUMP SUPPORTING THE IRAQ WAR

>Yeah, I guess we should go I suppose if all this is true
>No it's a mistake
>No it's a mistake, and will fuck up the middle east
>No it's a mistake, we should stay away
>No it's a mistake, we need to be looking at the saudis
>No it's a mistake, wtf why won't anyone listen
>No it's a mistake, this is fucked up
>No it's a mistake, we're going to create a caliphate
THE MSM WOULD LIKE YOU TO BELIEVE THIS MEANS HE SUPPORTED THE WAR.

You are still missing the point. The issue isn't whether or not they supported the invasion in 2002. The issue is whether or not they are claiming in 2015 and 2016 they did.

Clinton owns up to the fact that she made a mistake: she voted for a war that should not have been based on evidence that turned out to be, at best, faulty, and at worst completely made up. And that is her fault and she does not try to deny that.

Trump desperately tries to convince people he was prescient and knew that the war was bad and tries to convince people that he was always against it. This is false. We have taped evidence that he was, at most, ambivalent towards the war, and indeed was even leaning towards supporting it.

Again, since it probably needs repeating: it's not about whether or not they supported it in 2002, it's about what they're saying today. And it's something that wouldn't even be an issue if not for the fact that Trump is trying to claim that he opposed the war when he factually did not.

You forgot
>No it's a mistake, by the way why are we leaving the oil for the terrorists?
>No it's a mistake, wait a minute did obama just leave military equipment abandoned for the terrorists to take?

You're right, checkers is too complicated for him. he's playing snap at best.

Trump should have called out these companies by name in the debate. Say it loud and clear: PolitiFact is owned by a Hilary supporting outlet pretending to be impartial. Done. He doesn't have a fake impartial site in his pocket, so they've got nothing to come back on. Put something on his website demonstrating their obvious bias and you kill their ability to shill entirely.

But he's not smart enough. Look at the debate - SO many opportunities to crush her and he just blusters around the point and doesn't know enough facts to really stick the knife in. The final part regarding her "look" and Hilary being female - he says "the Iran deal... And...and... You almost can't name a good deal!". No, Donald just doesn't have any more information.

I think you mis-interpreted. OP was saying that politifact are wrong, check the greentext

Think though. Hillary used almost all her ammo on Trump and there are two more debates.

He hardly mentioned the emails, didn't mention the foundation, pay to play, selling uranium to Russia, Benghazi, the list goes on.

It definitely wasn't a perfect performance, but it left room to bash her later which is equally important.

The way this is handled boggles my mind as a poli sci major.
>Madam Secretary; you voted for the Iraq War?
>Yes.
>Mr. Trump, you made a solitary statement in support of the war one time right after the very beginning of the war?
>Yes; just that once; but then I said the war was stupid.
>AHA!!!!!!!!!! YOU SUPPORTED THE WAR SECRETARY CLINTON BACKED TO THE DEATH WITH HER VOTE IN OPPOSITION TO HER KLAN LEADER ROBERT BYRD!!!!!! YOU EVIL BASTARD!!!!

>"I guess so" is considerably more than "Nah, probably not".
it's not considerably more. it's actually not any different.

He will save the whore bashing for the last debate. He tried to be nice about this, but she won't let him do that. Time for the French Revolution, blood-in-the-streets. Guillotine time. Period. If he doesn't HACK HER DOWN TO SIZE, he's a fucking SHILL.

If global warming really wasn't created by the chinese then how come you never hear anyone talk about imposing massive tariffs on their goods because of their unbelievably dirty electricity supply and lax environmental regulations? China burns about as much coal as the rest of the planet combined, much of it for the production of consumer goods that people in the west use, but how often does that get bought up when people talk about global warming? They're perfectly willing to propose carbon taxes for their own countries businesses, despite how devestating the economic impact of that would obviously be and how little actual production is done in their countries anymore but not once have I heard them talk about all the carbon that's emitted on their countries behalf by China, the pollution China creates so they don't have to? Why? Isn't it GLOBAL warming why does it matter where the carbon dioxide gets emitted? It's all going into the same atmosphere. But no apparently all that nasty co2 instantly ceases being an issue the moment the good it was produced for passes a national border, lucky for China that.

The media is so "in the can" for her, it's hard to see him winning a single state.

archive.fo/E4CLc

Its out of context he says it should have been done the first time correctly

Is that literally the only instance of him expressing support for it though? It's the only one I've seen.

>2012
>Beginning invasion
>being this retarded

like who really cares. Ultimately they keep fact checking this but Hillary, as a politician, was allowed to evolve on issue as if she has always supported them

Remember that time Hillary voted for the war in Iraq?

in what world does one "I guess so, I don't know" mean he was leaning towards supporting the war when there is evidence of him opposing it multiple times before and afterwards.

You're inane. Who gives a shit? He was a private citizen. Most of the country, tens of millions of people, was duped by the NeoCons. Trump gave a tepid support to the current President and then quickly realized it was a bad idea. Hillary was an enthusiastic supporter. She became very hawkish. She started making friends and alliances with the most hawkish Generals and the NeoCons themselves. Now the NeoCons, the very same people who duped us into the war, are nearly all behind Hillary! In what world are you bothered by "yeah, I guess" and not outraged that Hillary is running for President with the full support of the Democratic party? She owns up to being wrong? She is basically a NeoCon herself!