The oft repeated lie about Trump calling nazis good people

[iceberg]

fuck that. i worked in the media going through college and i know better. you do NOT go with incomplete info ESP when you're wrong SEVENTY EIGHT FUCKING TIMES. getting burned once isn't a crime. 78 times is bullshit.

now if they lied 78 times about trump, how do i know what trump is lying about? maybe it's their 79, 80, 81st time to simply "get it wrong".

you don't care cause you hate trump. got it. i don't give a flying fuck in a tornado who it's about - our media needs to be above this and we need to stop excusing it cause they're after someone you don't like.

not their job. or at least it didn't used to be. like many things liberals get into - they fucked this up too.

No actually if you look at those, many of them aren't even proven. Did the media lie, or did their source lie to them? If you say you care about facts, then how are you saying.

And I do care. I do care that the President has lied to america 9000 times. You don't because you love him and are ok with one person lying to america over 9000 more times than any reporter. Not once did I see a single name on there more than once.

I'm sorry but if someone says its "likely" that someone gets fired this week and they get fired next month instead, that is not a lie. You might want to lie for that and claim it is, but the reality is them not being fired doesn't prove the likelihood they would. So are you willing to lie to make up that list or not?

you get into these problems when you report what people say as "news" vs. the news itself. CNN and many call things like "this man says trump is an asshole!"

and that's their news. what someone "thinks".

that's where things go wrong.

9000 times? can you name them so we can verify these "lies" and those are not "likely to get fired today" type of lies. did you read the 78 things the media got wrong?

if the media is so wrong about 1 person, how can you trust what you believe you know about that person when what you read about them simply isn't true?

now keep in mind i'm not defending trump, i'm attacking the media. don't confuse the 2.

That's confusing me. You are saying if someone alleges an attack against them, and the media reports an alleged attack against them, and the person is found to be lying, and the media reports the person lied... The media is the ones who lied?

And you are saying those lies aren't the "likely to be fired" lies. And asking me if I read the list...

" The firing was said to be likely to happen the following week."


Hmmmm, did you read your own list? It's literally what I took directly from your source.

Wash Post I believe has the 9000, with when Trump lied, and the facts from actual data. Why is that ok with you>?

the media has been caught lying about trump no less than 78 times.

the media is how people know all of trumps lies.

given the media lies about trump, i don't trust all they say about him. they hate him and lost any objectivity years ago. period. so given my "source" of trump information is flawed at best, i revert to neutral on trump. this doesn't mean i defend him and you keep wanting to think i am.

trump does a lot of stupid knee jerk shit that pisses me off. but that doesn't mean he's open season to bullshit dogpiles. no one should be based off inaccurate info about them.

i don't want it done to me, i will try to not do it to others.

don't make that more than it is. general statement of how i approach things, not something to micro analyze into every single situation.

Name three of those lies

prove you can count to 3.

and i've listed 78 events the media was WRONG about trump. so since left calls being wrong a LIE i'll do the same. the media wasn't wrong, they fucking lied. period.

now when you allow trump to be WRONG w/o it being a lie, maybe i'll rethink it. but i know the left won't do that.

it's
MEDIA WAS WRONG AND CORRECTED IT
or
TRUMP LIES!!!

just sick of one sided blinder-driven bullshit that you and others like you spout w/o thought or follow through. drop-stupid and move on.

 

[rightwinger]

No actually if you look at those, many of them aren't even proven. Did the media lie, or did their source lie to them? If you say you care about facts, then how are you saying.

And I do care. I do care that the President has lied to america 9000 times. You don't because you love him and are ok with one person lying to america over 9000 more times than any reporter. Not once did I see a single name on there more than once.

I'm sorry but if someone says its "likely" that someone gets fired this week and they get fired next month instead, that is not a lie. You might want to lie for that and claim it is, but the reality is them not being fired doesn't prove the likelihood they would. So are you willing to lie to make up that list or not?

you get into these problems when you report what people say as "news" vs. the news itself. CNN and many call things like "this man says trump is an asshole!"

and that's their news. what someone "thinks".

that's where things go wrong.

9000 times? can you name them so we can verify these "lies" and those are not "likely to get fired today" type of lies. did you read the 78 things the media got wrong?

if the media is so wrong about 1 person, how can you trust what you believe you know about that person when what you read about them simply isn't true?

now keep in mind i'm not defending trump, i'm attacking the media. don't confuse the 2.

That's confusing me. You are saying if someone alleges an attack against them, and the media reports an alleged attack against them, and the person is found to be lying, and the media reports the person lied... The media is the ones who lied?

And you are saying those lies aren't the "likely to be fired" lies. And asking me if I read the list...

" The firing was said to be likely to happen the following week."


Hmmmm, did you read your own list? It's literally what I took directly from your source.

Wash Post I believe has the 9000, with when Trump lied, and the facts from actual data. Why is that ok with you>?

the media has been caught lying about trump no less than 78 times.

the media is how people know all of trumps lies.

given the media lies about trump, i don't trust all they say about him. they hate him and lost any objectivity years ago. period. so given my "source" of trump information is flawed at best, i revert to neutral on trump. this doesn't mean i defend him and you keep wanting to think i am.

trump does a lot of stupid knee jerk shit that pisses me off. but that doesn't mean he's open season to bullshit dogpiles. no one should be based off inaccurate info about them.

i don't want it done to me, i will try to not do it to others.

don't make that more than it is. general statement of how i approach things, not something to micro analyze into every single situation.

Name three of those lies

prove you can count to 3.

and i've listed 78 events the media was WRONG about trump. so since left calls being wrong a LIE i'll do the same. the media wasn't wrong, they fucking lied. period.

now when you allow trump to be WRONG w/o it being a lie, maybe i'll rethink it. but i know the left won't do that.

it's
MEDIA WAS WRONG AND CORRECTED IT
or
TRUMP LIES!!!

just sick of one sided blinder-driven bullshit that you and others like you spout w/o thought or follow through. drop-stupid and move on.

You keep spouting 78 lies of the press
I am calling BS

Show me three where the press was proven to have lied or STFU

 

[candycorn]

What are you saying of those 9000 is a lie? Are you saying one of the tweets they screenshot is not true and can compare it to his actual account? Are you saying when they source a government source where their facts contradict trumps claim that they infiltrated a .gov site to create a fake page?

Those are pretty major claims to just throw out without actually looking at them even. Or do you just HOPE that is the case and have no factual basis that any are in fact wrong?

i am saying i simply won't dig too deep into the media hype about trump.

are you hoping they are right? and when not allow this "correction" on page 13 of the evening edition while their "inaccuracies" were in 10" print P1?

i have no illusions around trump. the media either. both are flawed at best usually. but i'm not going to take a side because i FUCKING HATE that ANY president is at war with our media and the big O started all this shit. i hated his media antics and i hate trumps.

NO PRESIDENT should tell the media what is or isn't news. but "we the people" shouldn't swallow shit we want to hear cause we want it to be true. so you can continue to take my distrust of the media as some jacked up validation of trump or you can realize i have them separate and don't require myself like one and hate the other.

there are some old school journalists out there i follow. sharyl attkisson being one. when others speak out about how bad the media has gotten and they're fed up - i slide them over to the "good" side.

the media is not here to tell us how to feel but they've taken that upon themselves to not report the news but be the news.

that's bullshit and dangerous.

given the wapo has been caught lying and agenda driven countless number of times, no i don't believe them any longer.

So what you are saying is that you will believe the media in this case, even though multiple times in the SAME STORY it's been proven to be a lie and there are no corrections to it, but rather maintaining a lie that even the most basic look into them can debunk their claim. But in the same exact sentence use that lie to call out the media over perceived lying?

I'm sorry but THAT is bullshit and dangerous. You are saying that you know that article is a lie, yet choose to believe it, so you can just ignore the post out of hand rather than educate yourself on Trumps lies?


So why do you like Sharyl Attkinson? Is it because she says what you like to hear? Or because you know that she lies to you and won't bother even issuing a correction to them?

I mean isn't she the person who showed a video of her delete key stuck as proof that she was being hacked by the government.... I mean what about someone with a stuck delete key turning that into a story about how the Government is hacking her computer as she speaks is real journalism to you? And the cable out of her box. Like our government forgot that she has internet as a method to hack her, and went back to the 1970's and hardwired in from her backyard.

But yeah, the government deleting her files at 190 letters a minute or whatever that rate was, which just happened to be the same exact speed if you hold delete. They hacked in by holding her delete button down, not actually you know... wiping her files.

She's the one that said her parting from CBS was amicable right? Until someone offered her money to write a book and they that lie was rewritten.

She's the one debunked for trying to peddle lies about fake studies connecting vaccines to autism right?


So why do you like proven liars for your media sources? Is it because they say things you like to hear and more important to you than the truth are lies you can kinda force yourself to believe if you squint hard enough and close your eyes to facts around them?

when you wish to talk w/o the attacks, i'll talk. but so far you keep mischaracterizing what i am saying so you can go off on me and i just don't play that game.

Again, you are not debunking ANY of the facts I am bringing up. Just changing the subject when they are brought up or using logical fallacies as your defense.

You are not saying anything about them so yes, I am forced to assume you are accepting those lies when you won't try and discuss them but rather turn the attention elsewhere. You aren't saying "well yes, she lies, but I like her lies", or "Yes the facts show she lies, so I agree, and don't think I will listen to her", or "No I don't believe those facts and will choose not to educate myself on them so I can continue to read her writing". I'm forced to assume your response since you just try and distract to something else.

If you want to drop the topic, fine. You already seem to be trying that by trying to distract with this rather than answer any of the questions of why you choose a known liar.

In fact, screw it. I get your game. When countered with fact, you go silent, don't respond and try to change the subject. That's not a debate. That's you sticking with the lie. Sorry bud, don't need that. Have a good day, I really have no desire to debate someone who intentionally lies or intentionally will cover up for liars.

you said he lied 9000 times. i asked for a list of those lies.

you pointed to WaPo and i pointed out their "inaccuracies". the rest of your questions are "loaded" with answers already attached in many cases that i never provided. so no - i do not feel like wandering through your anger issues to discuss things like this.

and since i've not really said much yet, what are you so worked up over? "chose a known liar" so to speak? i have said yes trump does like a lot and speak w/o verification and it's annoying as fuck. but please, ignore that and continue on w/rage. it's cute on you.

calm down beavis and we can talk. rant and rave and i simply move on.

Are you really stating that our President does not lie?

 

[iceberg]

you get into these problems when you report what people say as "news" vs. the news itself. CNN and many call things like "this man says trump is an asshole!"

and that's their news. what someone "thinks".

that's where things go wrong.

9000 times? can you name them so we can verify these "lies" and those are not "likely to get fired today" type of lies. did you read the 78 things the media got wrong?

if the media is so wrong about 1 person, how can you trust what you believe you know about that person when what you read about them simply isn't true?

now keep in mind i'm not defending trump, i'm attacking the media. don't confuse the 2.

That's confusing me. You are saying if someone alleges an attack against them, and the media reports an alleged attack against them, and the person is found to be lying, and the media reports the person lied... The media is the ones who lied?

And you are saying those lies aren't the "likely to be fired" lies. And asking me if I read the list...

" The firing was said to be likely to happen the following week."


Hmmmm, did you read your own list? It's literally what I took directly from your source.

Wash Post I believe has the 9000, with when Trump lied, and the facts from actual data. Why is that ok with you>?

the media has been caught lying about trump no less than 78 times.

the media is how people know all of trumps lies.

given the media lies about trump, i don't trust all they say about him. they hate him and lost any objectivity years ago. period. so given my "source" of trump information is flawed at best, i revert to neutral on trump. this doesn't mean i defend him and you keep wanting to think i am.

trump does a lot of stupid knee jerk shit that pisses me off. but that doesn't mean he's open season to bullshit dogpiles. no one should be based off inaccurate info about them.

i don't want it done to me, i will try to not do it to others.

don't make that more than it is. general statement of how i approach things, not something to micro analyze into every single situation.

Name three of those lies

prove you can count to 3.

and i've listed 78 events the media was WRONG about trump. so since left calls being wrong a LIE i'll do the same. the media wasn't wrong, they fucking lied. period.

now when you allow trump to be WRONG w/o it being a lie, maybe i'll rethink it. but i know the left won't do that.

it's
MEDIA WAS WRONG AND CORRECTED IT
or
TRUMP LIES!!!

just sick of one sided blinder-driven bullshit that you and others like you spout w/o thought or follow through. drop-stupid and move on.

You keep spouting 78 lies of the press
I am calling BS

Show me three where the press was proven to have lied or STFU

I've posted the link. In this thread even.

Stop being an intentional fuck nugget.

 

[iceberg]

i am saying i simply won't dig too deep into the media hype about trump.

are you hoping they are right? and when not allow this "correction" on page 13 of the evening edition while their "inaccuracies" were in 10" print P1?

i have no illusions around trump. the media either. both are flawed at best usually. but i'm not going to take a side because i FUCKING HATE that ANY president is at war with our media and the big O started all this shit. i hated his media antics and i hate trumps.

NO PRESIDENT should tell the media what is or isn't news. but "we the people" shouldn't swallow shit we want to hear cause we want it to be true. so you can continue to take my distrust of the media as some jacked up validation of trump or you can realize i have them separate and don't require myself like one and hate the other.

there are some old school journalists out there i follow. sharyl attkisson being one. when others speak out about how bad the media has gotten and they're fed up - i slide them over to the "good" side.

the media is not here to tell us how to feel but they've taken that upon themselves to not report the news but be the news.

that's bullshit and dangerous.

given the wapo has been caught lying and agenda driven countless number of times, no i don't believe them any longer.

So what you are saying is that you will believe the media in this case, even though multiple times in the SAME STORY it's been proven to be a lie and there are no corrections to it, but rather maintaining a lie that even the most basic look into them can debunk their claim. But in the same exact sentence use that lie to call out the media over perceived lying?

I'm sorry but THAT is bullshit and dangerous. You are saying that you know that article is a lie, yet choose to believe it, so you can just ignore the post out of hand rather than educate yourself on Trumps lies?


So why do you like Sharyl Attkinson? Is it because she says what you like to hear? Or because you know that she lies to you and won't bother even issuing a correction to them?

I mean isn't she the person who showed a video of her delete key stuck as proof that she was being hacked by the government.... I mean what about someone with a stuck delete key turning that into a story about how the Government is hacking her computer as she speaks is real journalism to you? And the cable out of her box. Like our government forgot that she has internet as a method to hack her, and went back to the 1970's and hardwired in from her backyard.

But yeah, the government deleting her files at 190 letters a minute or whatever that rate was, which just happened to be the same exact speed if you hold delete. They hacked in by holding her delete button down, not actually you know... wiping her files.

She's the one that said her parting from CBS was amicable right? Until someone offered her money to write a book and they that lie was rewritten.

She's the one debunked for trying to peddle lies about fake studies connecting vaccines to autism right?


So why do you like proven liars for your media sources? Is it because they say things you like to hear and more important to you than the truth are lies you can kinda force yourself to believe if you squint hard enough and close your eyes to facts around them?

when you wish to talk w/o the attacks, i'll talk. but so far you keep mischaracterizing what i am saying so you can go off on me and i just don't play that game.

Again, you are not debunking ANY of the facts I am bringing up. Just changing the subject when they are brought up or using logical fallacies as your defense.

You are not saying anything about them so yes, I am forced to assume you are accepting those lies when you won't try and discuss them but rather turn the attention elsewhere. You aren't saying "well yes, she lies, but I like her lies", or "Yes the facts show she lies, so I agree, and don't think I will listen to her", or "No I don't believe those facts and will choose not to educate myself on them so I can continue to read her writing". I'm forced to assume your response since you just try and distract to something else.

If you want to drop the topic, fine. You already seem to be trying that by trying to distract with this rather than answer any of the questions of why you choose a known liar.

In fact, screw it. I get your game. When countered with fact, you go silent, don't respond and try to change the subject. That's not a debate. That's you sticking with the lie. Sorry bud, don't need that. Have a good day, I really have no desire to debate someone who intentionally lies or intentionally will cover up for liars.

you said he lied 9000 times. i asked for a list of those lies.

you pointed to WaPo and i pointed out their "inaccuracies". the rest of your questions are "loaded" with answers already attached in many cases that i never provided. so no - i do not feel like wandering through your anger issues to discuss things like this.

and since i've not really said much yet, what are you so worked up over? "chose a known liar" so to speak? i have said yes trump does like a lot and speak w/o verification and it's annoying as fuck. but please, ignore that and continue on w/rage. it's cute on you.

calm down beavis and we can talk. rant and rave and i simply move on.

Are you really stating that our President does not lie?

Not at all.

Now fuck off.

 

[rightwinger]

That's confusing me. You are saying if someone alleges an attack against them, and the media reports an alleged attack against them, and the person is found to be lying, and the media reports the person lied... The media is the ones who lied?

And you are saying those lies aren't the "likely to be fired" lies. And asking me if I read the list...

" The firing was said to be likely to happen the following week."


Hmmmm, did you read your own list? It's literally what I took directly from your source.

Wash Post I believe has the 9000, with when Trump lied, and the facts from actual data. Why is that ok with you>?

the media has been caught lying about trump no less than 78 times.

the media is how people know all of trumps lies.

given the media lies about trump, i don't trust all they say about him. they hate him and lost any objectivity years ago. period. so given my "source" of trump information is flawed at best, i revert to neutral on trump. this doesn't mean i defend him and you keep wanting to think i am.

trump does a lot of stupid knee jerk shit that pisses me off. but that doesn't mean he's open season to bullshit dogpiles. no one should be based off inaccurate info about them.

i don't want it done to me, i will try to not do it to others.

don't make that more than it is. general statement of how i approach things, not something to micro analyze into every single situation.

Name three of those lies

prove you can count to 3.

and i've listed 78 events the media was WRONG about trump. so since left calls being wrong a LIE i'll do the same. the media wasn't wrong, they fucking lied. period.

now when you allow trump to be WRONG w/o it being a lie, maybe i'll rethink it. but i know the left won't do that.

it's
MEDIA WAS WRONG AND CORRECTED IT
or
TRUMP LIES!!!

just sick of one sided blinder-driven bullshit that you and others like you spout w/o thought or follow through. drop-stupid and move on.

You keep spouting 78 lies of the press
I am calling BS

Show me three where the press was proven to have lied or STFU

I've posted the link. In this thread even.

Stop being an intentional fuck nugget.

They are not lies.
Show me three that are

 

[iceberg]

the media has been caught lying about trump no less than 78 times.

the media is how people know all of trumps lies.

given the media lies about trump, i don't trust all they say about him. they hate him and lost any objectivity years ago. period. so given my "source" of trump information is flawed at best, i revert to neutral on trump. this doesn't mean i defend him and you keep wanting to think i am.

trump does a lot of stupid knee jerk shit that pisses me off. but that doesn't mean he's open season to bullshit dogpiles. no one should be based off inaccurate info about them.

i don't want it done to me, i will try to not do it to others.

don't make that more than it is. general statement of how i approach things, not something to micro analyze into every single situation.

Name three of those lies

prove you can count to 3.

and i've listed 78 events the media was WRONG about trump. so since left calls being wrong a LIE i'll do the same. the media wasn't wrong, they fucking lied. period.

now when you allow trump to be WRONG w/o it being a lie, maybe i'll rethink it. but i know the left won't do that.

it's
MEDIA WAS WRONG AND CORRECTED IT
or
TRUMP LIES!!!

just sick of one sided blinder-driven bullshit that you and others like you spout w/o thought or follow through. drop-stupid and move on.

You keep spouting 78 lies of the press
I am calling BS

Show me three where the press was proven to have lied or STFU

I've posted the link. In this thread even.

Stop being an intentional fuck nugget.

They are not lies.
Show me three that are

Not playing open conversation games with a closed mind. Google it or dont. Done with you bunny boy.

 

[rightwinger]

Yea...the media sometimes gets information wrong. In an attempt to get the story out.....they go with incomplete information

No, you can’t compare the faults of Trump with the faults of the media
When the media gets something wrong, they will immediately issue a retraction or reprint with the latest information

Trump intentionally issues lies, lies he knows are wrong. When challenged with the actual facts, he not only repeats the lie, but makes his staff back him up

fuck that. i worked in the media going through college and i know better. you do NOT go with incomplete info ESP when you're wrong SEVENTY EIGHT FUCKING TIMES. getting burned once isn't a crime. 78 times is bullshit.

now if they lied 78 times about trump, how do i know what trump is lying about? maybe it's their 79, 80, 81st time to simply "get it wrong".

you don't care cause you hate trump. got it. i don't give a flying fuck in a tornado who it's about - our media needs to be above this and we need to stop excusing it cause they're after someone you don't like.

not their job. or at least it didn't used to be. like many things liberals get into - they fucked this up too.

No actually if you look at those, many of them aren't even proven. Did the media lie, or did their source lie to them? If you say you care about facts, then how are you saying.

And I do care. I do care that the President has lied to america 9000 times. You don't because you love him and are ok with one person lying to america over 9000 more times than any reporter. Not once did I see a single name on there more than once.

I'm sorry but if someone says its "likely" that someone gets fired this week and they get fired next month instead, that is not a lie. You might want to lie for that and claim it is, but the reality is them not being fired doesn't prove the likelihood they would. So are you willing to lie to make up that list or not?

you get into these problems when you report what people say as "news" vs. the news itself. CNN and many call things like "this man says trump is an asshole!"

and that's their news. what someone "thinks".

that's where things go wrong.

9000 times? can you name them so we can verify these "lies" and those are not "likely to get fired today" type of lies. did you read the 78 things the media got wrong?

if the media is so wrong about 1 person, how can you trust what you believe you know about that person when what you read about them simply isn't true?

now keep in mind i'm not defending trump, i'm attacking the media. don't confuse the 2.

That's confusing me. You are saying if someone alleges an attack against them, and the media reports an alleged attack against them, and the person is found to be lying, and the media reports the person lied... The media is the ones who lied?

And you are saying those lies aren't the "likely to be fired" lies. And asking me if I read the list...

" The firing was said to be likely to happen the following week."


Hmmmm, did you read your own list? It's literally what I took directly from your source.

Wash Post I believe has the 9000, with when Trump lied, and the facts from actual data. Why is that ok with you>?

wash post? oh - these guys:

WaPo Admits Inaccuracies in Its Reporting About Covington High School Students
Washington Post Inaccuracies - Doug's Brief Case
'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid
Washington Post fact checker
The Washington Post: Wrong Again!
Washington Post Corrects "Inaccuracies" In Trump's Air Force One Tweet

thank you for proving why i don't trust people this wrong, this often. if i screwed up my job this much i'd get fired.

Inaccuracies are not lies
Presenting available information that later proves to be inaccurate is not a lie

A lie involves purposely reporting fabricated information

Show where the press does that

 

[ph3iron]

This lie has been presented in the media so often some republicans even believe it....just goes to show the power of the media and how they are able to deceive so many....the latest being Adam Schiff......." look, it's not the Democratic Party that believes that there are good people on both sides of a Nazi rally," Rep. Schiff told CNN's "State of the Union." "There's just one party and one party leader who believes that, and that's Donald Trump."

Now......we must understand that some of these folks do not want the truth they want to believe that Trump is a Nazi ----as that fits their narrative....so they keep repeating the lie.

Proof that President Called the Nazis in Charlottesville good people is a lie.....................Trump Didn't Call Neo-Nazis 'Fine People.' Here's Proof. | RealClearPolitics!

He said some of the naziish torch bearers.

 

[ph3iron]

Except he did.

The commentary is someone's opinion; not reporting.

No...he didn't. You are lying....

Here is an actual, honest to goodness transcript of what Trump actually said...not what you are making up....what he actually said....you doofus....

At the Daily Caller: Trump Keeps Condemning White Nationalists - So why does the media keep denying it? - Crime Prevention Research Center

Take this exchange with a reporter a couple of days after the Charlottesville riots in 2017.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. . . . I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

REPORTER: I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?

TRUMP: No, no. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. . . .

So what exactly is unclear? It’s hard to see how any rational person could think that Trump wasn’t condemning neo-Nazis. Was “very bad people” not strong enough? Should he have said, “very, very bad people”?

Or how about another Trump statement in the aftermath of the riots? “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

No matter how many times Trump specifically singles out white supremacists, his other blanket condemnations of bigotry convince the media that he really supports racists. This tweet from August didn’t pass the media smell test: “The riots in Charlottesville a year ago resulted in senseless death and division. We must come together as a nation. I condemn all types of racism and acts of violence. Peace to ALL Americans!”

Who were these non nazis in the torch parade again?
You think they would have been there if they were anti???
Know why the con was fined for refusing to rent to blacks?

 

[ph3iron]

Except he did.

The commentary is someone's opinion; not reporting.

You did not, or could not read the linked article with Trump's exact words?

Which is it, dumbass?

I've heard the words many times. That neo-nazis are big supporters of your blob is not surprising. That he accepts them and doesn't denounce them is to most of us.

So you admit that you didn't read the article and the part where Trump said just the opposite of what you claim?

Mac quoted it above. See post #5.

Try reading it or getting a small child to read it for you, dumbass!

Omg a WWII deferment lover.
(Do we think he knows)?
Prob loves the cons 5 Vietnam deferments

 

[iceberg]

fuck that. i worked in the media going through college and i know better. you do NOT go with incomplete info ESP when you're wrong SEVENTY EIGHT FUCKING TIMES. getting burned once isn't a crime. 78 times is bullshit.

now if they lied 78 times about trump, how do i know what trump is lying about? maybe it's their 79, 80, 81st time to simply "get it wrong".

you don't care cause you hate trump. got it. i don't give a flying fuck in a tornado who it's about - our media needs to be above this and we need to stop excusing it cause they're after someone you don't like.

not their job. or at least it didn't used to be. like many things liberals get into - they fucked this up too.

No actually if you look at those, many of them aren't even proven. Did the media lie, or did their source lie to them? If you say you care about facts, then how are you saying.

And I do care. I do care that the President has lied to america 9000 times. You don't because you love him and are ok with one person lying to america over 9000 more times than any reporter. Not once did I see a single name on there more than once.

I'm sorry but if someone says its "likely" that someone gets fired this week and they get fired next month instead, that is not a lie. You might want to lie for that and claim it is, but the reality is them not being fired doesn't prove the likelihood they would. So are you willing to lie to make up that list or not?

you get into these problems when you report what people say as "news" vs. the news itself. CNN and many call things like "this man says trump is an asshole!"

and that's their news. what someone "thinks".

that's where things go wrong.

9000 times? can you name them so we can verify these "lies" and those are not "likely to get fired today" type of lies. did you read the 78 things the media got wrong?

if the media is so wrong about 1 person, how can you trust what you believe you know about that person when what you read about them simply isn't true?

now keep in mind i'm not defending trump, i'm attacking the media. don't confuse the 2.

That's confusing me. You are saying if someone alleges an attack against them, and the media reports an alleged attack against them, and the person is found to be lying, and the media reports the person lied... The media is the ones who lied?

And you are saying those lies aren't the "likely to be fired" lies. And asking me if I read the list...

" The firing was said to be likely to happen the following week."


Hmmmm, did you read your own list? It's literally what I took directly from your source.

Wash Post I believe has the 9000, with when Trump lied, and the facts from actual data. Why is that ok with you>?

wash post? oh - these guys:

WaPo Admits Inaccuracies in Its Reporting About Covington High School Students
Washington Post Inaccuracies - Doug's Brief Case
'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid
Washington Post fact checker
The Washington Post: Wrong Again!
Washington Post Corrects "Inaccuracies" In Trump's Air Force One Tweet

thank you for proving why i don't trust people this wrong, this often. if i screwed up my job this much i'd get fired.

Inaccuracies are not lies
Presenting available information that later proves to be inaccurate is not a lie

A lie involves purposely reporting fabricated information

Show where the press does that

russia was fabricated. they reported the fuck out of that.

now - when you have the intellectual capacity to figure out a pair of slip on shoes, holler. but to date you've never said a thing other than drop snark-shit and one liners of ignorance.

so forgive me if i use your past history as a valid reason to tell you to fuck off.

 

[rightwinger]

No actually if you look at those, many of them aren't even proven. Did the media lie, or did their source lie to them? If you say you care about facts, then how are you saying.

And I do care. I do care that the President has lied to america 9000 times. You don't because you love him and are ok with one person lying to america over 9000 more times than any reporter. Not once did I see a single name on there more than once.

I'm sorry but if someone says its "likely" that someone gets fired this week and they get fired next month instead, that is not a lie. You might want to lie for that and claim it is, but the reality is them not being fired doesn't prove the likelihood they would. So are you willing to lie to make up that list or not?

you get into these problems when you report what people say as "news" vs. the news itself. CNN and many call things like "this man says trump is an asshole!"

and that's their news. what someone "thinks".

that's where things go wrong.

9000 times? can you name them so we can verify these "lies" and those are not "likely to get fired today" type of lies. did you read the 78 things the media got wrong?

if the media is so wrong about 1 person, how can you trust what you believe you know about that person when what you read about them simply isn't true?

now keep in mind i'm not defending trump, i'm attacking the media. don't confuse the 2.

That's confusing me. You are saying if someone alleges an attack against them, and the media reports an alleged attack against them, and the person is found to be lying, and the media reports the person lied... The media is the ones who lied?

And you are saying those lies aren't the "likely to be fired" lies. And asking me if I read the list...

" The firing was said to be likely to happen the following week."


Hmmmm, did you read your own list? It's literally what I took directly from your source.

Wash Post I believe has the 9000, with when Trump lied, and the facts from actual data. Why is that ok with you>?

wash post? oh - these guys:

WaPo Admits Inaccuracies in Its Reporting About Covington High School Students
Washington Post Inaccuracies - Doug's Brief Case
'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid
Washington Post fact checker
The Washington Post: Wrong Again!
Washington Post Corrects "Inaccuracies" In Trump's Air Force One Tweet

thank you for proving why i don't trust people this wrong, this often. if i screwed up my job this much i'd get fired.

Inaccuracies are not lies
Presenting available information that later proves to be inaccurate is not a lie

A lie involves purposely reporting fabricated information

Show where the press does that

russia was fabricated. they reported the fuck out of that.

now - when you have the intellectual capacity to figure out a pair of slip on shoes, holler. but to date you've never said a thing other than drop snark-shit and one liners of ignorance.

so forgive me if i use your past history as a valid reason to tell you to fuck off.

Russian interference in our election actually happened

Want to try again?

 

[iceberg]

you get into these problems when you report what people say as "news" vs. the news itself. CNN and many call things like "this man says trump is an asshole!"

and that's their news. what someone "thinks".

that's where things go wrong.

9000 times? can you name them so we can verify these "lies" and those are not "likely to get fired today" type of lies. did you read the 78 things the media got wrong?

if the media is so wrong about 1 person, how can you trust what you believe you know about that person when what you read about them simply isn't true?

now keep in mind i'm not defending trump, i'm attacking the media. don't confuse the 2.

That's confusing me. You are saying if someone alleges an attack against them, and the media reports an alleged attack against them, and the person is found to be lying, and the media reports the person lied... The media is the ones who lied?

And you are saying those lies aren't the "likely to be fired" lies. And asking me if I read the list...

" The firing was said to be likely to happen the following week."


Hmmmm, did you read your own list? It's literally what I took directly from your source.

Wash Post I believe has the 9000, with when Trump lied, and the facts from actual data. Why is that ok with you>?

wash post? oh - these guys:

WaPo Admits Inaccuracies in Its Reporting About Covington High School Students
Washington Post Inaccuracies - Doug's Brief Case
'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid
Washington Post fact checker
The Washington Post: Wrong Again!
Washington Post Corrects "Inaccuracies" In Trump's Air Force One Tweet

thank you for proving why i don't trust people this wrong, this often. if i screwed up my job this much i'd get fired.

Inaccuracies are not lies
Presenting available information that later proves to be inaccurate is not a lie

A lie involves purposely reporting fabricated information

Show where the press does that

russia was fabricated. they reported the fuck out of that.

now - when you have the intellectual capacity to figure out a pair of slip on shoes, holler. but to date you've never said a thing other than drop snark-shit and one liners of ignorance.

so forgive me if i use your past history as a valid reason to tell you to fuck off.

Russian interference in our election actually happened

Want to try again?

 

[Aponi]

you get into these problems when you report what people say as "news" vs. the news itself. CNN and many call things like "this man says trump is an asshole!"

and that's their news. what someone "thinks".

that's where things go wrong.

9000 times? can you name them so we can verify these "lies" and those are not "likely to get fired today" type of lies. did you read the 78 things the media got wrong?

if the media is so wrong about 1 person, how can you trust what you believe you know about that person when what you read about them simply isn't true?

now keep in mind i'm not defending trump, i'm attacking the media. don't confuse the 2.

That's confusing me. You are saying if someone alleges an attack against them, and the media reports an alleged attack against them, and the person is found to be lying, and the media reports the person lied... The media is the ones who lied?

And you are saying those lies aren't the "likely to be fired" lies. And asking me if I read the list...

" The firing was said to be likely to happen the following week."


Hmmmm, did you read your own list? It's literally what I took directly from your source.

Wash Post I believe has the 9000, with when Trump lied, and the facts from actual data. Why is that ok with you>?

wash post? oh - these guys:

WaPo Admits Inaccuracies in Its Reporting About Covington High School Students
Washington Post Inaccuracies - Doug's Brief Case
'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid
Washington Post fact checker
The Washington Post: Wrong Again!
Washington Post Corrects "Inaccuracies" In Trump's Air Force One Tweet

thank you for proving why i don't trust people this wrong, this often. if i screwed up my job this much i'd get fired.

Inaccuracies are not lies
Presenting available information that later proves to be inaccurate is not a lie

A lie involves purposely reporting fabricated information

Show where the press does that

russia was fabricated. they reported the fuck out of that.

now - when you have the intellectual capacity to figure out a pair of slip on shoes, holler. but to date you've never said a thing other than drop snark-shit and one liners of ignorance.

so forgive me if i use your past history as a valid reason to tell you to fuck off.

Russian interference in our election actually happened

Want to try again?

You got a list of votes they changed o what you say you dont cause there no evidence they influanced or changed one vote so sad for you

 

[iceberg]

That's confusing me. You are saying if someone alleges an attack against them, and the media reports an alleged attack against them, and the person is found to be lying, and the media reports the person lied... The media is the ones who lied?

And you are saying those lies aren't the "likely to be fired" lies. And asking me if I read the list...

" The firing was said to be likely to happen the following week."


Hmmmm, did you read your own list? It's literally what I took directly from your source.

Wash Post I believe has the 9000, with when Trump lied, and the facts from actual data. Why is that ok with you>?

wash post? oh - these guys:

WaPo Admits Inaccuracies in Its Reporting About Covington High School Students
Washington Post Inaccuracies - Doug's Brief Case
'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid
Washington Post fact checker
The Washington Post: Wrong Again!
Washington Post Corrects "Inaccuracies" In Trump's Air Force One Tweet

thank you for proving why i don't trust people this wrong, this often. if i screwed up my job this much i'd get fired.

Inaccuracies are not lies
Presenting available information that later proves to be inaccurate is not a lie

A lie involves purposely reporting fabricated information

Show where the press does that

russia was fabricated. they reported the fuck out of that.

now - when you have the intellectual capacity to figure out a pair of slip on shoes, holler. but to date you've never said a thing other than drop snark-shit and one liners of ignorance.

so forgive me if i use your past history as a valid reason to tell you to fuck off.

Russian interference in our election actually happened

Want to try again?

You got a list of votes they changed o what you say you dont cause there no evidence they influanced or changed one vote so sad for you

and given trump was not involved in any way - reporters should have waited for the news to happen, not pre-state what they WANT to happen so they can get hits from fools like rightwinger.

even after the report many were still NO HE COLLUDED - which is a lie.

they lie all the time, he just doesn't give a fuck and has some insane desire to prove to the world on a post by post basis the true depths of his stupidity.

 

[candycorn]

wash post? oh - these guys:

WaPo Admits Inaccuracies in Its Reporting About Covington High School Students
Washington Post Inaccuracies - Doug's Brief Case
'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid
Washington Post fact checker
The Washington Post: Wrong Again!
Washington Post Corrects "Inaccuracies" In Trump's Air Force One Tweet

thank you for proving why i don't trust people this wrong, this often. if i screwed up my job this much i'd get fired.

Inaccuracies are not lies
Presenting available information that later proves to be inaccurate is not a lie

A lie involves purposely reporting fabricated information

Show where the press does that

russia was fabricated. they reported the fuck out of that.

now - when you have the intellectual capacity to figure out a pair of slip on shoes, holler. but to date you've never said a thing other than drop snark-shit and one liners of ignorance.

so forgive me if i use your past history as a valid reason to tell you to fuck off.

Russian interference in our election actually happened

Want to try again?

You got a list of votes they changed o what you say you dont cause there no evidence they influanced or changed one vote so sad for you

and given trump was not involved in any way - reporters should have waited for the news to happen, not pre-state what they WANT to happen so they can get hits from fools like rightwinger.

even after the report many were still NO HE COLLUDED - which is a lie.

they lie all the time, he just doesn't give a fuck and has some insane desire to prove to the world on a post by post basis the true depths of his stupidity.

So you agree that Russia did interfere. Right?

Okay.

Now what was the nature of the interference.

The Dems were hacked the Reps were not. Do you agree?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Except he did.

The commentary is someone's opinion; not reporting.

He said that there were good people on both side, at no time did he say that the Nazi wannabe's were good people, The antifa shit stains were one of those groups as well I'm pretty sure Trump would never complement people who loath him.

 

[hunarcy]

Except he did.

The commentary is someone's opinion; not reporting.

Except he did NOT. Trump Didn't Call Neo-Nazis 'Fine People.' Here's Proof. | RealClearPolitics

 

[hunarcy]

Except he did.

The commentary is someone's opinion; not reporting.

He said that there were good people on both side, at no time did he say that the Nazi wannabe's were good people, The antifa shit stains were one of those groups as well I'm pretty sure Trump would never complement people who loath him.

He said there were good people on both sides of the monuments debate. He specifically excluded Neo-Nazis from his comments. Trump Didn't Call Neo-Nazis 'Fine People.' Here's Proof. | RealClearPolitics