This is an impessive article. It lists all of his "outright lies" during his presidency so far.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... d=pl-share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Zzz

Good old Trumpy, always worth a smile.

Article on Channel Four News in Gettysburg about the repeal of Obamacare.
It might have it's great difficulties, (Obamacare, as, for that matter, does the NHS)
but those poor bastids are just gonna be left dying in the streets if he gets his way.
Charity medical buses touring poor neighbourhoods.

Thank Christ we live over here.

ElectroClaret wrote:Article on Channel Four News in Gettysburg about the repeal of Obamacare.
It might have it's great difficulties, (Obamacare, as, for that matter, does the NHS)
but those poor bastids are just gonna be left dying in the streets if he gets his way.
Charity medical buses touring poor neighbourhoods.

Thank Christ we live over here.

23 million kicked off their health insurance purely because the Republicans can't stand letting the black president have a legacy.

Just picked one at random.


JAN. 25 “So, look, when President Obama was there two weeks ago making a speech, very nice speech. Two people were shot and killed during his speech. You can't have that.” (There were no gun homicide victims in Chicago that day.)



There were actually three gun homicides in Chicago that day, 11th January 2017, the day of Obamas farewell speech. Can't be bothered checking any more for fake news, that's usually your job IT.

By the way, possibly the worst lie Trump's ever told was when he claimed during a televised Republican primary debate that he lost "hundreds of friends" on 9/11. Imagine telling that lie for political gain. And imagine defending him after he's told it.

I'm assuming you can prove he didn't lose x amount of friends at 9/11?

Imploding Turtle wrote:By the way, possibly the worst lie Trump's ever told was when he claimed during a televised Republican primary debate that he lost "hundreds of friends" on 9/11. Imagine telling that lie for political gain. And imagine defending him after he's told it.

How many friends did he actually lose on 9/11?

morpheus2 wrote:Just picked one at random.


JAN. 25 “So, look, when President Obama was there two weeks ago making a speech, very nice speech. Two people were shot and killed during his speech. You can't have that.” (There were no gun homicide victims in Chicago that day.)



There were actually three gun homicides in Chicago that day, 11th January 2017, the day of Obamas farewell speech. Can't be bothered checking any more for fake news, that's usually your job IT.

What's your source? Because yours appears to have got the most basic of details wrong.

Compare with mine. - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have you got something against good old Trumpy, Turtle?

morpheus2 wrote:How many friends did he actually lose on 9/11?

When asked to name one he has repeatedly refused. He also attended exactly zero 9/11 funerals.

Imploding Turtle wrote:What's your source? Because yours appears to have got the most basic of details wrong.

Compare with mine. - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You never said anything about posting sources!

Imploding Turtle wrote:When asked to name one he has repeatedly refused. He also attended exactly zero 9/11 funerals.

The memory was clearly too traumatising for him to recall their names.

Next!

morpheus2 wrote:You never said anything about posting sources!

Well, you challenged me to check what you say is false reporting. So i did and it showed the reporting was accurate. So i'm asking what your source was that gave you false information. It's nothing to get defensive about, i'm just trying to understand how you were mistaken.

Sidney1st wrote:I'm assuming you can prove he didn't lose x amount of friends at 9/11?

You're expecting me to prove a negative?

He's unable to name a single friend he lost, and he doesn't appear to have attended any of the funerals. Given how brazen he lies about everything else i think that's all the evidence I need to know he's lying. But he can always prove me wrong, quite easily.

It's not the only 9/11 lie he's told, but in my view it's by far his worst.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/15-years-o ... nd-slights" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BBC lying about WTC7.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle wrote:Well, you challenged me to check what you say is false reporting. So i did and it showed the reporting was accurate. So i'm asking what your source was that gave you false information. It's nothing to get defensive about, i'm just trying to understand how you were mistaken.

I was just guessing, I took a shot in the dark so to speak.

President Obamas speech started just after 9.17pm Chicago time on the 10th and the whole performance ended after midnight on the 11th. On the 10th and 11th of Jan 2017 there were a total of 3 gun homicides in Chicago.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017-ch ... idGonzalez" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

morpheus2 wrote:You never said anything about posting sources!

I think you just got the date wrong and Google searched for chicago shootings on January 11th, which led you to this website.
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017-ch ... line?mon=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

morpheus2 wrote:I was just guessing, I took a shot in the dark so to speak.

President Obamas speech started just after 9.17pm Chicago time on the 10th and the whole performance ended after midnight on the 11th. On the 10th and 11th of Jan 2017 there were a total of 3 gun homicides in Chicago.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017-ch ... idGonzalez" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You think he spoke for nearly three hours?

His speech lasted less than an hour. It's about 4,265 words long according to MS Word. If it took him 3 hours that's about 23.7 words per minute.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're expecting me to prove a negative?

He's unable to name a single friend he lost, and he doesn't appear to have attended any of the funerals. Given how brazen he lies about everything else i think that's all the evidence I need to know he's lying. But he can always prove me wrong, quite easily.

It's not the only 9/11 lie he's told, but in my view it's by far his worst.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/15-years-o ... nd-slights" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you think about it, you've just lost hundreds of friends to a Muslim suicide attack and many of their funerals are on the same day - it would be rude to attend one and not another, so my guess is that Pres Trump did what any good person would do and attended a memorial service to honour all of them together.

Next!

Imploding Turtle wrote:I think you just got the date wrong and Google searched for chicago shootings on January 11th, which led you to this website.
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017-ch ... line?mon=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He was having champagne and chatting to black people into the early hours, he was still at the function eating shrimp cocktails and chicken with peas and rice, so it still counts.

Next!

When does the football season start?

gawthorpe_view wrote:When does the football season start?

He hasn't lied about that as well has he??

morpheus2 wrote:He hasn't lied about that as well has he??

No, but he calls it soccer which is an impeachable offence in my book.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You think he spoke for nearly three hours?

His speech lasted less than an hour. It's about 4,265 words long according to MS Word. If it took him 3 hours that's about 23.7 words per minute.

According to your sauce "the city had no slayings for about 24 hours before and after Obama's speech".......do those three on the 11th not fall in the 24 hour time frame that your sauce claims is homicide free?

morpheus2 wrote:He was having champagne and chatting to black people into the early hours, he was still at the function eating shrimp cocktails and chicken with peas and rice, so it still counts.

Next!

The lie was "Two people were shot and killed during his speech", so no, it doesn't count.

Also, according to your link, the second murder was at 12:30pm, which is hardly the early hours.

morpheus2 wrote:According to your sauce "the city had no slayings for about 24 hours before and after Obama's speech".......do those three on the 11th not fall in the 24 hour time frame that your sauce claims is homicide free?

I noticed that too. But it doesn't make the NY Times wrong. Even the website you did eventually link to shows that the NYT article is correct.

Greenmile wrote:The lie was "Two people were shot and killed during his speech", so no, it doesn't count.

Also, according to your link, the second murder was at 12:30pm, which is hardly the early hours.

What IT said above /\ /\

Imploding Turtle wrote:I noticed that too. But it doesn't make the NY Times wrong. Even the website you did eventually link to shows that the NYT article is correct.

Goes to show, not all sauces can be trusted.

morpheus2 wrote:Goes to show, not all sauces can be trusted.

Trust, but verify.

Breibart has kicked fake news network CNN's ass over its very fake news concerning something about President Trump and CNN have been forced to retract "a blatantly inaccurate hit piece" and apologise to somebody I've never heard of.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... sian-fund/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

morpheus2 wrote:Goes to show, not all sauces can be trusted.

HP is dodgy!

morpheus2 wrote:Breibart has kicked fake news network CNN's ass over its very fake news concerning something about President Trump and CNN have been forced to retract "a blatantly inaccurate hit piece" and apologise to somebody I've never heard of.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... sian-fund/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the ways you know you can trust a news network is that every now and then, when they get things wrong, they'll issue a retraction. And one of the way you know you can't trust a news website is when in response to a network issuing a retraction they refer to is as "a complete cave".

We can talk about how **** CNN is by all means but the fact that they retracted the story implies integrity, and the fact that Breitbart thinks that a retraction is "a complete cave" implies they have none.

The fact that IT's op is quoting the NY Times shows that his entire argument is bullshit. In the past he's quoted the NY times, the Washington Post and MSNBC. All anti Trump outlets. None that can really be found to be telling the truth regarding political opinions.

MG70 wrote:The fact that IT's op is quoting the NY Times shows that his entire argument is bullshit. In the past he's quoted the NY times, the Washington Post and MSNBC. All anti Trump outlets. None that can really be found to be telling the truth regarding political opinions.

Thsoe two papers aren't anti-Trump, they're pro-truth. But i can understand why you can mistake those as being the same.

The content of the NYT article isn't up for debate. Tump's on the record as saying those things, and those things are provably untrue. It doesn't matter whether it's the New York Times pointing this out, or whether it's CBeebies, the messenger is irrelevent in this regard.

If the New York Times and Washington Post is so anti-Trump find me a single article from either of them that isn't an editorial or an opinion article and that deliberately misleads their readership into believing something about Trump that isn't true. In fact, go ahead and include editorials if you like.

I'm impressed Turtle has still got a hard on about Trump being president.

Is this going to carry on for the duration of Trumps presidency?

Sidney1st wrote:I'm impressed Turtle has still got a hard on about Trump being president.

Is this going to carry on for the duration of Trumps presidency?

If that's the best retort the Trump apologists can come up with then i think it's best if you try harder.

Trump lies..... name me any politician who hasn't.

This forum is turning into Upthemarxists.

Right_winger wrote:Trump lies..... name me any politician who hasn't.

This forum is turning into Upthemarxists.

If liberals, conservatives and centrists weren't here to counter the likes of you it'd be Upthefascists.

Imploding Turtle wrote:If that's the best retort the Trump apologists can come up with then i think it's best if you try harder.

I'm not an apologist.

I was merely stating how impressed I am that you've still got a hard on about an American president.
If you can find where I've been an apologist in that throw away comment I'll be impressed.

Imploding Turtle wrote:If liberals, conservatives and centrists weren't here to counter the likes of you it'd be Upthefascists.

So I'm a facist. Is that because I disagree with you? Or is it just a typical left of centre blanket deflection technique?

Right_winger wrote:So I'm a facist. Is that because I disagree with you? Or is it just a typical left of centre blanket deflection technique?

No. It's because you want to be ruled. By a totalitarian dictator with absolute power to implement the policies only you like and enforce them on the rest of us. You want to do away with due process and the right to a trial. You want to enact religious oppression and have people imprisoned for holding thoughts and beliefs you don't like. Maybe fascist isn't the best description for the likes of you, but it's still a pretty good one.

Imploding Turtle wrote:No. It's because you want to be ruled. By a totalitarian dictator with absolute power to implement the policies only you like and enforce them on the rest of us. You want to do away with due process and the right to a trial. You want to enact religious oppression and have people imprisoned for holding thoughts and beliefs you don't like. Maybe fascist isn't the best description for the likes of you, but it's still a pretty good one.

Wow think you need to lay off the drugs.

I'm surprised the great unwashed can actually afford drugs.

Sidney1st wrote:I'm not an apologist.

I was merely stating how impressed I am that you've still got a hard on about an American president.
If you can find where I've been an apologist in that throw away comment I'll be impressed.

Here are a couple of examples where you're excusing his actions.

Sidney1st wrote:So it doesn't mean an instant return to heavily polluting the atmosphere then?

Glad we've cleared that up, melodramatic panic over...

Sidney1st wrote:Its news because of who her sister is and because its all being carefully orchestrated by her mum, much like where she chose Kate went for her education etc.

Her mum isn't daft, her family get more media exposure, her own private businesses will also get more exposure and she will therefore make more money.

Bit like Trump does but no one over here deems it important like they do when Trump's businesses benefit from his current position.

I'm right about the Middleton's though.
It isn't much different to the Trump name getting more exposure.

As for the rest of it, has there been an instant return to heavy pollution?

You're just pissy because I used explanations that were valid.

Now I'm going to stop chatting to you on this thread because I can see you're already winding yourself up into calling people derogatory names for having the audacity to argue with you.

Imploding Turtle

NY times, the Washington Post.......Those two papers, they're pro-truth.

Gosh!

NYT Cheers the Rise of Censorship Algorithms

Exclusive: The New York Times is cheering on the Orwellian future for Western “democracy” in which algorithms quickly hunt down and eliminate information that the Times and other mainstream outlets don’t like, reports Robert Parry.

"Just days after sporting First Amendment pins at the White House Correspondents Dinner – to celebrate freedom of the press – the mainstream U.S. media is back to celebrating a very different idea: how to use algorithms to purge the Internet of what is deemed “fake news,” i.e. what the mainstream judges to be “misinformation.”...

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/02/n ... lgorithms/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Comments: 135

john wilson

"It was inevitable that the internet would be targeted by the deep state and the main stream media who are the mouth piece for the deep state. Allowing the mass of the people to be able to openly challenge the voice of the deep state has always been unthinkable..."

Skip Scott

"For the Ministry of Truth, verification means that it fits into their propaganda model. It is the opposite of truth. As for ever increasing profits, their advertisers will continue to pay for articles that advance their agenda, mostly propaganda and infotainment. For the propaganda to be maximally effective, they need to silence truth tellers like CN. In this upside down world, fake news is real news, and visa versa"

Sidney1st wrote:I'm right about the Middleton's though.
It isn't much different to the Trump name getting more exposure.

As for the rest of it, has there been an instant return to heavy pollution?

You're just pissy because I used explanations that were valid.

Now I'm going to stop chatting to you on this thread because I can see you're already winding yourself up into calling people derogatory names for having the audacity to argue with you.

It's very different. I think you're not seeing how it's different because you don't understand why exactly Trump earning money from his presidency is problematic. For example, the Middleton's can't use taxpayers' money, or the power of a presidency, to make and fulfil promises in private meetings in exchange for their private businesses receiving lucrative contracts, or written-off debts, or any number of other benefits.

Now they can't, but I'm not that interested in what either side do to the extent you're beating yourself into a frenzy about it.

IF he's doing what you claim he's doing, why's he still president?
If someone like you can see it, why hasn't the FBI or senate impeached him yet?
Ah wait, would it be because his kids are now technically running his business empire?

Its been rumoured for years that the Clinton's earned plenty of money from Bills presidency and I suspect it would've carried on if Hilary had made it in there.
You never seem to be that arsed about them though.

Would you have flogged that to death the way you are Trump?
Or doesn't that suit your political leaning?

7:05 Now I'm going to stop chatting to you on this thread because I can see you're already winding yourself up into calling people derogatory names for having the audacity to argue with you.

9:29 Hi honey I'm back