You sure do a nice job deflecting. You'd make a great politician. I'm looking for an example of a "verified fact," as Stevie said, that Trump has specifically called fake. Not his vague ranting about fake news.
Joe Crowley goes DOWN!
- Thread starter Bobbie Solo
- Start date
You sure do a nice job deflecting. You'd make a great politician. I'm looking for an example of a "verified fact," as Stevie said, that Trump has specifically called fake. Not his vague ranting about fake news.
I know it can be difficult to parse through the volumes of lies he produces, but it's hard to miss all of the "fake news" backfires. There are many of them ranging from the serious (dozens surrounding Russian interference in the 2016 election) to the inane (his call with the Prime Minister of Australia). He has used the term in broad and specific ways. He's also used similar terms or language in like fashion as well. The fact checking sites have them. He'll probably produce a few more today. It's only 1:30...
I was generalizing in my response. Most of Trump's "fake news" lies are also generalizations that are difficult to proveHe was clearly referencing Stormy when he said fake news. That was a lie.
but sure... here are a few that match your criteria.
1. “Chris Cuomo, in his interview with Sen. Blumenthal, never asked him about his long-term lie about his brave "service" in Vietnam. FAKE NEWS!”
Cuomo’s first question to Blumenthal was: “What is your response to the president of the United States saying you should not be believed because you misrepresented your military record in the past?”
2. “While on FAKE NEWS @CNN, Bernie Sanders was cut off for using the term fake news to describe the network. They said technical difficulties!”
In an interview with Erin Burnett, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made a joke about Trump labeling CNN as “fake news.” After he made the joke, the audio cut off, and CNN cut to a commercial. Upon returning from the commercial, Burnett picked up where they left: “Senator, you were just talking — joking — about CNN, fake news.” Then Sanders went on to criticize Trump’s labeling of CNN as “fake news.”
3. “Now that Russian collusion, after one year of intense study, has proven to be a total hoax on the American public"
It has not been proven false. Investigation is ongoing.
4. “The Mueller probe should never have been started in that there was no collusion and there was no crime. It was based on fraudulent activities and a Fake Dossier paid for by Crooked Hillary and the DNC, and improperly used in FISA COURT for surveillance of my campaign. WITCH HUNT!”
Several lies in this one..
Mueller was started because he fired Comey. If he didn't fire Comey there would be no Mueller.
The probe did not begin because of the dossier. We received the tip from Australia months before the dossier was received by the FBI.
The dossier was used in the FISA court to monitor Carter Page AFTER he was no longer a part of the Trump campaign. It was not used to spy on the Trump campaign.
My TDS has lead to my wild speculation that Trump Jr knew he was meeting with a Russian to get dirt on Hillary Clinton and that Trump knew about it.
You said I was jumping to conclusions because I assumed Trump Jr would know who he was meeting and why.
One of our opinions was certainly clouded at the time.
What's the opposite of TDS? Blind loyalty?
Thank you. I didn't expect tweets about media appearances of others. I was looking for a "verified fact" (the term Stevie used) that Trump has specifically called fake news. Something like him saying "X did not happen, that's fake news" when whatever "X" is can be proven as a verified fact.
I just gave you the most important one of all. Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump continued to make his hoax and fake news claims long after the discovery it took place. Hell, there was even rare bipartisan acceptance of it.
Trump has acknowledged that Russia interfered. That's not even debatable. He has said the collusion investigation and "witch hunt" (his words) are the "hoax" and "fake news." There's a difference.
The thing is... he has always been placing doubt on Russia even playing a role.
More than 30% of the country believes Russia did not meddle in the 2016 election.
"If Russia hacked, if Russia did anything, I want to know about it"
That is from an interview 5 months after he was shown the evidence which directly linked this to Putin.
Right, he did acknowledge Russia interfered. He first did it (at the pestering of his staff) during a press conference early January of 2017, before going into his "maybe somebody else did it" routine. And he acknowledged it again recently after the Helsinki debacle, once again before going into the "lotta people out there" schtick. In between, he kept at it with the hoax/fake news business. There is a difference between claiming collusion is hoax/fake news versus Russian inference hoax/fake news. He's done both, on camera and on twitter. Similar to what I stated originally, it's hard to navigate the sea of lies.
Last edited:
Right, and Trump has continued to place doubt on Russia’s involvement well after he saw the evidence of it as I cited above.
To me that is a problem, and a large part of the reason 30% of the country doesn’t believe it.
So, Joe Crowley loses primary.
Pathetic Cortez wins a district for her Socialist Democrats.
Travels around the USA and gets on TV for interviews.
Endorses 3 dopey socialists in primaries - AND THEY ALL LOSE!!!!
Meanwhile, the pathetic Cortez still needs to win her district as Crowley could run third party and Pappas is running against her as a Republican.
If I live in her district, I am turned off by her travels and rocket launch to fame and I don't vote for her.
She should move to Venezuela.
Pathetic Cortez wins a district for her Socialist Democrats.
Travels around the USA and gets on TV for interviews.
Endorses 3 dopey socialists in primaries - AND THEY ALL LOSE!!!!
Meanwhile, the pathetic Cortez still needs to win her district as Crowley could run third party and Pappas is running against her as a Republican.
If I live in her district, I am turned off by her travels and rocket launch to fame and I don't vote for her.
She should move to Venezuela.
I'll assume you are also against Trump's current rallies then?
She is campaigning for other candidates. There is nothing wrong with what she is doing.
She is not even an elected representative. Why do you have an issue with a private citizen campaigning?
So look at El-Syed. He was never expected to win. His polling was less than 20%.
He finished with 30% of the vote.
Credit whatever you want, but she put the spotlight on him.
I'm willing to bet my house that you have voted for a candidate that has campaigned across the country for other candidates.
You should look into what she actually believes instead of seeing a scary word and turning off your ability to distinguish what democratic socialism is vs socialism. At their very core, they are not similar.
Last edited:
Crowley took his eye off the ball and lost the primary to a candidate that ran to his left. While it is a little unusual for the Democrats, the Tea Party has been doing that to Republicans for a decade. It is the nature of the current political climate.
No doubt, Knowknow, but it is a failing proposition and has been since the birth of the USA - think Debs back in early 1900s.
The fact that people are rooting and voting for a perpetual failure in the form of socialism (Spare me the differences, Merge) is what keeps me up at night.
The fact that people are rooting and voting for a perpetual failure in the form of socialism (Spare me the differences, Merge) is what keeps me up at night.
It's not just left vs. centrist left though. She acknowledges that her platform will not work in every district.
She is saying that democrats need to get out there and work to earn votes, and she is absolutely correct there.
Talk to your constituents and build a campaign on the things that matter to them.
The differences are important.
Feel free to keep your head in the sand and ignore the differences and let the boogeyman keep you up at night though.
I am not afraid of socialism nor am I afraid of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. She is young and inexperienced but if she is talented enough, she will overcome those issues and learn how to govern. If she is not, than she will be a side note no one remembers in five years.
It would be great if politicians and more importantly voters ever thought about the math. They would see that many of these ridiculous proposals simply cost too much and are not realistic. They don't want to give up any of the other programs that are out there supposedly helping, but are gung ho to add new costly programs as they discuss their ideas of "free this and that for everyone or for particular groups." The dumbing down of America continues...
Cost is an important part of the discussion without question. But first, you need to know what kind of society you want.
If you decide that you want to live in a society where everyone has health coverage - you then figure out what that will look like and what it will cost to do it. It would not be too costly to accomplish it. We are already paying the inputs.
That doesn’t mean that we elect 1 congressman and we now have free healthcare, college, housing, a jobs guarantee... etc.
It mean you elected someone who believes those things will be better for us as a society and it is up to them to prove it can work.
We just gave the weathly a tax cut that will not be paid for and will increase our deficit significantly. Saying something “costs too much” is just not a real argument.
It is either worth the cost or it isn’t.
Maybe a better way to couch it is if you want more or less government intrusion in your life. Do you want government to be in the business of providing services that the free market can provide or do you want them to be a safety net and provide oversight?
I would love to see the profit motive removed from health insurance. This is something I've been supportive of for years and I never see it discussed in any healthcare debate. Have health insurance administered by non-governmental non-profit companies.
You start your answer saying cost is an important part of the discussion. You end it with saying something costs too much is not a real argument? Which one is it? Cost is always an important part of the conversation and I never implied it's everything at all but it has to be a significant part of the equation. And politicians going around with these crazy giveaway promises rarely ever bring up what it would cost.
And on the tax cut, it has stimulated the economy quite a bit which provides jobs, increased wages and in fact provides more tax dollars to the government coffers. Notice no one is talking about the significantly increased child care credit which is going to put money in working poor family's pockets. That is very significant but it is an inconvenient truth that goes against the agenda of many. I do agree that the tax cuts won't work if we do not have meaningful spending cuts which our politicians on both sides can never seem to accomplish. They only like to spend more $ and that in fact "costs" us all.
Riddle me this. If conservatives want less governmental intrusion in peoples's lives, why do they constantly interfere with people's personal lives?
examples. Banning of internet poker, banning sexual behavior such as sodomy which still exists in certain states, no gay marriage, make abortion illegal, sports gambling in general until just a couple of months ago. It seems strange to me that conservatives love to interfere with people's personal lives when it comes to "sin." But it is not ok for government programs such as welfare.
I am not a fan of Ocasio. However, government does play a valuable role in people's lives. I believe that major infrastructure spending on the part of the federal government must be done. Roads, bridges, trains, electrical grids all must be done. However, this spending is a good thing. It puts people to work and it creates secondary and tertiary jobs while modernizing and making our country safer. Think about how many jobs this creates? This is what good government spending is about. Unfortunately, no politician wants to do this. It is a shame because this is what this country needs in so many ways.
It's both.
Can we afford to have a universal health insurance? Absolutely.
Should it cover everything with no cost to anyone? No.
Because cost and how we actually pay for it will be different.
The republicans used to promise that their tax cut would be deficit neutral. Once it was clear that it wasn't, they didn't care. it doesn't actually "cost" an individual anything.
It just increases our deficit / debt.
Putting a cost on it is meant to scare you away from looking into it. How we will actually pay for it will be a part of a larger debate in the legislature once the public decides this is something they want to do.
Trickle down does not work. Real hourly wages for June 2018 are unchanged from June 2017.
They had to increase the child tax credit because people lost personal exemptions. Without the increase in the child tax credit, I would have been paying more in taxes now than I did in 2017. As it stands now, my taxes are slightly lower than they were before the cut.
What do you mean by they won't work without cuts? Are you saying they won't increase economic growth without cuts somewhere?
What is far more likely to hurt economic growth is this stupid trade war. Trumps trade war is increasing prices of consumer goods which is going to remove any economic benefit from the tax cut.
Not to mention the companies that are offshoring production or even closing because of the tariffs.
Excellent post, I want the repubs out of my personal life and the dems out of my financial life.
I wonder if there is a document that spells put the enumerated powers the federal government must adhere to??????
Space Force is a good example of my point yesterday.
We clearly don’t have the money for a space force, but some politicians believe it is worth doing.
They aren’t asking where the money will come from. They aren’t saying we will have to raise taxes to do it.
Will cost be a part of the debate on how to pay for this? Of course.
But at the end of the day, cost will be an important part of the debate but it is less important than the political will to move forward with the idea.
Every dollar spent or proposed to be spent should be thoroughly examined. The current irresponsible and unsustainable path federal spending is on is dangerous. Spending programs continue grow more rapidly than the economy (even a good one) can keep up with and tax revenues continue to project well short of spending. Our sh*t head politicians continue to kick the can and the lemmings that blindly follow both crappy parties fail to hold their own accountable. Free everything and just cut taxes philosophies add to this problem. Maybe stop procrastinating? Maybe politicians should show some courage and leadership? Maybe citizens should acknowledge an 'everyone hurts/gives' philosophy is in the best interest of all and ultimately the responsible and right thing to do? Maybe a little bit of pragmatism is in order? Maybe (not maybe sadly) I'm just pissing in the wind again?
Not a damn. Outside of John Kasich, a rare politician that has earned my respect, did one Presidential candidate even touch the subject on the campaign trail? Aside from the usual Trump foof of course. They must be allergic. We're on a plane with a flight path headed for the side of a mountain and these idiots are arguing over what movie we should watch on the ride. F me...
I don't disagree with that at all. We should constantly examine spending and remove waste and abuses. What I disagree with is the premise that "many of these ridiculous proposals simply cost too much and are not realistic"
The costs should be weighed against the benefits in every case... but with something like a single payer system, we are already paying the inputs. We can afford to do it, we would just need to change how we pay.
Rand Paul might have, but I really don't remember. That would fit with his platform.
While I truly find the sentiment appealing, the economics and execution of single payer healthcare in this country is far from clear. Bernie's compassion for others is admirable, but he sucks at math. Then there's the little matter of putting our full faith and confidence behind government bureaucracy. Don't abandon the thought, but pump the breaks on the single payer easy-peasy panacea narrative. With the merging of healthcare companies into a few big greedy piles of dung, we may find ourselves at single payer down the road due to their gluttony.
Definitely agree. It isn't clear. I think we have a lot of options with how it could play out, but it worth having the discussion and cost being something prohibiting us from starting the debate is just not valid.
That is why I was saying we should first decide if we want a single payer system.
If there is public support, we can start figuring out what that will look like and how it will be funded.
Similar threads
