100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    We’re gonna try to stay on point in this one -🤞 .

    After the Iranian admission of shooting down the Ukrainian 737, which was carrying 82 Iranian passengers, protests against the Supreme Leader have broken out.

    The UK ambassador to Iran has been arrested for talking photos of the protests. President Trump has tweeted support for the protesters in English and Farsi.


     
    I honestly think these brain injuries weren’t apparent when Trump made his initial announcement. So I wouldn’t say he was lying here.
     
    Did the media keep track of or run a 'fact check' with the other past presidents or is this a new thing?

    This is a honest question because I don't recall and this has nothing to do with this thread but I was curious?

    I would think they did to some extent.

    Just the crazy volume of lies by this guy are just staggering.

    He has done the almost impossible he has made even politicians look honest just because he lies so frequently about anything and everything.
     
    I would think they did to some extent.
    They did. For example, the Washington Post started their fact checker column in 2007 for the 2008 campaigns, then started it as a permanent feature in 2011. factcheck.org has been around since 2003, politifact.com since 2007.

    Just the crazy volume of lies by this guy are just staggering.
    Exactly. You could easily have not really noticed the various fact checkers previously, because it was both less frequent and the lies were less extreme. With Trump's approach to framing situations, i.e. repeatedly lying about them in an attempt to establish favourable perceptions, it's non-stop.
     
    I did check on politic fact.org and I think they started around 2008 or similar so the fact checking apparatus has been around for a bit.
     
    This is a pretty interesting comparison.


     
    I honestly think these brain injuries weren’t apparent when Trump made his initial announcement. So I wouldn’t say he was lying here.
    I'm not so sure about that. How could anyone have gotten any kind of injury if the bases were cleared out in advance like they claimed?
     
    I'm not so sure about that. How could anyone have gotten any kind of injury if the bases were cleared out in advance like they claimed?
    Maybe cleared out meant that they were moved underground as opposed to topside where the rockets hit? Not a military guy so just guessing but I think MT15 is probably on the right path on this one.
     
    This is a pretty interesting comparison.


    Wow. You have to try really hard to only have 4% of your statements that were checked for accuracy be true while 69% are mostly false to pants on fire lies.
     
    It used to be that fact checks were only done for official presidential announcements, speeches, addresses to the nation, etc.
    Depending on time and circumstance, fact-checking a president during time of war sometimes resulted in the fact checker getting incarcerated and subjected to wall-to-wall interrogations, particularly during World War II and the Cold War.
    The advent of mass communication gave rise to fact checking every single word that a president utters, regardless of the context.
    Thus you have fact checkers pouring over off-the-cuff banter between the president and reporters while he's walking to the helicopter and counting obvious jokes and quips as "lies."
     
    It used to be that fact checks were only done for official presidential announcements, speeches, addresses to the nation, etc.
    Depending on time and circumstance, fact-checking a president during time of war sometimes resulted in the fact checker getting incarcerated and subjected to wall-to-wall interrogations, particularly during World War II and the Cold War.
    The advent of mass communication gave rise to fact checking every single word that a president utters, regardless of the context.
    Thus you have fact checkers pouring over off-the-cuff banter between the president and reporters while he's walking to the helicopter and counting obvious jokes and quips as "lies."


    So was "we have no injuries" is a joke or a quip? Off-the-cuff banter? Or again are you cool with this lie?
     
    It used to be that fact checks were only done for official presidential announcements, speeches, addresses to the nation, etc.
    Depending on time and circumstance, fact-checking a president during time of war sometimes resulted in the fact checker getting incarcerated and subjected to wall-to-wall interrogations, particularly during World War II and the Cold War.
    The advent of mass communication gave rise to fact checking every single word that a president utters, regardless of the context.
    Thus you have fact checkers pouring over off-the-cuff banter between the president and reporters while he's walking to the helicopter and counting obvious jokes and quips as "lies."


    Come on that is just grasping at straws here.

    He has to be the most dishonest person that is not drug addicted or in serious need of mental health care the world has ever encountered.

    But that is right in line with the excuse making for his actions the party has done.
     
    So was "we have no injuries" is a joke or a quip? Off-the-cuff banter? Or again are you cool with this lie?
    See previous post:
     
    Come on that is just grasping at straws here.

    He has to be the most dishonest person that is not drug addicted or in serious need of mental health care the world has ever encountered.

    But that is right in line with the excuse making for his actions the party has done.
    No, it's not "grasping at straws"; it's viewing the way we've treated presidential communications from a historical perspective.
     
    No, it's not "grasping at straws"; it's viewing the way we've treated presidential communications from a historical perspective.
    Who cares? Obama was fact checked just the same as Trump. Difference being that they didn't have to fact check him as much as Trump because the majority of his statements were never in question as to their accuracy or truthfulness.
     
    Who cares? Obama was fact checked just the same as Trump. Difference being that they didn't have to fact check him as much as Trump because the majority of his statements were never in question as to their accuracy or truthfulness.
    Wasn't so long ago that presidential fact-checkers got picked up by Mr. Hoover's men, interrogated, beaten within an inch of their lives, had all their property seized, got labeled "communist" and got blacklisted so they could never get a job again.

    Who cares, indeed.
     
    Wasn't so long ago that presidential fact-checkers got picked up by Mr. Hoover's men, interrogated, beaten within an inch of their lives, had all their property seized, got labeled "communist" and got blacklisted so they could never get a job again.

    Who cares, indeed.
    That has exactly what to do with modern day fact checking?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom