Uncle Joe is at it again!!

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I remember when Trump said he was wire tapped, the media said that was a lie...It wasn't.
Then Trump said there no collusion which the media called a lie...Mueller says otherwise.
Trump said he would win Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The press called him delusional and a liar...guess who was right?
Trump is a salesman and a cheerleader. Like the coach who guarantees a victory for homecoming, is he lying when it doesn't come off?
Biden writes this stuff down or someone does it for him. This is not off the cuff bluster. Last month I used the phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." If I had just thrown out there in a conversation it is a commonly used phrase but I used it to headline a chapter. You're damned right I sourced it.

And you know damn well that they are not going back and amending their "counts" of lies each time Trump is actually proven to be right.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by eccielover

It's all about what the "fact" checkers choose to fact check and how they do it.

It's well documented and even merited at least one study on the bias of the fact checkers. If you spend your whole day looking to find only the lies told by a politician, there is not one that wouldn't fail miserably. I'm not saying that's good, but Trump is overly vilified by the media. Obama lied his ass off, but wasn't called out. Pelosi's statements are often so full of lies or over the top statements as to be laughable.

But the lefties latch onto the biased reporting of the "fact" checkers each and every day.

This is slightly dated but still applicable today if you watch the trends.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...st-republicans




And.

https://www.newsbusters.org/fact-checkers



But I guess Speedy is one of those 38%'ers that believe that there is no bias in the "fact" checking world. Pretty coincidental that that same 38% number also maps largely to the pablum eating die hard lefties that want to believe the liberal media.

And in the end it's a distraction to justify Biden by comparing him to Trump, but people are seeing through Biden's repeated plagiarism and failure to have an original thought.

Hey, don't let facts get in the way of SPEEDS TDS narrative!!
He likes to "quote" so many things that just aren't so!!
P.S. No one knows SPEEDS political leanings...

[Austin Ellen]

Biden just kowtowed to the liberal base. Any lead he may have had is going bye bye. That is not a sign of a confident candidate. He should take lessons from Trump.

[Austin Ellen]

And if they did report it - you would never find it because any positive news about Trump is always last.

Originally Posted by eccielover

And you know damn well that they are not going back and amending their "counts" of lies each time Trump is actually proven to be right.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

It's all about what the "fact" checkers choose to fact check and how they do it.

It's well documented and even merited at least one study on the bias of the fact checkers. If you spend your whole day looking to find only the lies told by a politician, there is not one that wouldn't fail miserably. I'm not saying that's good, but Trump is overly vilified by the media. Obama lied his ass off, but wasn't called out. Pelosi's statements are often so full of lies or over the top statements as to be laughable.

But the lefties latch onto the biased reporting of the "fact" checkers each and every day.

This is slightly dated but still applicable today if you watch the trends.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...st-republicans




And.

https://www.newsbusters.org/fact-checkers



But I guess Speedy is one of those 38%'ers that believe that there is no bias in the "fact" checking world. Pretty coincidental that that same 38% number also maps largely to the pablum eating die hard lefties that want to believe the liberal media.

And in the end it's a distraction to justify Biden by comparing him to Trump, but people are seeing through Biden's repeated plagiarism and failure to have an original thought.

Fair enough. Tell me which specific "lies" you find in the 3 links I provided that you believe to be false accusations. Maybe 2 or 3. Then I'll do my best to research them and give you my findings as to whether Trump actually said what he was quoted to have said and whether or not the quotes were taken out of context.

Just 2 for now:

Did Trump not say noise from wind turbines cause cancer?

"If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value," Trump told his fellow Republicans April 2. "And they say the noise causes cancer."

There is no "they".

"Puerto Rico got 91 Billion Dollars for the hurricane, more money than has ever been gotten for a hurricane before."

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as of the end of last year, Puerto Rico had actually received about $11.2 billion in disaster relief payments since 2017.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Fair enough. Tell me which specific "lies" you find in the 3 links I provided that you believe to be false accusations. Maybe 2 or 3. Then I'll do my best to research them and give you my findings as to whether Trump actually said what he was quoted to have said and whether or not the quotes were taken out of context.

Just 2 for now:

Did Trump not say noise from wind turbines cause cancer?

"If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value," Trump told his fellow Republicans April 2. "And they say the noise causes cancer."

There is no "they".

"Puerto Rico got 91 Billion Dollars for the hurricane, more money than has ever been gotten for a hurricane before."

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as of the end of last year, Puerto Rico had actually received about $11.2 billion in disaster relief payments since 2017.

Again, Choose any politician and you'll find a million lies they spew regularly.

But I'll ask then again. Why is your automatic discussion in a thread about Biden's plagiarism and lies to divert and distract trying to zone in on Trump. HMMM. TDS maybe???

Do you have a position on lyin Biden and his plagiarism as was asked earlier when you went on the Trump attack instead?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Again, Choose any politician and you'll find a million lies they spew regularly.

But I'll ask then again. Why is your automatic discussion in a thread about Biden's plagiarism and lies to divert and distract trying to zone in on Trump. HMMM. TDS maybe???

Do you have a position on lyin Biden and his plagiarism as was asked earlier when you went on the Trump attack instead?

First, no, you will not find politicians that lie and distort facts to the extent that Trump does. Not close. Assuming the press is anti-Republican, I doubt you will find many such accusations made against George W. Bush.

Yes, Biden plagiarized. Not good. A strike against him. Trump lies and distorts facts. Strike against him. I'm sorry if you object to my defending Biden by pointing out worse transgressions by Trump. Maybe it was inappropriate to bring it up in this thread. Maybe not.

And I'd still like you to defend the alleged mistreatment of Trump in the articles I cited by telling me which statements are inaccurate.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And I'd still like you to defend the alleged mistreatment of Trump in the articles I cited by telling me which statements are inaccurate.

LOL. That's a loaded statement.

I already showed in the cited study that the mistreatment is largely in the comparative nature of the "fact" checkers. They pre-qualify the statements they supposedly fact check in an "un-biased" manner.

So the net effect is they take a million things Trump says, choose the lies or exaggerations and only fact check those giving the allusion that everything Trump says is a lie causing suckers like you to fall hook, line, and sinker for that narrative and begin to repeat it. Then they cherry pick an equal number of statements from a Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, etc. that they can declare as truths and voila. Trump lies more than anyone else.

And as the study shows this has been going on for years to target not just Trump but republicans in general.

The media and fact checkers are being exposed for what they are, simply biased lefties, and that rabid base that wants to still believe them is also being exposed.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

First, no, you will not find politicians that lie and distort facts to the extent that Trump does. Not close. Assuming the press is anti-Republican, I doubt you will find many such accusations made against George W. Bush.

Yes, Biden plagiarized. Not good. A strike against him. Trump lies and distorts facts. Strike against him. I'm sorry if you object to my defending Biden by pointing out worse transgressions by Trump. Maybe it was inappropriate to bring it up in this thread. Maybe not.

And I'd still like you to defend the alleged mistreatment of Trump in the articles I cited by telling me which statements are inaccurate.

If you like your plan you can keep your plan
If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor
You will save $2500 a year with ACA
Red line
It was the video

Those are just a few examples of pre meditated, abject lies. He said more. Just a sampling.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by bambino

If you like your plan you can keep your plan
If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor
You will save $2500 a year with ACA
Red line
It was the video

Those are just a few examples of pre meditated, abject lies. He said more. Just a sampling.

And I remember the media and "fact" checkers twisting themselves into pretzels to try and make them "partially true", and then diluting those lies by finding arbitrary things to deem true so his lie "percentage" stayed down. It's a game of numbers with them and some continue to try to pretend it's unbiased.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eccielover

And I remember the media and "fact" checkers twisting themselves into pretzels to try and make them "partially true", and then diluting those lies by finding arbitrary things to deem true so his lie "percentage" stayed down. It's a game of numbers with them and some continue to try to pretend it's unbiased.

A prime example is Politifact's recent ruling on Odumbo's blatant lies in Brazil. They bent over backwards to cover his lying ass.

Politifact Gives Odumbo Generous Ruling After He Blatantly Lied About America’s Gun Laws

Former President Odumbo has blatantly lied about America’s gun laws before. In 2015, he claimed it was easier for people in “some neighborhoods” to buy a gun than it is to “buy a book” or “buy a fresh vegetable.”

Just last week, while in Brazil, Odumbo claimed:

Some of you may be aware our gun laws in the United States don't make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon, any time without much, if any, regulation. They can buy it over the Internet. They can buy machine guns.

This should be obviously false to anyone with even a passing knowledge of America’s gun laws (which I know excludes nearly all of the media). But Politifact took it upon themselves to cushion Odumbo, so he doesn’t get a dreaded “Pants on Fire” rating.

When investigating the claim, Politifact looked only at the sentences beginning with “Anybody can buy any weapon.”

The “fact-checking” organization completely ignored the part where he said “without much, if any” because it was “too loose to be fact-checked.” No, it wasn’t too loose. It was contained in a sentence that began, “Anybody can buy any weapon at any time.” As Politifact did report, not just anybody can buy a weapon. Therefore, not everybody can buy a weapon without regulation.

As The Washington Free Beacon’s Alex Griswold reported, this first sentence alone deserved a “Pants on Fire” rating.


(The Daily Wire)

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Assuming the press is anti-Republican,

That is no assumption...and you do LOVE facts SPEED!!
You always want facts SPEED...YOU GOT IT!!
Is this one of YOUR LIES...DO TELL SPEED!!

Many critics of the media say liberal (or left wing) bias exists within a wide variety of media channels, especially within the mainstream media, including network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN, MSNBC and the former Current TV, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and The New York Times.[72] These arguments intensified when it was revealed that the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863 via 193 donations from employees of these same organizations.[73] Both of these figures represent donations made in 2008.

A study cited frequently by those who make claims of liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite, a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter.[74] They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that the large majority of journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including issues such as abortion, affirmative action, social services, and gay rights. The authors compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s and concluded firstly that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes and education, and secondly that the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. The authors suggested this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality, a variation of confirmation bias.

Jim A. Kuypers of Virginia Tech investigated the issue of media bias in the 2002 book Press Bias and Politics. In this study of 116 mainstream U.S. papers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers stated that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints. They argued that reporters who they thought were expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view. Kuypers said he found liberal bias in the reporting of a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.[75] According to the Media Research Center, and David Brady of the Hoover Institute, conservative individuals and groups are more often labeled as such, than liberal individuals and groups.[76]

A 2005 study by political scientists Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia attempted to quantify bias among news outlets using statistical models, and found a liberal bias.[77][78] The authors wrote that "all of the news outlets we examine[d], except Fox News's Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress." The study concluded that news pages of The Wall Street Journal were more liberal than The New York Times, and the news reporting of PBS was to the right of most mainstream media. The report also stated that the news media showed a fair degree of centrism, since all but one of the outlets studied were, from an ideological point of view, between the average Democrat and average Republican in Congress.[79] In a blog post, Mark Liberman, professor of computer science and the director of Linguistic Data Consortium at the University of Pennsylvania, critiqued the statistical model used in this study.[80][81] The model used by Groseclose and Milyo assumed that conservative politicians do not care about the ideological position of think tanks they cite, while liberal politicians do. Liberman characterized the unsupported assumption as preposterous and argued that it led to implausible conclusions.[80][82]

A 2014 Gallup poll found that a plurality of Americans believe the media is biased to favor liberal politics. According to the poll, 44% of Americans feel that news media are "too liberal" (70% of self-identified conservatives, 35% of self-identified moderates, and 15% of self-identified liberals), 19% believe them to be "too conservative" (12% of self-identified conservatives, 18% of self-identified moderates, and 33% of self-identified liberals), and 34% find it "just about right" (49% of self-identified liberals, 44% of self-identified moderates, and 16% of self-identified conservatives).[83] In 2017, a Gallup poll with a similar question found that the majority of Americans view the news media favoring a particular political party; 64% believed it favored the Democratic Party, compared to 22% who believed it favored the Republican Party.[84]

A 2008 joint study by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that viewers believe a liberal media bias can be found in television news on networks such as CNN.[85] These findings concerning a perception of liberal bias in television news—particularly at CNN—were also reported by other sources.[86] The study was met with criticism from media outlets and academics, including the Wall Street Journal,[87] and progressive media watchdog Media Matters. Criticism from Media Matters included studying different media for different lengths of time, lack of context in quoting sources, lack of balance, and a flawed assignment of political positions of sources: the RAND corporation was considered "liberal" while the American Civil Liberties Union was considered "conservative".[88]

Libertarian analyst Daniel Sutter says the conclusions about bias are inconclusive because they ignore local news outlets and are based on surveys of national journalists, content analysis of their stories covered, and anecdotes about stories killed or not pursued to make their case.[89]

According to a study by Lars Willnat and David H. Weaver, professors of journalism at Indiana University, conducted via online interviews with 1,080 reporters between August and December 2013, 28.1% of journalists in the United States identify as Democrats and 7.1% as Republicans, whereas 50.2% identify as independents.[90][91][92][93]

Authors
Several authors have written books on liberal bias in the media, including

Steve Levy—Bias in the Media: How the Media Switches Against Me After I Switched Parties.[94]
Tim Groseclose—Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, 2011.[95]
Ben Shapiro—Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV, 2011.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bambino

If you like your plan you can keep your plan
If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor
You will save $2500 a year with ACA
Red line
It was the video

Those are just a few examples of pre meditated, abject lies. He said more. Just a sampling.

Not really "lies". At the time Obama made those statements, he believed them to be true. Trump has made many such statements that at the time he thought were true but turned out not to be so.

Trump said he would repeal/replace the ACA. A lie? Not at all. It simply turned out to be a false statement but it was not a lie. Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. A lie? No. That was his intent but it did not happen.

Conditions change which make statements untrue. If Obama knew at the time he said it that "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" was untrue, he lied. Maybe Obama did not understand all the ramifications of the ACA. His statement was incorrect.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Not really "lies". At the time Obama made those statements, he believed them to be true. Trump has made many such statements that at the time he thought were true but turned out not to be so.

Trump said he would repeal/replace the ACA. A lie? Not at all. It simply turned out to be a false statement but it was not a lie. Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. A lie? No. That was his intent but it did not happen.

Conditions change which make statements untrue. If Obama knew at the time he said it that "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" was untrue, he lied. Maybe Obama did not understand all the ramifications of the ACA. His statement was incorrect.

Obama knew damn well he was lying about the ACA:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.fb3290ccc0b2

Speedy, you are not qualified to read someone’s mind. Obama knew the video was a lie. As for the Red Line? He said it, but did nothing about it. An abject lie.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Not really "lies". At the time Obama made those statements, he believed them to be true. Trump has made many such statements that at the time he thought were true but turned out not to be so.

Trump said he would repeal/replace the ACA. A lie? Not at all. It simply turned out to be a false statement but it was not a lie. Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. A lie? No. That was his intent but it did not happen.

Conditions change which make statements untrue. If Obama knew at the time he said it that "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" was untrue, he lied. Maybe Obama did not understand all the ramifications of the ACA. His statement was incorrect.

That's bullshit! Gruber bragged about how Odumbo knew he was lying when he made those balderdash claims. It was part of Odumbo's plan to lie to the American public in order to push that POS plan through Congress.