• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Meet the Bottomless Pinocchio, a new rating for a false claim repeated over and over again

bubbabgone said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...w-rating-false-claim-repeated-over-over-again

I had to post this because I usually like to review what Kessler thinks is a false claim. For yucks, you know.
The following 2 that he said were bottomless Pinocchios fairly jumped off the page.

Another campaign claim that has carried into his presidency is the assertion that Democrats colluded with Russia during the election (48 times). This is obviously false, as the Democrats were the target of hacking by Russian entities, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. (The assertion, also spread widely by Trump allies in the conservative media, largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court.)

On 30 separate occasions, Trump has also falsely accused special counsel Mueller of having conflicts of interest and the staff led by the longtime Republican of being “angry Democrats.”​

Now, maybe in some past column he explained in some detail why he believes they were Pinocchios but he sure didn't divulge any reasons here.
For the Russian collusion one giving "largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court." as the reason is absolutely preposterous.
And how he can be certain Mueller has no conflicts of interest given, for example, his and Comey's lucrative relationship in the 2000's when Mueller was FBI Director?

Who fact checks the fact checkers?
Click to expand...

No, srsly, did you miss the link the source embedded in the very thing you quoted that goes to the fact check on the claim? Here is what you quoted, as it actually appears, with the link that is in the source:

Another campaign claim that has carried into his presidency is the assertion that Democrats colluded with Russia during the election (48 times). This is obviously false, as the Democrats were the target of hacking by Russian entities, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. (The assertion, also spread widely by Trump allies in the conservative media, largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court.)

On 30 separate occasions, Trump has also falsely accused special counsel Mueller of having conflicts of interest and the staff led by the longtime Republican of being “angry Democrats.”
Click to expand...

So, the question that arises is if you do not understand what that blue underlined text was(it is a link), or did you think no one would bother to check to see if you where telling the truth?
 
Mach said:
*edit: Beaten by Americanwoman!

Who fact checks the fact checkers who fact check the fact checkers?

And who fact checks them? And them? Infinite regress is your defense? I suppose we'll have a bottomless Pinocchios paired with your infinite deflection.

Trump had, and has, no legitimate, significant evidence to back his claims, but you're up in arms that the fact checker didn't back his own? OK.
Everyone knows Trump is full of ****, and that his supporters require no evidence, and hold him to account for nothing. Why try to debate it? Oh, the infinite thing, gotcha.
Click to expand...

Pardon, but what was the source for the dossier? Was it in fact, Russian intelligence sources?
 
tres borrachos said:
Except he's right.

Crooked Hillary. That's such a clever nickname for her! How long did it take you to come up with that one?

Mueller and Comey are best friends? Like BFFs? They sit in the locker room and talk? Go on picnics with their wives? Was godfather to each other's kids?
Click to expand...

Comey and Mueller might not be BFFs like Putin and trump are - but both are long time Republican members. trump however WAS a democrat but joined the republicans because he knew the democrats would never nominate him for president.
 
MTAtech said:
It would appear to me that Trump cultists are not concerned with facts or they wouldn't be Trump cultists. They seem to accept anything he says as truth, regardless of whether it is the truth -- and then they go off repeating it as a fact.

An example of this include his claim that he created more jobs than anyone else. He hasn't. Job growth was stronger under Obama. Let's hear it for crowd size and how much he's doing.

In high school, there was a guy who told lies all the time and after a while nobody would accept what he said as anything but a lie. So, how is it that this guy gets away with it from 35% of the public?
Click to expand...

To be fair there will ALWAYS be about 33% of Americans who will support a republican president no matter how bad they are.

When dubya left office in 2009, his approval rating was 31%. I guess after 2 illegal wars and causing global recession, 69% of Americans didn't approve of what he did.
When President Obama left office in 2017, his approval rating was 67% . I guess 33% of Americans were happy to see a white guy back in the oval office.

trump had an approval rating of 46% at the BIGGEST inauguration in history and is currently on 41%. It has NEVER gone higher than 46%. I am betting he will leave office - even if it is in an orange jump suit - with approval rating between 35 and 40%.

trump NEEDS a terrorist attack or a war to improve his ratings....just like Sep 11 and the Iraq war helped dubya.
 
Ikari said:
Trump is very clearly the most dishonest, lying, uncouth, uncivilized, unprofessional President we've ever had. I don't think anyone other than his cult dispute that.
Click to expand...

As long as he is THEIR president, they will overlook his shortcomings....BTW, what did Stormy Daniels say about that?
 
JoanDavis said:
Comey and Mueller might not be BFFs like Putin and trump are - but both are long time Republican members. trump however WAS a democrat but joined the republicans because he knew the democrats would never nominate him for president.
Click to expand...

Good point. Wasn't there an interview somewhere where he said if he ever ran for president he'd go Republican because they'll 'believe anything?'
 
Born Free said:
prove it.
Click to expand...

She can't. Everybody knows that the flag of surrender is not a white one. It's a Confederate one. This isn't France, 'ya know.

Damn, got two insults in with one post. I'm good. :mrgreen:
 
OpportunityCost said:
Pardon, but what was the source for the dossier? Was it in fact, Russian intelligence sources?
Click to expand...

bubbagone was mistaken, the OP article fact-checking did in fact link a quite lengthy piece discussing the evidence for those particular lies. They were hyperlinked to the text, you could click on them...I including the links explicitly in my above post.
If you have any questions after that, sure, let me know.
 
bubbabgone said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...w-rating-false-claim-repeated-over-over-again

I had to post this because I usually like to review what Kessler thinks is a false claim. For yucks, you know.
The following 2 that he said were bottomless Pinocchios fairly jumped off the page.

Another campaign claim that has carried into his presidency is the assertion that Democrats colluded with Russia during the election (48 times). This is obviously false, as the Democrats were the target of hacking by Russian entities, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. (The assertion, also spread widely by Trump allies in the conservative media, largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court.)

On 30 separate occasions, Trump has also falsely accused special counsel Mueller of having conflicts of interest and the staff led by the longtime Republican of being “angry Democrats.”​

Now, maybe in some past column he explained in some detail why he believes they were Pinocchios but he sure didn't divulge any reasons here.
For the Russian collusion one giving "largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court." as the reason is absolutely preposterous.
And how he can be certain Mueller has no conflicts of interest given, for example, his and Comey's lucrative relationship in the 2000's when Mueller was FBI Director?

Who fact checks the fact checkers?
Click to expand...

Right now we do not have a media that even operates on fair researched reporting. They are lazy and if AP and Reuters is reporting something they just repeat the same stories. Journalism is on life support. It use to be a reporter would attempt to hide his bias. Not anymore. Now they only pick and choose stories to cover for a certain political leaning picking and choosing what to report on to further their own political agenda. It's pretty much propaganda.
 
bubbabgone said:
And how he can be certain Mueller has no conflicts of interest given, for example, his and Comey's lucrative relationship in the 2000's when Mueller was FBI Director?
Click to expand...

Anything is possible but most people look at evidence instead of imagining BS.

Do you believe everything you hear on the basis that anything is possible? I'm guessing it's selective. I'm guessing the old "anything is possible" doesn't convince you of other ****.
 
Mach said:
But that's false. He linked to the refutation...an entire analysis for each one!

He in fact, fact-checked himself.

You get two Pinocchio. One for getting it wrong, one because irony-like.

Democrats Colluded:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...to-feed-it-to-the-fbi/?utm_term=.0c333515079f

Trump accused Mueller of conflicts of interest:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...en-their-independence/?utm_term=.79557d6d9050

Hint: Don't seriously try to defend Trump, it will just drag you down with them. I think you can do better bubbagone, I'm rooting for you.
Click to expand...

His fuller defense of Hillary was no better than his brief one in the OP.
Does this sound like a powerful defense of Hillary to you? Especially now.
For some, that may seem like a lot of smoke. But it’s a huge leap to say Clinton colluded with Russians to do this. Instead, you have (a) the campaign hiring (b) a research firm that hired (c) a researcher who spoke (d) to Russian sources. Steele, for his part, has suggested he tried to alert reporters and the FBI because he was appalled by what he had discovered. The closest connection to Clinton is the fact that Steele gave to the FBI material written by Clinton associates, but it’s unclear what the FBI did with that memo.​

And his defense of giving a pinocchio about Mueller conflict of interest was comical for a couple of reasons. One, he was defending Mueller's team, not Mueller. And two, he didn't address Mueller himself ... but I did in the OP.
 
Mach said:
bubbagone was mistaken, the OP article fact-checking did in fact link a quite lengthy piece discussing the evidence for those particular lies. They were hyperlinked to the text, you could click on them...I including the links explicitly in my above post.
If you have any questions after that, sure, let me know.
Click to expand...

So...now its a lie that any of Steele's information came from Russian sources? Perhaps restate what you are asserting.
 
bubbabgone said:
His fuller defense of Hillary was no better than his brief one in the OP.
Does this sound like a powerful defense of Hillary to you? Especially now.
For some, that may seem like a lot of smoke. But it’s a huge leap to say Clinton colluded with Russians to do this. Instead, you have (a) the campaign hiring (b) a research firm that hired (c) a researcher who spoke (d) to Russian sources. Steele, for his part, has suggested he tried to alert reporters and the FBI because he was appalled by what he had discovered. The closest connection to Clinton is the fact that Steele gave to the FBI material written by Clinton associates, but it’s unclear what the FBI did with that memo.​

And his defense of giving a pinocchio about Mueller conflict of interest was comical for a couple of reasons. One, he was defending Mueller's team, not Mueller. And two, he didn't address Mueller himself ... but I did in the OP.
Click to expand...

So first, there is no explanation, now it is just you don’t like the explanation. Move the goalposts much?
 
Redress said:
No, srsly, did you miss the link the source embedded in the very thing you quoted that goes to the fact check on the claim? Here is what you quoted, as it actually appears, with the link that is in the source:



So, the question that arises is if you do not understand what that blue underlined text was(it is a link), or did you think no one would bother to check to see if you where telling the truth?
Click to expand...

Mach said:
bubbagone was mistaken, the OP article fact-checking did in fact link a quite lengthy piece discussing the evidence for those particular lies. They were hyperlinked to the text, you could click on them...I including the links explicitly in my above post.
If you have any questions after that, sure, let me know.
Click to expand...

1) In the OP I said "maybe in some past column he explained in some detail why he believes they were Pinocchios but he sure didn't divulge any reasons here."
2) I addressed the content of those columns and explained why they were the usual Kessler tap-dancing.

Did you read them?
 
ecofarm said:
Anything is possible but most people look at evidence instead of imagining BS.

Do you believe everything you hear on the basis that anything is possible? I'm guessing it's selective. I'm guessing the old "anything is possible" doesn't convince you of other ****.
Click to expand...

I didn't make anything up, if that's what you're suggesting.
Comey made a ****load at Lockheed Martin in the 2000's while Mueller was FBI director and he gave L.M. many millions in contracts.
Seems like the kind of thing anyone checking the facts of conflict of interest would look into, no?
Especially now that Comey has denied any close ties to Mueller.
 
bubbabgone said:
I didn't make anything up, if that's what you're suggesting.
Comey made a ****load at Lockheed Martin in the 2000's while Mueller was FBI director and he gave L.M. many millions in contracts.
Seems like the kind of thing anyone checking the facts of conflict of interest would look into, no?
Especially now that Comey has denied any close ties to Mueller.
Click to expand...


You're making up BS. Coulda, mighta... BS.

Produce evidence or abandon the conspiracy theory. Only idiots are convinced by "anything can happen".
 
bubbabgone said:
1) In the OP I said "maybe in some past column he explained in some detail why he believes they were Pinocchios but he sure didn't divulge any reasons here."
2) I addressed the content of those columns and explained why they were the usual Kessler tap-dancing.
Did you read them?
Click to expand...

Look, you got busted for claiming he didn't back his fact checking. That they were hyperlinked to the text IN THAT COLUMN. I can see how you missed them they were just highlighted text, no harm no foul.
If you didn't miss them, then your OP is misleading, since he did provide a lengthy discussion on each of those.

Your one or two sentences addressed both of those length columns he cited as having explained his position? Who are you kidding.

Your post is about what...the rating as your headline implies?
Or your ending line "who checks the fact checker"?
Or was it as you seem to now claim, about "let's discuss these two lengthy columns and debate their merits"?

You're the only one I see tap-dancing here.
 
OpportunityCost said:
So...now its a lie that any of Steele's information came from Russian sources? Perhaps restate what you are asserting.
Click to expand...
The "fact checker" did back up his facts, in that column, with hyperlinks to two other columns that goes into much greater detail.
The fact checker, actually did back up his facts, contrary to what the OP implies.

Whether he's right or not, those are some *long* columns. If you want to go point by point and try to refute them, by my guest, maybe someone will think you're serious and counter them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom