While at the same time you totallt fine with Donald Trump saying ratings way down while CNN's wiever have increased the most logic interpretaion from Trump statement.
Really? The most logical? Even though its an obscure measure rarely used and not the one their down in. My level of expectation of Poltifact as a claimed fact-checker verse a character limited post on twitter or an off the cuff statement by Donald trump is a lot higher. They have context, time & research available to explore their rebuttal and the space and means to leave caveats where they might be speculating. Trump does not have such luxuries.
It like comparing one of my posts here to a book I publish. Donald trump expressed CNN is falling in terms of influence. A true statement as expressed by comparative ratings. Any rational person could verify it for themselves albeit they may disagree. Poltifact clearly disagrees and instead of addressing his points tried to reframe his premise as absurd.
The alternative factoid that they are in fact having greater viewership despite falling comparative ratings is a misnomer designed to deceive.
I leave you an example: person A uses hyperbole to express a legitimate problem. Instead of addressing the issues Person B screams "liar" and goes on the explain person A was using hyperbole.
Being a liar is about the intention to deceive not the common marketing practice of hyperbole. Person B is the one lying. They the ones refusing to talk about the issues because of semantics.
You also have that Trump claimed he watched thousands of thousands of people in Jersey city cheered after 9/11.
See above…at least there you have a real distortion. You don’t think anyone cheered 9/11? People did, that is a fact whether its 100 or 10,000,000 is irrelevant to the context of the expression. Explain to me how that hyperbole makes trumps real point any less relevant and then we can talk.
have not seen any Trump supporter provide those clips from Fox News.
They don’t exist. Doesn’t change the fact a large amount of people did cheer 9/11 whether their not dumb enough to do it on television or not. Do you honestly deny that people were happy at 9/11? Sorry trump saying “I saw it” verse “I know it” doesn't make him a liar IMHO :roll:
Also I you really concerned about innocent people being framed?
I am concerned people don’t talk the issues anymore and that innocent people are getting harmed because of it.
Because if it's ok for the president to shout look her up shouldn't people in you local town do it if someone is accused of a crime.
Equivalency error. Secondly, that happens in some cases.
Also using private e-mail is...
The crime was not the private e-mail server, the crime was classified information sent on that server as reported by the investigation.
you are against witch hunt that target sitting presidents
I did not say I was for Donald charging Obama with birtherism. I said I do not hold it against him, since he dropped it when he was proved wrong.
you accuse people that are against Donald Trump to paraniod
I never said it was really mean to accuse. It is their right to accuse and investigate their suspicions.
100% of the public facing information is not suspicious to the reasonable persons test, so claims it is damning are paranoid, yes.
"withholding of information" = when you have reasonable ground to know it was relevant
"incorrect statements" = when you statement are not the best of your knowledge
Clarifying statement is when you revise a statement in light of a new context, like say a later investigation and that is what we see here.
Also this is how Trump himself described the people setting up the meeting.
Nice reading into what we can not know. The thinking of Trump Jr. but alas I didn’t say the question was invalid did I?
I said, we know the meeting…and it looks like Goldstone lied in order to get a meeting for Natalia Veselnitskaya to advocate for her issues with the Magnitsky Act. End of story for someone not seeking a paranoid narrative. This is “a dot” on the birth-certificate level stuff.
Also I can't still understand why the Trump campaigned could send some of his junior staff
To evaluate the possible highly senstive information being claimed.
If this was evidence of “Hillary colluding with the Russians” you’d want that information with a low level jr staffer?
