drbrumley
Well-known member
And you really believe that?
The long nightmare has just begun: Inauguration of a fraud.
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
And you really believe that?
drbrumley
Well-known member
And even if that is true, it is still money coming out of our pockets NOW! We have much better things to spend our money on than paying taxes that we did not agree to.
ClimateSanity
New member
American jobs are first. It's better to buy an American car than a Mexican one. If you want a Mexican one, be willing to pay more for it. Once mexico stops sending us their lower unskilled class, we will drop the tariff. It's a reasonable price to pay to bring back our industrial base.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Another "alternate fact" from the "alternate fact" Trump and Co.:
Quoted in the Chicago Tribune:
Quoted in the Chicago Tribune:
An ABC News transcript of its interview with President Donald Trump on Wednesday quoted him as saying that two people were fatally shot in Chicago while his predecessor, Barack Obama, was giving his farewell speech at McCormick Place — a claim shown to be false by Police Department records.
The passage in question was not included in the broadcast aired Wednesday night, but the network posted a longer transcript on its website that contained the remarks in question. An ABC spokesman confirmed to the Tribune on Thursday that the transcript accurately depicted the president's words, but the network did not immediately share the video with the Tribune.
Not only did no homicides take place in Chicago during Obama's address of about an hour Jan. 10, but the official Police Department records and the Tribune's crime database show that no shootings at all occurred over that time frame.
"So, look, when President Obama was there two weeks ago making a speech, very nice speech," Trump said, according to the transcript of the interview. "Two people were shot and killed during his speech. You can't have that. They weren't shot at the speech. But they were shot in the city of Chicago during his speech. What — what's going on?"
The passage in question was not included in the broadcast aired Wednesday night, but the network posted a longer transcript on its website that contained the remarks in question. An ABC spokesman confirmed to the Tribune on Thursday that the transcript accurately depicted the president's words, but the network did not immediately share the video with the Tribune.
Not only did no homicides take place in Chicago during Obama's address of about an hour Jan. 10, but the official Police Department records and the Tribune's crime database show that no shootings at all occurred over that time frame.
"So, look, when President Obama was there two weeks ago making a speech, very nice speech," Trump said, according to the transcript of the interview. "Two people were shot and killed during his speech. You can't have that. They weren't shot at the speech. But they were shot in the city of Chicago during his speech. What — what's going on?"
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Trump Staffer Who Shared Racist Social Media Posts To Join Dept Of Education
A South Carolina staffer for Donald Trump’s campaign whose racist social media posts drew attention during the election will join the Department of Education, the Huffington Post reported Thursday.
Teresa UnRue, a field organizer and graphic designer for Trump’s advance team, was included on an emailed list of new employees sent by acting secretary for the department Phil Rosenfelt. Huffington Post obtained a copy of the email, which did not specify what role UnRue will take at the department.
In July, an Associated Press review of Trump staffers’ social media accounts unearthed a video on UnRue’s feed of a black man eating fried chicken while berating fellow black people.
"Why are you mad about slavery?" he asks. "Y'all weren't no damn slaves."
"Had me crack'n up!! Thank you!" UnRue wrote in an accompanying comment. "Please share this with people."
Teresa UnRue, a field organizer and graphic designer for Trump’s advance team, was included on an emailed list of new employees sent by acting secretary for the department Phil Rosenfelt. Huffington Post obtained a copy of the email, which did not specify what role UnRue will take at the department.
In July, an Associated Press review of Trump staffers’ social media accounts unearthed a video on UnRue’s feed of a black man eating fried chicken while berating fellow black people.
"Why are you mad about slavery?" he asks. "Y'all weren't no damn slaves."
"Had me crack'n up!! Thank you!" UnRue wrote in an accompanying comment. "Please share this with people."
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
maybe he was thinking of this:
| 12 shot in Chicago on day Obama calls for action to end gun violence Jan. 6 2017 Chicago (CNN)Before President Barack Obama could officially announce his proposals to help curb gun violence two people had already been shot in his hometown of Chicago that day. About an hour after Obama spoke Tuesday, before pundits and candidates were done breaking down the proposals, it would rise to three. By the end of the day, 12 people had been shot and four were dead. Not a single person was in custody in connection with any of the shootings as of midday Wednesday. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/us/chicago-obama-gun-violence/ |
congratulations, bammy, on "organizing" this community :thumb:
:think:
Do you think Trump is attempting to encourage diversity? I mean, stupid, bigoted people might be underrepresented in government service...excepting Congress, of course.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
what's racist about a black man eating fried chicken?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:doh:
this is still getting play - saw it this morning on my yahoo homepage
i debunk it here: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-of-a-fraud&p=4915662&viewfull=1#post4915662
You cannot show blacks enjoying lunch if it contains chicken or watermelon, we should ban all kfcs and popeyes.
Then read this and learn how to check your privledge:
White Race “Expert” Stops Eating Watermelon Because It’s A “Racist Stereotype”…
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Read in its entirety at the link, it's well worth the time.
I was a White House fact-checker. Don’t accept Trump’s attitude toward the truth.
I was a White House fact-checker. Don’t accept Trump’s attitude toward the truth.
A news channel streaming the White House briefing room doesn’t normally catch my eye, but it did last Saturday as I sat at my airport gate, on the way back from vacation. I couldn’t remember the last briefing I’d seen on a weekend — my stomach started to sink as I worried that a national tragedy had happened. Instead, I watched in horror as press secretary Sean Spicer delivered a statement in which he falsely claimed that the largest audience in history witnessed Donald Trump’s inauguration.
If that wasn’t unbelievable enough, the next day senior adviser Kellyanne Conway defended Spicer’s comments, saying he had provided “alternative facts.” I have never before witnessed such a disregard for facts from the White House, and I know a bit about the subject: From 2015 to 2017, I was a fact-checker for President Barack Obama.
How the White House fact-checking operation worked: If we couldn’t back it up, it had to go
As a research associate in the Office of Communications, I quickly learned some things about the nature of facts in politics. First, that fact-checking is in-depth work. My co-workers and I pored over speech draft after speech draft, methodically verifying that every individual factual statement in any of the president’s prepared remarks was backed up by reputable sources. We worked closely with the speechwriting and policy departments to ensure that each fact the president said represented his views in an accurate, verifiable way. If we couldn’t back it up, it had to go. We thought through the possible counterarguments that people from both sides of the aisle could make to rebut our statements, and we made sure we were on as solid ground as possible.
. . . .
Respect for the truth has to come from the top
The culture the Obama administration had for valuing factual accuracy doesn’t come by default — the tone is set at the top. President Obama’s respect for facts and data pervaded the entire White House, and he never made it a secret. When President Obama called on the press to fact-check his statements about the administration’s economic progress in his speech in Elkhart, Indiana, it was because he trusted what he was saying had been verified to the best of our ability, and he was proud of it.
Any fact-checker knows that without widespread mutual respect for the truth, the job can feel a bit like you’re being paid to irritate writers by telling them why they’re wrong. I was lucky to work in a place where there was a culture, from the president and his speechwriters on down, that thought it was important to get things right.
But this norm that we worked to uphold, which lets the American people assume by default the president is not actively trying to deceive them, is a fragile one. It only exists if our leadership believes it’s a worthwhile thing to aspire to. We were lucky in that regard, but without a leader who insists on facts, that norm can quickly crumble.
In fact, the Trump administration is demonstrating that there’s pretty good incentive not to tell the truth at all.
. . . .
How the Trump administration exploits the public’s distrust of the media
As Ezra Klein touched on recently, when Sean Spicer goes into the briefing room to tell a clear, demonstrable falsehood, he’s employing a pretty effective, apparently intentional strategy. He’s waging a war on facts that capitalizes on the strong distrust of the media that already exists in a lot of people’s minds.
A lot of us heard what Spicer said and thought it was self-evidently ridiculous (just compare the photos of the two inaugurations!), but a lot of Trump voters may have heard what Spicer said and believed him. When they read headlines the next day that say Spicer used “false claims” to attack the media’s reporting of turnout, they may not be inclined to believe those claims actually were false — they may be more likely to believe the dishonest media is out to get Trump.
Heightening that distrust is a useful tool for the Trump team, particularly with more significant battles ahead. In reality, there is no incentive for the Trump administration to stick to the truth, particularly when it drives a helpful wedge deeper between their base and the press.
If that wasn’t unbelievable enough, the next day senior adviser Kellyanne Conway defended Spicer’s comments, saying he had provided “alternative facts.” I have never before witnessed such a disregard for facts from the White House, and I know a bit about the subject: From 2015 to 2017, I was a fact-checker for President Barack Obama.
How the White House fact-checking operation worked: If we couldn’t back it up, it had to go
As a research associate in the Office of Communications, I quickly learned some things about the nature of facts in politics. First, that fact-checking is in-depth work. My co-workers and I pored over speech draft after speech draft, methodically verifying that every individual factual statement in any of the president’s prepared remarks was backed up by reputable sources. We worked closely with the speechwriting and policy departments to ensure that each fact the president said represented his views in an accurate, verifiable way. If we couldn’t back it up, it had to go. We thought through the possible counterarguments that people from both sides of the aisle could make to rebut our statements, and we made sure we were on as solid ground as possible.
. . . .
Respect for the truth has to come from the top
The culture the Obama administration had for valuing factual accuracy doesn’t come by default — the tone is set at the top. President Obama’s respect for facts and data pervaded the entire White House, and he never made it a secret. When President Obama called on the press to fact-check his statements about the administration’s economic progress in his speech in Elkhart, Indiana, it was because he trusted what he was saying had been verified to the best of our ability, and he was proud of it.
Any fact-checker knows that without widespread mutual respect for the truth, the job can feel a bit like you’re being paid to irritate writers by telling them why they’re wrong. I was lucky to work in a place where there was a culture, from the president and his speechwriters on down, that thought it was important to get things right.
But this norm that we worked to uphold, which lets the American people assume by default the president is not actively trying to deceive them, is a fragile one. It only exists if our leadership believes it’s a worthwhile thing to aspire to. We were lucky in that regard, but without a leader who insists on facts, that norm can quickly crumble.
In fact, the Trump administration is demonstrating that there’s pretty good incentive not to tell the truth at all.
. . . .
How the Trump administration exploits the public’s distrust of the media
As Ezra Klein touched on recently, when Sean Spicer goes into the briefing room to tell a clear, demonstrable falsehood, he’s employing a pretty effective, apparently intentional strategy. He’s waging a war on facts that capitalizes on the strong distrust of the media that already exists in a lot of people’s minds.
A lot of us heard what Spicer said and thought it was self-evidently ridiculous (just compare the photos of the two inaugurations!), but a lot of Trump voters may have heard what Spicer said and believed him. When they read headlines the next day that say Spicer used “false claims” to attack the media’s reporting of turnout, they may not be inclined to believe those claims actually were false — they may be more likely to believe the dishonest media is out to get Trump.
Heightening that distrust is a useful tool for the Trump team, particularly with more significant battles ahead. In reality, there is no incentive for the Trump administration to stick to the truth, particularly when it drives a helpful wedge deeper between their base and the press.
ClimateSanity
New member
Trump is giving an interview. He is a man of ideas, not a statistician. He conflates two Obama speeches. He is referring to a January 6 speech Obama gave at the White House but his mind thinks it occurred at mc cormick place four days later because he doesn't stop to think if his days are correct.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/us/chicago-obama-gun
This is the mark of an honest man trying to get a point across. If he got the dates correct, it would be a sign he memorized a series of talking points prior to the interview. That is not the type of man I voted for.
The part in bold is why his plan doesn't completely line up with his words. Trump said that his plan will help Mexico also but it could hurt their economy. And that could end up leading to more people trying to leave Mexico for the US, which Trump also wants to crack down on. Maybe Trump would say that Mexico needs to have a Mexico First policy like he is trying to build an America First policy and that in the long run it will be better for both countries.
Isn't it still a talking point? It's just one with less accuracy. :idunno:
ClimateSanity
New member
A talking point is well rehearsed and is designed. An idea pops ups spontaneously in your head.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Trump finally has something to brag about!
Petition for Donald Trump to release his tax returns shatters White House record
Petition for Donald Trump to release his tax returns shatters White House record
During the run-up to the 2016 Presidential election, Donald Trump was extraordinarily coy about releasing his tax returns. While boasting that he had nothing to hide, Trump delicately danced around the issue by claiming that he couldn’t release his tax returns as he was undergoing an audit. Later on, he said he would gladly release his tax returns if Hillary Clinton released her deleted emails.
Of course, Trump’s efforts to avoid releasing his tax returns is nothing new. Recall, he engaged in a widely publicized bait-and-switch a few years ago, promising to release the returns if Barack Obama released his long form birth certificate. Once that happened in 2011, Trump promised he would release his tax returns at “the appropriate time.”
Now, in 2017, Trump’s tax returns are still nowhere to be seen. Funny enough, Trump over the past few weeks has said that no one even cares about his tax returns anymore.
Alas, that couldn’t be farther from the truth.
A current WhiteHouse.gov petition seeking to have Trump release his tax returns has already garnered more than 385,000 signatures, easily making it the most widely supported initiative to ever appear on the White House website.
Of course, Trump’s efforts to avoid releasing his tax returns is nothing new. Recall, he engaged in a widely publicized bait-and-switch a few years ago, promising to release the returns if Barack Obama released his long form birth certificate. Once that happened in 2011, Trump promised he would release his tax returns at “the appropriate time.”
Now, in 2017, Trump’s tax returns are still nowhere to be seen. Funny enough, Trump over the past few weeks has said that no one even cares about his tax returns anymore.
Alas, that couldn’t be farther from the truth.
A current WhiteHouse.gov petition seeking to have Trump release his tax returns has already garnered more than 385,000 signatures, easily making it the most widely supported initiative to ever appear on the White House website.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Because he had nothing better to do in his first day in the oval office than watch TV, tweet, and obsess over his crowd size...
Trump Personally Called National Park Service Chief About Inauguration Crowd Size
:rotfl:
Trump Personally Called National Park Service Chief About Inauguration Crowd Size
In yet another sign that we are all just living in Leslie Knope’s nightmare, the Washington Post reports that on his first morning in office, President Trump personally contacted acting National Park Service director Michael T. Reynolds and ordered him to produce more photos from the inauguration, believing they would prove his false claims about the size of the crowd.
Reynolds was reportedly directed to call the White House on Saturday morning. In addition to requesting photos to settle his feud with the media, the president expressed his anger over the National Park Service Twitter account retweeting a photo showing that the inauguration turnout was about a third of what it was eight years ago. The retweets were later removed, and NPS spokesman Thomas Crosson apologized for “mistaken RTs from our account.”
After the call, Reynolds forwarded more aerial photos of the inauguration crowd to the White House, but they did not support Trump’s claim that more than a million people showed up to see him sworn in.
But wait! There's more!!Reynolds was reportedly directed to call the White House on Saturday morning. In addition to requesting photos to settle his feud with the media, the president expressed his anger over the National Park Service Twitter account retweeting a photo showing that the inauguration turnout was about a third of what it was eight years ago. The retweets were later removed, and NPS spokesman Thomas Crosson apologized for “mistaken RTs from our account.”
After the call, Reynolds forwarded more aerial photos of the inauguration crowd to the White House, but they did not support Trump’s claim that more than a million people showed up to see him sworn in.
White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tried to spin the phone call as a sign that, as a manager, Trump is “so accessible, and constantly in touch."
:rotfl: