Trump

[ManlyTragic]

Who’s Trump?

 

[Brookie1973]

When you post Larry K and the Fox crowd I know how this will land so here is a link

Tulsi Gabbard misleads about Obama-era assessment on Russia

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said she found evidence that former President Barack Obama manufactured an intelligence assessment about Russia’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. election. We fact-checked three of her statements.

www.politifact.com

Just because you call yourself a fact checker doesn’t make it so. Politifact is well known for its left leaning bias. This particular article just seems to be an attempt at muddying the waters rather than proving or disproving facts.

Politifact - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[manlyfan76]

Who’s Trump?

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Eagle 1]

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

zzzzz .....It's not election time yet, why not save it till we get close to 2028.

 

[manlyfan76]

zzzzz .....It's not election time yet, why not save it till we get close to 2028.

More valuable insight from you.

 

[lsz]

Just because you call yourself a fact checker doesn’t make it so. Politifact is well known for its left leaning bias. This particular article just seems to be an attempt at muddying the waters rather than proving or disproving facts.

Politifact - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

So instead of talking about what is in the article you ignore that.

Cool so it is business as usual in this thread then

 

[Brookie1973]

So instead of talking about what is in the article you ignore that.

Cool so it is business as usual in this thread then

No, I read it, hence my comment that it seemed more about muddying the waters than proving or disproving “facts”.

As for “fact checkers” in general, only the extremely gullible would think that someone sitting in an office somewhere is completely apolitical and able to determine the absolute truth of anything these days, and in this instance, is in possession of more facts than the Director of National Intelligence.

Is it not more likely that “fact checkers” are in the business of providing emotional comfort to people who desperately need reassurance that their world view is correct? And that applies to both sides.

As for the topic at hand, the idea that Obama/clinton tried to manipulate intelligence reports to discredit an elected president that they truly hated seems very plausible to me. Certainly more plausible than the apparent u-turn in intelligence conclusions once Trump won a surprising victory.

 

[Brookie1973]

Any comments from the tariff doomsayers?

 

[Cliffycomeback]

This thread screams tread cautiously and engage at own risk.

 

[Brookie1973]

This thread screams tread cautiously and engage at own risk.

Nah, an honest exchange of opinions never hurt anyone. A thick skin is probably best though.

 

[Brookie1973]

Spot on yet again. If only Albo wasn’t too scared to meet the great man. No windmills!

 

[Brookie1973]

Pretty quiet on here. I guess CNN must be struggling to come up with some talking points given all the annoying good news. At least Bill Maher seems to have seen the light.

 

[lsz]

Honestly, I find this whole thing pretty pointless. Most of the discussion seems to be in bad faith and clearly just an attempt to troll.


We could talk about his bizarre comments on windmills and whales — here's a link for reference:
No Evidence Offshore Wind Development Killing Whales - FactCheck.org
(Of course, you'll probably dismiss it because at some point, someone on Fox News called FactCheck a hack.)


Or we could look at his deflection tactics around the Epstein stuff. For example, he posted about Beyoncé supposedly receiving "Eleven Million Dollars for an ENDORSEMENT" — when in reality, Federal Election Commission disclosures show Kamala Harris’ campaign paid her production company $165,000 for campaign event production on November 19, 2024. That's it. No other payments to Beyoncé, her team, or her publicist.


What about his mate Jeff?

To be honest, I was in the "this is probably overblown" camp at first. But even you must be starting to wonder — or is this just another case of ignoring Trump’s constantly shifting stories because the fallback is always "what about Sleepy Joe"?


Still not enough?


What about him accusing Obama of treason?

(Apparently, the real issue was Hillary once saying some Trump supporters were "deplorable." but you can accuse a former president what ever you like....or accuse him of what ever you like this stuff here

https://twitter.com/x/status/232572505238433794

or this

https://twitter.com/x/status/411247268763676673

and even saying stuff like this

“I have people that have been studying [Obama’s birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they’re finding … I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can’t, if he can’t, if he wasn’t born in this country, which is a real possibility … then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics.”)

Gabbard claimed Obama manipulated an intelligence assessment to shift the narrative on Russia’s actions, but the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Russia made a concerted effort to influence the 2016 election. And all this because a daily brief was held back? Trump doesn’t even read his briefs.

We could have a discussion about his continual false or misleading statements but then I am sure there is a clip somewhere of a lib being "owned".

Need more?

Look at his Iran bombing claims. Despite the hype, the results weren’t exactly a success:
Devastating Intel Leak Obliterates Trump’s Iran Bombing Claims


And worse — it may have just created more incentive for others not to cooperate going forward.


Honestly, that’s why I’ve stopped engaging. It feels like a waste of time.

 

[h27272727]

Any comments from the tariff doomsayers?

Sure, although we really shouldn't need to. My comment - more of a statement - is that the US now has a 15% import tax placed on themselves with all the countries in the EU...

A 15% blanket tariff can never be a "win". Tariffs only useful when targetted to protect struggling local industries at risk of being undercut by imported goods. eg. protecting milk produced by your own dairy farmers

OK, anyways, lets consider what this tariff actually means in practice.

Scenario: US company wants to import 1 car manufactured in the EU. The product cost is $50,000/unit. After importing, the US Company plans to sell the product to US consumers at a markup of 30% (approx. avg).

No tariff: US company agrees to pay the manufacturer $50,000 for the car. They also pay for shipping and typical import duties. Let's just say that's an additional $2,000. After applying the markup, the US company needs to retail the product in the US for $67,600.

15% US-EU Tariff: US company agrees to pay the manufacturer $50,000 for the car. To import it, the US company also needs to pay a 15% tariff tax to the US government ($7,500). Then the shipping and standard import fees are added ($2,000). After applying the markup, the US company retails the product in the US for $77,350.

Who loses in the US? US consumers that end up paying this tax (cost of living jumps). This again rips wealth from middle class, who are disproportionately affected. US economy will experience inflation (good for stock market - again weighted towards assisting the wealthy with investments).

Who loses in the EU? EU manufacturers and economies too. US company and consumer demand cannot be sustained when US companies are taxed so heavily. Drop in productivity and trade negatively effects economies.

Now, this is just a single example - and only a single unit. Note that in the background this is applied to nearly all EU imports. Italy, Germany, France, etc. From things in the supermarket to baby products, agriculture, tech, etc.. Likely to later include medicine too.

Imagine the 15% tariff is dropped after a few years. Well, now the US companies are used to selling product x at the tariff-affected price. Why would they bother decreasing it? US screwed both short and long-term.

Inflation. Inflation. Inflation. Self-imposed inflation.

 

[h27272727]

Honestly, I find this whole thing pretty pointless. Most of the discussion seems to be in bad faith and clearly just an attempt to troll.


We could talk about his bizarre comments on windmills and whales — here's a link for reference:
No Evidence Offshore Wind Development Killing Whales - FactCheck.org
(Of course, you'll probably dismiss it because at some point, someone on Fox News called FactCheck a hack.)


Or we could look at his deflection tactics around the Epstein stuff. For example, he posted about Beyoncé supposedly receiving "Eleven Million Dollars for an ENDORSEMENT" — when in reality, Federal Election Commission disclosures show Kamala Harris’ campaign paid her production company $165,000 for campaign event production on November 19, 2024. That's it. No other payments to Beyoncé, her team, or her publicist.


What about his mate Jeff?

To be honest, I was in the "this is probably overblown" camp at first. But even you must be starting to wonder — or is this just another case of ignoring Trump’s constantly shifting stories because the fallback is always "what about Sleepy Joe"?


Still not enough?


What about him accusing Obama of treason?

(Apparently, the real issue was Hillary once saying some Trump supporters were "deplorable." but you can accuse a former president what ever you like....or accuse him of what ever you like this stuff here

https://twitter.com/x/status/232572505238433794

or this

https://twitter.com/x/status/411247268763676673

and even saying stuff like this

“I have people that have been studying [Obama’s birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they’re finding … I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can’t, if he can’t, if he wasn’t born in this country, which is a real possibility … then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics.”)

Gabbard claimed Obama manipulated an intelligence assessment to shift the narrative on Russia’s actions, but the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Russia made a concerted effort to influence the 2016 election. And all this because a daily brief was held back? Trump doesn’t even read his briefs.

We could have a discussion about his continual false or misleading statements but then I am sure there is a clip somewhere of a lib being "owned".

Need more?

Look at his Iran bombing claims. Despite the hype, the results weren’t exactly a success:
Devastating Intel Leak Obliterates Trump’s Iran Bombing Claims


And worse — it may have just created more incentive for others not to cooperate going forward.


Honestly, that’s why I’ve stopped engaging. It feels like a waste of time.

Even conservative forums are seeing a fair bit of division with the whole Epstein thing. A tad poetic that a conspiracy is showing the most signs of tearing the conspiracy theorists apart.

If someone just commits to ignoring that completely it's a bit of a red flag that they don't care too much about morality. One of my work colleagues is as racist as they come and he couldn't give a **** if Trump raped kids or not. He honestly couldn't care less, just likes that someone with influence is glorifying hatred and xenophobia. It's let him come out of his skin more.

 

[h27272727]

Just because you call yourself a fact checker doesn’t make it so. Politifact is well known for its left leaning bias. This particular article just seems to be an attempt at muddying the waters rather than proving or disproving facts.

Politifact - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Honestly who cares if someone perceives Politifact to lean one way or another.

They take time to think about what has been claimed and do some checks to try disprove claims that otherwise would go unchecked. Trying to gather evidence and disprove claims is a good thing. As you'll find, many times there's hardly any way for them to inject their opinion cause it's simply a matter of saying "yes that's true" or "no that's not".

Just from the first two Trump-related politfact I clicked on...

Trump: " China has very, very few wind farms "
Politifact: Sourced from the global energy monitor research group, China - 44.41% of the global operating wind farm capacity (next highest is US, 15.1% then Germany, 4.8%). You can source similar stats elsewhere.

Trump: "You know, these files were made up by Comey," Trump told reporters, referring to former FBI Director James Comey. "They were made up by Obama. They were made up by Biden."
Politifact: Neither Obama or Biden were in office when the FBI investigated.

Going to take a lot more to convince me that this is "left leaning bias" enough to warrant willingly writing off everything they do. Also going to have to teach me how to discredit facts when I don't like the author / message, or when the outcome isn't convenient for my worldview