You think prior presidents weren't fact-checked? Of course they were. Other presidents told very few provable lies, and when they did, they often didn't repeat them after being fact-checked. Also, other presidents didn't rant on twitter daily, so that reduced their opportunity for lying. It might be difficult to recall, but there was a time when presidents didn't say anything at all publicly on some days. barfo
Of course other presidents were fact checked. By simply throwing out a statement of Trump lies 17 times a day nothing is gained. Context is needed.
That's better. It's an analysis of tweets. Personally I don't subscribe to Twitter so I am probably unaffected.
I thought the objection was not having the other side have a chance to speak, not actually blocking him from speaking. I mean, we know he's going to embellish and lie, that's who he is at the core.
I also think Trump's incessant tweeting is diversionary in nature. If he's guilty of financial crimes, and I suspect he is, he should go down for those. I have no problem with many of his actions/decisions as commander in chief though.
I didnt see her say what is in the article. It says Mika thinks he shouldn't be allowed airtime because he will lie.
Close. She thinks the networks should make the choice not to give him airtime. Networks are private enterprise. Choosing to stick with their regular programming rather than airing his speech would simply be exercising their liberty.
That's what I said. "Allowed" Her reason is that he will lie. I clicked a link in the article that said they did just that to Obama. It was sweeps apparently and they had big shows opposite Obama's speech so it was about money most likely.
I wasn't really mentioning that article, just the overall tone of what some were saying about the objection. I think some are saying because he'll be lying (which is true, he will. I know we haven't seen it, but he's known as a liar factually), and some are saying "Why not give both sides a chance".
There are so many issues wrong with this discussion, I could write a large book about it. Where to begin? First issue. How many lies Trump has told. Are there really so many lies, or, is Trump repeating the same lies? The truthful way to report this is. Example; Trump told a lie, but repeated it 200 times. So to report it as 200 lies, is a lie. Presidents often take credit for successes they had little to nothing to do with. One that bothered me was Obama taking credit for terminating Bin Laden. Obama had nothing to do with the intel resulting in the Seals terminating Bin Ladin. Nor did he put himself in harm's way to make it happen. The truth is, all Obama did correctly was to make the best decision, based on his advisors info, on how to dispose of the body. Yet the left keeps repeating Obama got Bin Ladin. A lie told thousands of times. Both the left and right tell lies and take credit when they can. The real problem is, it has become the norm, and is dividing the country.
That's fair. It would be better to report both the number of unique lies, and the number of times each is repeated. Either way, though, he's way ahead of everyone else. 1. Making decisions is what presidents do. They don't go kill the bad guys themselves. 2. "the left" is not the same as "Obama". Someone else lying (if it was a lie) doesn't count as the president lying. Political operatives, activists, and other random people have always lied. That's a different issue than the president himself lying. barfo
"Morons" (individuals with an age equivalency of 8-12 dependent upon parental supervision-Miriam Webster dictionary) voted for a lunatic. I saw his blood stained teeth when he ran his bogus empire in NYC and Atlantic City. Your country is led by a ___________________(fill in the blank.)
I thought about joining twitter to ask Trump to join S2 so people couldn't attack the poor guy so much.
Don't kid yourself. You are affected as well as any other citizen. You should have said instead "I am probably unaware".
Trump lies about his lies. I don't know the total, but there have been many times that he says one thing and then when questioned about it a day or so later, he will deny he even said it when it has been shown on tape that he did say it. That's not only a lie, it's a hypocritical lie. As for your repeat lies theory, it should be considered another lie when he is fact checked and proven to be a lie and then will come back later and repeat that lie. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
