I cannot agree with that. I mean, whatever you think of Trump I see Hillary Clinton being much, much worse .... particularly when it comes to honesty.

You're not telling me that you believe Trump goes about trying to kiss everybody. Get serious.

Hot Potato
7
↪Michael ↪Michael I cannot agree with that. I mean, whatever you think of Trump I see Hillary Clinton being much, much worse .... particularly when it comes to honesty. — Hot Potato

If you are not kidding here...you are fucking nuts.

I hope you were just kidding.

If it were conclusively proved tomorrow that Trump has given blow-jobs to Putin and Kim...the thing that would surprise me is that it could be proven...NOT THAT TRUMP GAVE THEM BLOW-JOBS./

There is nothing that Trump does that should surprise anyone...except perhaps, tell the truth or take responsibility for anything.

I cannot agree with that. I mean, whatever you think of Trump I see Hillary Clinton being much, much worse .... particularly when it comes to honesty. — Hot Potato

There isn't a big enough facepalm on the planet to respond to this.

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump

Being a liar doesn’t mean you can’t be a good president, but this is crazy

Here's the problem: As fact checker Glenn Kessler noted in August, whereas Clinton lies as much as the average politician, President Donald Trump's lying is "off the charts." No prominent politician in memory bests Trump for spouting spectacular, egregious, easily disproved lies. The birther claim. The vote fraud claim. The attendance at the inauguration claim. And on and on and on. Every fact checker—Kessler, Factcheck.org, Snopes.com, PolitiFact—finds a level of mendacity unequaled by any politician ever scrutinized. For instance, 70 percent of his campaign statements checked by PolitiFact were mostly false, totally false, or "pants on fire" false.

...

Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway had to invent the term "alternate facts" to describe his blatantly false assertions. Press secretary Sean Spicer was reduced to saying: "You have your facts. This is what the president believes," as if objective facts and subjective beliefs were equivalent. Tom Price, the new secretary of health and human services, when asked whether it was true, as President Trump had said, that the two were working together on a replacement plan for Obamacare could only say, "It is true that he said it."

...

Studies show that liars disproportionately choose careers in politics, and there is no evidence that Republicans are less truthful on average than Democrats. Trump, however, is an utter outlier. Every president has lied, even the most successful ones. Being a liar doesn't mean you can't be a great president. But Trump's ability to believe things unrelated to reality just because he wants to believe them, and then to make policy based on those beliefs, sets him apart from any previous president and is a recipe for disaster.

I don't think he wants to kiss Obama, that's for sure.

But otherwise....

He-he!:grin:

It's particularly sad that Trump slings this kind of mud on a near daily basis

They sling it at him. They deserve it. — NOS4A2

ROFLMAO!
I picture the petulant child that is our President sticking out his lower lip and crying, "They started it!" Which is sad enough, but that fact is, Trump a bully who has instigated more mudslinging than anyone else in history. By your grade school logic, Trump deserves everything HE gets.

Are you the type to let people speak ill of you and your family? A punching bag? You’ll just sit there and take it, submission, perhaps even with a smile?

A post by US President Donald Trump has been given a fact-check label by Twitter for the first time:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52815552

And he threatens to close down social media because of it. Per definition, that is active censorship by the government. Wouldn't that be against the law in US? Or at least, wouldn't that be a very serious act against the people by an acting president? If this happens it will either be the end of Trump or Trump will enforce even more power that the people are "fine" with.

I don’t see how adding fact-check labels to blatant lies on Twitter is totally silencing conservatives. Even if conservatives can only communicate in lies, adding the fact-check label to particular lies isn’t disallowing them from being voiced.

Trump just admitted all Republicans lie.

Ah, the 'ol secure free speech by suppressing platforms of speech trick. A classic among fucktards.

Forgetting, of course, that free speech is a principle that protects private entities from government interference...

Yeah, I don’t see why conservatives don’t just change platforms. If a few woke, PC billionaires are going to try to become the gatekeepers of information, it’s time to just walk away.

This'll probably get removed too but when a group already controls state positions and all forces. The need to have a civilian platform is a non essential. It's for others who do not, under the guise of addressing a toxic minority of the majority so others will support the idea and cannot say it was done unfairly or without the will of the people. Social diffusion. Boy cries wolf with three boys each with their own flock. One however has his real sheep safe somewhere else. Story unfolds. Now all shepherd's cries fall on deaf ears. Classic power play.

Totally gay, putting a factcheck on something debatable as that. Philosphically, the free will denying evolutionists, throw out free speech. There is no trusting evolutionists with human rights, because it actually does matter if you accept freedom as a hard fact of physics, or as a cultural fantasy.

The Market™ has spoken, sorry Trumpets.

Yeah, I don’t see why conservatives don’t just change platforms. If a few woke, PC billionaires are going to try to become the gatekeepers of information, it’s time to just walk away. — NOS4A2

Yeah, fact-check labels are unacceptable, because, uh, they contain facts.

Totally gay, putting a factcheck on something debatable as that. — Syamsu

What is debatable?

Totally gay, putting a factcheck on something debatable as that. — Syamsu

Bi-sexual at best.

Right. Twitter’s “head of site integrity” is a weasily, smug little anti-Trumper who compares Trump to Hitler on a routine basis.

What Trump said about mail-in voting was true. Here’s a recent example:

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/close-results-in-paterson-vote-plagued-by-fraud-claims-over-3k-ballots-seemingly-set-aside/2425813/

But no, Twitter users need some woke executive to tell them what is true or false.

Trump should probably just get a second job, work really hard, set up his own media company, and then he can post whatever he wants! Capitalism offers opportunity for all :smile:

That's election fraud, not voter fraud. Trump claimed that "Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed".

Misread. I thought it said ballots were just ignored.

Is there much evidence of mail-in ballot voter fraud?

His comments are also pretty ironic given that he's voted by mail at least 3 times.

The White House has this report from the Heritage Foundation. 1,071 proven cases of voter fraud (doesn't specify if in-person or mail-in). Their website has this updated to 1,285. The raw data has cases going back 30 years or more.

So 1,285 proven cases of voter/election fraud (including buying votes, in-person voting, altering vote counts) over 30 years, with over 120,000,000 votes cast during the 2016 presidential election alone. And that's supposed to be sufficient reason not to have mail-in ballots? That's ridiculous.

Trump's Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity had to disband because they couldn't find anything to back-up Trump's assertion of voter fraud, and that included in-person voting. So on what basis is Trump making these assertions?

Just call it what it is: an attempt to disenfranchise those who can least afford to take time off to vote, and more likely to vote democrat. It's not even a real debate. People need to stop treating it like it is.

Trump also said there should be valid reasons for mail in voting, for instance when the president is unable to attend a polling station in Florida. But democrats pushed to include funding to expand vote-by-mail in the federal coronavirus relief bill, for whatever reason.

Trump also said there should be valid reasons for mail in voting — NOS4A2

Wanting to vote by mail is a valid reason.

:up:

Here's how England, Scotland, and Wales do it.

Apply for a postal vote
Anyone can apply to vote by post. You don’t need to give a reason.