Hey boyz! Trump endorsed by David DuKKKe. Trump shits the bed.

The problem here isn't that Duke endorsed Trump. The problem is that Trump claimed to not know Duke and thus couldn't disavow him and his group's support.

The problem here is that everyone who pays a decent amount of attention to US politics knows who Duke is. The guy ran for president twice and it got a lot of attention at the time, even if it was doomed to failure from the start. Not only that, but we have an example of Trump explicitly removing himself from the Reform party explicitly because of David Duke.

So either Trump doesn't know about Duke, despite making a major decision not to run for president because of him, which makes him extremely clueless about US history and the dynamics of race in this country, or he was just saying whatever he thought was going to give him the best shot at president. He is a smart guy, so I don't buy the former. On top of that, the latter seems to be his MO for this race.

I'm wondering when the people supporting him will wake up and realize that he will just say whatever in order to get the nomination. Originally Posted by eatfibo

You mean like when Hildabeast lied and dissembled about "wiping her server"?

The problem is that Trump claimed to not know Duke and thus couldn't disavow him and his group's support.

....

So either Trump doesn't know about Duke,

...I'm wondering when the people supporting him will wake up and realize that he will just say whatever in order to get the nomination. Originally Posted by eatfibo

"knowing someone" and "knowing about somewhere" are two distinctly different things ....

.. so there is "a problem" ok ... but it's not "Trump's"!!!!

I can "hear" Trump saying: "I don't even know the guy"!

But since you know so much about him ...Duke .... may be you are the racist!!!!

Holy chit, LLephanMan! Your defense of Donald Trump makes you look stupider than we ever thought.

The Donald says that he had a bad ear piece and didn't catch the name immediately. Having my own hearing problems, I can sympathize but then I'm not running for president. I can ask again until I understand and not have to pretend that I have it the first time.

You mean just like BO said anything to get elected? Like he was against gay marriage then he got elected, then he was for gay marriage. You can keep your doctor, and so is on. Originally Posted by bambino

Last I checked, Obama was not running for President.

But this is my point, you can't bitch and moan about someone lying, but then support someone who is so clearly lying. Unless, of course, you want to believe that he is a moron who can't even remember what drove his decision to not run for POTUS 15 years ago with a certain party.

It's either you accept that people are politicians are going to lie in order to get elected, and stop whining so much about it when the person you don't want to get elected does it, or you have to equally apply the metric and only vote for those who are being truthful.

FTR, almost 78% of Trump's claims have been rated as "Mostly False" "False" or "Pants on fire." While Clinton has almost 72% of her claims as "Half true" "Mostly True" or "True." (FTR, Obama is at 75% "Half true" and up)

This is not a endorsement of Hillary.

My point is that, even if you want to claim bias by politifact, that doesn't completely explain away why so many of his statements are so easily demonstrated to be false, and so any support of him while simultaneously condemning others for not being "truthful" is patently ridiculous. If you support Trump, fine. But don't support Trump because you don't trust other politicians to be honest.

The Donald says that he had a bad ear piece and didn't catch the name immediately. Having my own hearing problems, I can sympathize but then I'm not running for president. I can ask again until I understand and not have to pretend that I have it the first time. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

His response to the question was "Just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?" and "Because I know nothing about David Duke." He explicitly said his name, twice.

You know, that "hey boyz" at the OP sounded kind of gay to me. Any truth to those rumors Assup?

As for anyone like David Duke or Fred Phelps, they know what they bring to the table. They also know that they can taint a politician by saying that they support that politician. I have little interest in anything that Duke has to say. Surprised that the democrats are so attentative.

You know, that "hey boyz" at the OP sounded kind of gay to me. Any truth to those rumors Assup?

As for anyone like David Duke or Fred Phelps, they know what they bring to the table. They also know that they can taint a politician by saying that they support that politician. I have little interest in anything that Duke has to say. Surprised that the democrats are so attentative. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

http://fox2now.com/2016/02/28/donald...avid-duke-kkk/

Last I checked, Obama was not running for President.

But this is my point, you can't bitch and moan about someone lying, but then support someone who is so clearly lying. Unless, of course, you want to believe that he is a moron who can't even remember what drove his decision to not run for POTUS 15 years ago with a certain party.

It's either you accept that people are politicians are going to lie in order to get elected, and stop whining so much about it when the person you don't want to get elected does it, or you have to equally apply the metric and only vote for those who are being truthful.

FTR, almost 78% of Trump's claims have been rated as "Mostly False" "False" or "Pants on fire." While Clinton has almost 72% of her claims as "Half true" "Mostly True" or "True." (FTR, Obama is at 75% "Half true" and up)

This is not a endorsement of Hillary.

My point is that, even if you want to claim bias by politifact, that doesn't completely explain away why so many of his statements are so easily demonstrated to be false, and so any support of him while simultaneously condemning others for not being "truthful" is patently ridiculous. If you support Trump, fine. But don't support Trump because you don't trust other politicians to be honest. Originally Posted by eatfibo

There's an innate bias in what Politifact picks and chooses to evaluate; hence, using their numbers to support your POV is meaningless. For instance, Politifact hasn't evaluated Hildebeast's claim that she has never lied to the American public, and Politifact equivocates on Hildabeast's remarks in regards to Benghazi.

Last I checked, Obama was not running for President.

But this is my point, you can't bitch and moan about someone lying, but then support someone who is so clearly lying. Unless, of course, you want to believe that he is a moron who can't even remember what drove his decision to not run for POTUS 15 years ago with a certain party.

It's either you accept that people are politicians are going to lie in order to get elected, and stop whining so much about it when the person you don't want to get elected does it, or you have to equally apply the metric and only vote for those who are being truthful.

FTR, almost 78% of Trump's claims have been rated as "Mostly False" "False" or "Pants on fire." While Clinton has almost 72% of her claims as "Half true" "Mostly True" or "True." (FTR, Obama is at 75% "Half true" and up)

This is not a endorsement of Hillary.

My point is that, even if you want to claim bias by politifact, that doesn't completely explain away why so many of his statements are so easily demonstrated to be false, and so any support of him while simultaneously condemning others for not being "truthful" is patently ridiculous. If you support Trump, fine. But don't support Trump because you don't trust other politicians to be honest. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Last time I checked, BO ran for the office twice. And said certain things to get elected only to do something different. But that's not a revelation nor is Trumps or any politician running for office rhetoric. They say what they want to say and people listen to what they want to hear.

innate bias in what Politifact picks and chooses to evaluate; Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'm not suggesting that politifact is bias free. And your claim here seems to be the main complaint: what they evaluation. But the reality is that they are a pulitzer prize winning organization. We aren't talking about some minor blog on the internet.

So unless you are willing to make the claim that they are just outright dishonest (which I've seen no major group actually claim to be true), rather than just tainted by bias, that doesn't explain such a huge gap. If it were were talking about 50% vs 75% true, we could make the claim that it is probably close to even due to bias. But we are talking about 22% "true" vs 78% "true." This would not be the result of simple bias.

But, that bias certainly doesn't change the fact that 20 trump statements are obviously totally false, and 40 others as false. If you have an issue with any these rating in particular, I would love to hear it. If not, you should realize that Trump spews plenty of BS, likely even more than the rest. So, again, rejecting one politicians because they lie, while embracing Trump, is a blatant double standard.

And said certain things to get elected only to do something different. But that's not a revelation nor is Trumps or any politician running for office rhetoric. They say what they want to say and people listen to what they want to hear. Originally Posted by bambino

This is my point. Screaming "How can you vote for Hillary, she's a liar!" while simultaneously turning around and embracing Trump is ridiculous. If you disagree with Hillary, and agree with Trump. . .vote your choice. But Trump has no integrity when it comes to "spreading the truth," because the reality is that he "spreads BS" at least as much as everyone else, probably much more so.

I'm not suggesting that politifact is bias free. And your claim here seems to be the main complaint: what they evaluation. But the reality is that they are a pulitzer prize winning organization. We aren't talking about some minor blog on the internet.

So unless you are willing to make the claim that they are just outright dishonest (which I've seen no major group actually claim to be true), rather than just tainted by bias, that doesn't explain such a huge gap. If it were were talking about 50% vs 75% true, we could make the claim that it is probably close to even due to bias. But we are talking about 22% "true" vs 78% "true." This would not be the result of simple bias.

But, that bias certainly doesn't change the fact that 20 trump statements are obviously totally false, and 40 others as false. If you have an issue with any these rating in particular, I would love to hear it. If not, you should realize that Trump spews plenty of BS, likely even more than the rest. So, again, rejecting one politicians because they lie, while embracing Trump, is a blatant double standard.

This is my point. Screaming "How can you vote for Hillary, she's a liar!" while simultaneously turning around and embracing Trump is ridiculous. If you disagree with Hillary, and agree with Trump. . .vote your choice. But Trump has no integrity when it comes to "spreading the truth," because the reality is that he "spreads BS" at least as much as everyone else, probably much more so. Originally Posted by eatfibo

For the most part, it's not the "ratings in particular" that are the problem. It's that they choose to evaluate some claims and not others. It would be very easy to list 60 Hildabeast lies -- including her lie that she's never lied -- that haven't been rated by Politico. In other instances, Politico fails to individuate the lies, but makes a ruling en masse; thus, substantially reducing the total number of lies. Pointedly addressing each lie Hildabeast has told would substantively change her rating on the Politico website. But Politico is not going to do that. Furthermore, in regards to Benghazi, Politico equivocates and repeatedly covers Hildabeast's ass.

Let's here from David Duke himself...

I'm not suggesting that politifact is bias free. And your claim here seems to be the main complaint: what they evaluation. But the reality is that they are a pulitzer prize winning organization. We aren't talking about some minor blog on the internet.

So unless you are willing to make the claim that they are just outright dishonest (which I've seen no major group actually claim to be true), rather than just tainted by bias, that doesn't explain such a huge gap. If it were were talking about 50% vs 75% true, we could make the claim that it is probably close to even due to bias. But we are talking about 22% "true" vs 78% "true." This would not be the result of simple bias.

But, that bias certainly doesn't change the fact that 20 trump statements are obviously totally false, and 40 others as false. If you have an issue with any these rating in particular, I would love to hear it. If not, you should realize that Trump spews plenty of BS, likely even more than the rest. So, again, rejecting one politicians because they lie, while embracing Trump, is a blatant double standard.


This is my point. Screaming "How can you vote for Hillary, she's a liar!" while simultaneously turning around and embracing Trump is ridiculous. If you disagree with Hillary, and agree with Trump. . .vote your choice. But Trump has no integrity when it comes to "spreading the truth," because the reality is that he "spreads BS" at least as much as everyone else, probably much more so. Originally Posted by eatfibo

I didn't say I support Trump. But if it came down to Trump vrs Clinton, I would go with Trump. It's not a lie that Clinton is under a FBI criminal investigation. That is a hard fact.

For the most part, it's not the "ratings in particular" that are the problem. It's that they choose to evaluate some claims and not others. It would be very easy to list 60 Hildabeast lies -- including her lie that she's never lied -- that haven't been rated by Politico. In other instances, Politico fails to individuate the lies, but makes a ruling en masse; thus, substantially reducing the total number of lies. Pointedly addressing each lie Hildabeast has told would substantively change her rating on the Politico website. But Politico is not going to do that. Furthermore, in regards to Benghazi, Politico equivocates and repeatedly covers Hildabeast's ass. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You did (well, said you could but didn't anyway) something I didn't ask you to. I asked you to show which one of Trump's statements was labelled "false" but actually wasn't. Because, frankly, that is the more important part to my point: if you whine about Hillary lying and then support Trump, despite his numerous lies, then you are holding a double standard. You either care about lying, or you don't. If you care when the person you disagree with lies, but don't care when your own candidate lies, you are a hypocrite.

I didn't say I support Trump. Originally Posted by bambino

Nor did I say you did. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of lambasting Hillary for lying while simultaneously supporting someone who lies probably more than she does.

But if it came down to Trump vrs Clinton, I would go with Trump. It's not a lie that Clinton is under a FBI criminal investigation. That is a hard fact.

Red herring, but still wrong. The FBI has still yet to make a statement publicly whether or not there is a criminal investigation or if the focus of that investigation is Clinton. That's a fact. There have been "unnamed sources" confirming what some people want to believe, and there are some people who think certain moves by the DOJ imply a criminal investigation (but of whom, it is not known), but it is not "a hard fact" that they are criminally investigating Clinton.