It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why is Trump Scared of being Fact Checked???

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


That is how he beat Cruz, by putting out false info.


Are you sure that's how he beat Cruz?





posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Hillary doesn't need fact checkers when she is listening to her team telling her what to say..
Go to minute 2:10 for OBVIOUS cheating...



***EDIT: WHAT IN THE H*LL ARE "drone matters".....LOL...
edit on 25-9-2016 by Christosterone because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't know. This is the first I've heard of it, but if Hillary's health is as bad as rumored, then I wouldn't put it past the left to try to give her all the help they can, including attempting to make Trump debate two opponents, one of whom is simply supposed to be the moderator.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone



Why is Trump Scared of being Fact Checked???


Because liberals tend to bend the facts to suit their narrative...
For instance, the sky is orange for a small part of the day at sunrise/sunset...
So if trump were to say "the sky is blue" a democrat can produce evidence that the sky is actually orange...

And the parrots in the media would play a photo of the sky being orange 24/7 until they have cemented the narrative that republicans don't know what color the sky is..

See how the liberal mind works?

In short, water is wet and the sky is blue....and Liberals twist the truth...all inarguable facts

-Chris


Democrat- DEMOCRAT ffs you mean DEMOCRAT.

You can be liberal and vote Trump you *****.

lib·er·al
ˈlib(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

It fits him perfectly.

If you hate Liberals, this election is lose/lose as Trump is incredibly liberal, trying to sympathize with blacks and his previous stances on gay marriage etc. The guy literally was a Democrat too. Not to say that's more left than Hillary, but Trump isn't exactly the most conservative choice, that's not even an argument.
edit on 25-9-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's up to you to decide. If the moderator is intervening in the debate, he is essentially doing the job of the other candidate. The job of the media is to report.

Trump never debated before the primaries. He was winging it, and it was a thing of beauty. Yes I want to see more candidates like him, especially if they have nearly half a century of leadership experience under their belt.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Trumps whole "thing" is hyperbole and lies. Him not being able to lie and have to actually think will seriously affect his strategy, especially if he isn't allowed to yell and interrupt. Having to talk like an informed adult will probably be the end of him.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
You can be liberal and vote Trump you *****.


Trump is obviously the superior candidate. He's the only person running who is both a Democrat and a Republican depending on the audience.

Trump in '04: 'I probably identify more as Democrat'

edit on 25-9-2016 by MasterPepe because: Pepe for president



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think they want to avoid a repeat of the Obama/Romney debate incident. President Obama made a 'factual' statement that was wrong (the claim that President Obana called Benghazi a terrorist attack they day after, when in fact it took the President 14 days to call the attack a terrorist attack) When Candidate Romney corrected President Obama the debate (Candy I-forget-her-last-name from CNN) moderator spoke up and told Candidate Romney and the American people that President Obama was totally correct. The only problem was President Obama and the moderator were lying. Romney was correct and Obama was wrong.
They are saying that the moderator should only ask the questions and keep the debators with in thier time limit. The moderator should not fact check during the debate. If a candidate lies it will be revealed shortly after the debate.

In other words DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE DEBATE SO THAT THE CANDIDATE THE MODERATOR IS BACKING WINS THE DEBATE!!!



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MasterPepe

I don't know why 'open to change'

doesn't qualify to a psychopath-television-star-billionaire-extraordinar to run the country as opposed to an oppressive droning monarchy that has been involved with the race from the beginning.

I made this analogy earlier,
Liberals don't want consistent winners. They like to switch it up.
Trust me, Democrats want to win.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: MasterPepe
I made this analogy earlier,
Liberals don't want consistent winners. They like to switch it up.
Trust me, Democrats want to win.


Trump changes it up every time he talks! Can't get better than that, right?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

First off I'm voting for trump.

But if either canidate BLANTANTLY lies, then why shouldn't the moderators call them on it?!?!


They keep saying "let the candidates fact check each other.."


Well what happens (and I guarentee it will) when both candidates say the other is lying?!?!

How will the audience know who is lying???


"Fact checking" is no such thing. Each side has a team that tries to spin what the opposition is saying.

It's just plain ol' campaigning under the pretence of respectability.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MasterPepe

That's what I'm saying, he's very liberal, and would change any opinion publicly immediately if it meant the candidacy.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: MasterPepe

That's what I'm saying, he's very liberal, and would change any opinion publicly immediately if it meant the candidacy.


Now I'm confused. Does that mean Democrats are Republicans and Republicans are Democrats?


edit on 25-9-2016 by MasterPepe because: mind blown



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MasterPepe

By definition, Republican's are a party that want a Republic, and Democrats support any narrative that holds Democracy, including Republican.

More or less Democrats theoretically support Republicans. I suppose you could say Republicans support that Democrats support them.


I like to think of Red as the Leaders and Blue as the Cheerleaders.
edit on 25-9-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)


(post by stinkelbaum removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: MasterPepe

By definition, Republican's are a party that want a Republic, and Democrats support any narrative that holds Democracy, including Republican.

More or less Democrats theoretically support Republicans. I suppose you could say Republicans support that Democrats support them.


I like to think of Red as the Leaders and Blue as the Cheerleaders.


A republic is entirely more advanced than a simple mob-rule democracy...

Does anyone think laws for inner city Chicago are applicable in west Texas oil country?

Are they building an ell in midland?
No....never
Because they are entirely different places with different sensibilities...
And public transportation doesn't work in the plains of west Texas as it would in Chicago..



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

No idea what you're referring to in my post.

My point is clear however,Liberals believe consistent winners are a bad thing, and want multiple impressions and new ideas over time, believing that will impose the most Freedoms.

So who would a Liberal vote for this time around?

An eccentric Billionaire, with radical charismatic perspectives and plans,

Or someone with the last name of someone else who's literally been President before?


Liberal isn't just an equal conversation table to Democrat. Hillary winning would be just as #ed as Bush winning from the perspective of a true Liberal.
edit on 25-9-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: MasterPepe

I don't know why 'open to change' doesn't qualify to a psychopath-television-star-billionaire-extraordinar to run the country as opposed to an oppressive droning monarchy that has been involved with the race from the beginning.


People complain the US only has a two-party system, but that isn't true. We have a three party system. The Republicans, Democrats, and the Monarchists.


I like to think of Red as the Leaders and Blue as the Cheerleaders.


Since the monarchists don't have a color, let's just make them the cheerleader's panties. Preferably, the disposable kind.

edit on 25-9-2016 by MasterPepe because: ooh la la



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: JoshuaCox


That is how he beat Cruz, by putting out false info.


Are you sure that's how he beat Cruz?





Amnesty, insinuated his dad killed Kennedy, passed on the enquirer affair stories, challenged his citizenship and I'm sure there are more.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

First off I'm voting for trump.

But if either canidate BLANTANTLY lies, then why shouldn't the moderators call them on it?!?!


They keep saying "let the candidates fact check each other.."


Well what happens (and I guarentee it will) when both candidates say the other is lying?!?!

How will the audience know who is lying???


"Fact checking" is no such thing. Each side has a team that tries to spin what the opposition is saying.

It's just plain ol' campaigning under the pretence of respectability.



Like I said there are questions that do not have a definative answer and things that do.


If trump calls Hillary crooked, that's not really a specific definitive statement.

So no moderator should intervene.


Candy Crowley correcting Mitt, I don't think works because Mitts statement was half true.. So she shouldn't have intervened.

But say Hilary says that she has negotiated dozens of peace treaties, when she hasn't negotiated one.

Shouldn't some one call her out??


No one from either side will trust the opposing canidate... You have to have a referee




top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join