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.

 

Why is Trump Scared of being Fact Checked???

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone

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..



I'm not so sure...


The reason for the electoral college is because republicans would never win again. Whoever NY and LA vote for wins.




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
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.




Liberals don't believe consistent winners are bad...


They think the system has been more and more rigged so almost the only people who can win are those who are EXTREMELY exceptional.

That your average middle of the road hard worker has to get lucky just to be above the poverty line.


Call me crazy, in America I think the average hard worker should make it the majority of the time..not have to be hard working AND get really lucky.

The snowballing of Automation has made it where we just don't need everyone working to fill humaities needs anymore.. And buisness only spend what they absolutely have to in labor..



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.



Be real about it...

Trump will say whatever the most showmanship thing he can think of, reguardless of the truth.


Trump can't policy debate a 30+ Year politician. So he will make it a circus and hope he has the best one liners.

If he has a moderator calling him on things that "sound good" but arnt the reality, then that's what the sound bite ends up as.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So basically, because you think that only consistent winners make it you want to tear them down because you don't like the system. You do nothing about the system except attempt to exacerbate the very things about it that have created what you abhor.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.



Not if your a conservative republican lol..


If trump wins good luck to the republican who gets to go against Tom Hanks or Klooney next round.

All the celebs on the right are jokes.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I am being real about it.

This is a debate between the two of them. If he can't debate her on policy, it is HER job to make that obvious. It is NOT the moderator's. All a moderator is supposed to do is ask the questions to introduce topics and stop a person from going over time.

If Hillary cannot catch Trump out, then she deserves to lose no matter how many lies or inaccuracies he may or may not spout.

Remember, a lot of times the lies of one side are truths to the other. I've seen that over and over again going both ways.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
This is why Trump is scared of being fact checked.

Only 30% of his statements can be rated as 'true', 'mostly true', or 'half true.'

By comparison, 72% of Clinton's statements can be rated as 'true', 'mostly true', or 'half true.'




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic
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!!!




I would say don't interfere and be wrong lol..


I posted a write up on the Crowley incident and it really wasn't cut and dry...


Obama did call it terrorism, just the day after Candy said it happened.

So really her AND Romney were wrong.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
This is why Trump is scared of being fact checked.

Only 30% of his statements can be rated as 'true', 'mostly true', or 'half true.'

By comparison, 72% of Clinton's statements can be rated as 'true', 'mostly true', or 'half true.'




Yup....


I understand trump wanting that, but the media?!?!


Even the pro trump side as journalists should want to call out big lies...



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I would say don't interfere period.

It's not her place to do so. It was Obama's place to do that. That is what a debate is.

Trump isn't there to debate both Hillary and the moderator.

What would you be saying if the moderator was someone like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and it was being put around that part of their job was to fact check Hillary?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I would say don't interfere period.

It's not her place to do so. It was Obama's place to do that. That is what a debate is.

Trump isn't there to debate both Hillary and the moderator.

What would you be saying if the moderator was someone like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and it was being put around that part of their job was to fact check Hillary?



How does the average person know who is telling the truth???

Hillary says blacks make up 70% of police shooting victims... Trump says they make up 5%. How would anyone know who is making stuff up?



If your more right then left. Good luck when the next republican has to debate Klooney or Damin with those rules.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:00 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, leave the subjective answers alone, but a flat out blatant lie??



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone



Because liberals tend to bend the facts to suit their narrative.

Yes the truth can be a pain the the butt with Trump.



So if trump were to say "the sky is blue" a democrat can produce evidence that the sky is actually orange.

Actually they would say the sky really has no color just to piss him off. The color is the result of light refracting through the water droplets and pollution in the atmosphere.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So you think they'll run for president?

Maybe so. I'd be more worried about Clooney than Damon. Damon has been too much on record as an idiot. Clooney is a more reasonable and charismatic person.

But the fact remains that it is the opponent's job to refute and fact check, not the moderator.

You think I liked watching what Biden did to Ryan? But it was on Ryan to refute him and call him on his lies and Ryan didn't do it. It wasn't the moderator's job and Raddatz, being a democrat, wasn't going to do it.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

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, leave the subjective answers alone, but a flat out blatant lie??


If it's a flat out blatant lie, then the opponent should have no issues with refuting it. Not only that, but the audience ought to recognize it. You said yourself - flat out and blatant.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

Besides, I always thought that was what factcheck.org and other sites were supposed to be for.


Even they need to be fact-checked: Factcheck defrauds the public.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ketsuko

Besides, I always thought that was what factcheck.org and other sites were supposed to be for.


Even they need to be fact-checked: Factcheck defrauds the public.


That thread is hilarious. So much confirmation bias; so much ignorance, even by ATS standards (and that's really saying something!)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Your voting for Trump so you say.Yet the majority of your threads say otherwise.IE:Your a shameless liar as areyour candidate and supporters .
edit on CDTSunpm0661 by TDawg61 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ketsuko

Besides, I always thought that was what factcheck.org and other sites were supposed to be for.


Even they need to be fact-checked: Factcheck defrauds the public.


That thread is hilarious. So much confirmation bias; so much ignorance, even by ATS standards (and that's really saying something!)


And yet, it doesn't come close to topping your comment^, in confirmation bias and ignorance.

Well, I guess perhaps the moments where it devolves into mindless race-baiting...


edit on 25-9-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ketsuko

Besides, I always thought that was what factcheck.org and other sites were supposed to be for.


Even they need to be fact-checked: Factcheck defrauds the public.


That thread is hilarious. So much confirmation bias; so much ignorance, even by ATS standards (and that's really saying something!)


And this exchange right here is why moderators have zero business trying to fact check the debate.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join