AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s week of fiction: trade, Google, polls

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Kharron

Yes my source that's not Trump saying the FBI was dishonest doesn't fit your narrative so it can't be true.

That is correct.

Your "source" is an opinion by Gohmert posted by a known propaganda website (propaganda meaning knowingly spreading lies, and never retracting them or apologizing). That is not enough to debunk facts, such as the entire government saying it did not happen, including the inspector general, outside of the FBI, who reviewed all the material already.

And not any government but one picked and installed by this sitting President, and they cannot verify, nor confirm his statement.

I do thank you for commenting but we need to do better than that. Daily Caller and Fox News are not sources to be trusted.

I am sorely disappointed that after 3 pages, members who disagree still resort to ad hominem attacks and trying to force one's opinion down someone's throat, hoping it will stick.

After previous Fact Check threads, and there were a few, has this worked once?

Facts, numbers, data, legit sources... come on, folks.

AP Fact Check 8 -- 0 Trump

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: DJW001

So you're saying all polls that predicted HRC win were only mentioning the popular vote and not the election itself?

Usually, the candidate that wins the popular vote carries the College as well. Trump is one of five who won despite losing the popular vote. These presidents, which include George W Bush, generally had a hard time winning support for their policies. *cough* Iraq *cough*

a reply to: Kharron

Hear, hear! Also, as I keep pointing out to no apparent effect, Secretary of State Clinton would not have access to operational details, only analysis. On the other hand, there's this:

Kev in Mallory:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal jury on Friday convicted a former CIA case officer on espionage charges for passing classified documents to China, the U.S. Justice Department said.

The jury in Virginia found Kevin Mallory, 61, guilty of delivery of defense information to aid a foreign government and other charges, and he faces a maximum penalty of life in prison when sentenced on Sept. 21, the department said in a statement.

[Edit for brevity. --DJW001]

One of the documents on the phone “contained unique identifiers for human sources who had helped the U.S. government,” it said.

So which seems more probable: for no explicable reason, the Secretary of State uses her security clearance to obtain the identities of CIA assets in China then emails them to herself, or a double agent sells China the identities of agents working in China and the Chinese government arrests them to balance out the three Chinese agents who have been sentenced recently?

a reply to: DJW001

Then the polls were wrong and precedent was set.

These new polls might be just as wrong as those.

The OP didn't comment that, what doesn't makes me surprise at all.

This isnt fact. Its opinion and government statements (aka, "lies")

a reply to: Kharron

Funny thing is Trump is tactical, but not strategic whatsoever.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
This isnt fact. Its opinion and government statements (aka, "lies")

100% right.

But if what he said was true, it WOULD be a fact.

They're his opinions, and they're wrong when placed next to facts.

a reply to: Kharron

I addressed you two times already on this OP, you not commenting on this subject?

Or you just engage in discussions you can be right about?

In your opinion, of course.

a reply to: Kharron


Three sources with a history of lying are used to verify that someone else has lied.

OKAY...

a reply to: xuenchen

Typical.. annnnnd we are six months later on the tick tock... guess what? Q is still nothing but a bunch of political Star Wars nerds playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon and making Nostradamus predictions look like they were specifically spelled out.

a reply to: Kharron

I was referring to the fbi rebuttal. They have less credibility than Trump.

And thats a profound statement.

a reply to: carewemust

Three sources with a history of lying are used to verify that someone else has lied.

What about the internal logic of the claim? Address this, please.